On the June "Start a new post" amymoore wrote:
Just read A+ School's Board Watch report card. My first reaction is, how can you go down in two areas and only improve in one but have your overall score improve? I think a C+ in conduct from our leaders is disgraceful!
Posted by amymoore to PURE Reform at June 25, 2009 2:47 PM
- The link to the report card is: http://www.aplusschools.org/good_reportcard.shtml .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
On the June "Start a new post" parent wrote:
Parent has left a new comment on your post "Search PURE Reform's blog; start a new post":
I just read that report too and wondered the exact same thing. Sure hope that the board watchers aren't coming up with yet another grading scheme to offer to the district: the falling individual grades, higher GPA "don't want them to feel too bad" scheme.
Posted by Parent to PURE Reform at June 25, 2009 5:08 PM
I would rate A+'s grading of this school board and especially, the politician who runs this district, a one letter grade too high.
The agenda review and legislative sessions are televised and can be viewed on the pghboe website, too. Do Boardwatchers grade on more than we see and hear on the replays? If not, are the Boardwatchers just creating work for themselves?
Link to PG article on this topic:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09177/980096-100.stm
Volunteers may see and hear a bit more than what viewers are able to catch on TV, but it probably helps that they are consciously evaluating these issues. And performance is being publicized.
Grade inflation is a problem. Snicker.
Do any other cities have boardwatchers? I have enjoyed the antics of boardmembers from time to time. I grew up on Jeep and Michelle on City Council, afterall. I remember one boardmember "calling out" another into the hall near the close of a meeting to continue a heated discussion years ago. Just like blogging, personal attacks are not ok. Will there come a time when our boardmembers are deemed well-behaved enough to not be watched?
Maybe if board members were paid there would be a more professional view of these positions.
Today's paper explains how they had lower grades but a better overall grade.
Unfortunately, their math was wrong. Of course, the PG didn't fact-check it either and went right ahead and printed the wrong information.
According to their numbers, they should have had a B- before and a C+ now (going from 3.35 to 3.32), but they have it reversed.
Kind of disheartening that a 5th grade math problem has both A+ Schools and the PG confused. All you have to do is look at the grades or the numbers to see that there's a problem!
Not that I'm surprised that there's no questioning from the "the administration says it, we report it as the gospel" P-G.
My mistake -- they put the earlier information after the later information -- so their numbers are correct -- the board was 2 one-hundredths of a point better this period than last -- increasing a grade.
I would have to still wonder why they are going to the hundredth with grades based on observations, though. It's rather like the old scoring of gymnastics!
A Plus probably wanted to give the board some kind of credit for effort. At least Agenda Reviews are now being made available.
Maybe the overall number went up but they showed a decline in 4 out of 5 areas, which I would hardly call an improvement!
Because the first group of graders is different from the graders for the second report card, it's difficult to compare any two grading periods. Over time trends may emerge though.
The big jump was in transparency (which is likely those agenda reviews!). That score jumped a half point and is the only thing that was better.
After reading the PG article, can anyone now think that Joe Smydo is anything but a mouthpiece for the Roosevelt administration? Does this guy EVER question anything that comes across his desk? The man is more of a PR point man than reporter that looks for answers.
Post a Comment