Well hopefully in the next month the board will have moved on from the never-ending boundary issue and I think the SAGE committee report is up next. I recently read a very timely article regarding smaller class sizes, you can read it here or here .
Here are some interesting comments from the articles:
"The study indicates that class-size reductions would generate more quality-adjusted life-year gains per dollar invested than the majority of medical interventions. "
"Project STAR is considered the highest quality long-term experiment to date in the field of education. "
Project STAR is what the Wisconsin SAGE program is based on. Project STAR randomly assigned teachers and students to classes with either 22 to 25 students or 13 to 17 students. SAGE went much further than that, first there is no "random assignment" and SAGE requires a rigorous curriculum, professional development for teachers, and family involvement.
"The researchers acknowledged “some uncertainty” about whether the results of the Tennessee study could be reproduced nationwide or could “produce substantive health benefits,” but said their analysis suggests that reductions in class sizes would save money from the societal perspective."
"The researchers estimate that reducing class sizes would mean an additional 72,000 to 140,000 students would graduate high school each year, producing net savings of $14 billion to $24 billion."
During the whole boundary mess you have people saying "just direct the resources to where the need is". Yet, many of the same people are opposed to SAGE because they say it is too costly or it is unfair or unproven. Those comments would be laughable if they weren't so ill informed yet widely believed.
Just remember the researchers that came up with this latest study were not from a school of education but rather from the medical field, a school of Public Health. Not that it will matter to many of the naysayers, I don't post this information for those who care nothing about the facts and just want to criticize with no data of their own, I post it for those who really want to learn more and understand the issues... I hope there are a few out there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Mrs. Thiel, this is exactly the reason why I will never be able to find myself voting for you. Your liberal mindset has you taking anything writing down that might justify any spending in the schools and flaunt it as reason for us to spend money. The problem with this piece of “research” is that it really isn’t anything new, but rather just a re-hashing of the STAR program. The authors merely took the estimates from the STAR program and multiplied by a dollar figure. Given we already knew the directionality of the effects in the STAR study, there is little doubt what the result was going to be here. In my mind, research happens when one sets out to ask a question where we don’t already know the answer. That clearly is not what happened here.
Putting the methodology of the research aside for a minute, the results of the STAR study doesn’t necessarily mean that SAGE is/will work here in Oshkosh. While we can idealize SAGE and its four pillars, it is merely an idealized program with a funding source. We have to look at how it has been, or will be implemented here in Oshkosh. We have many logistical constraints to include buildings, staff salaries, and all the other programs that cost money in this district. So where is the evidence that SAGE has had a beneficial outcome here in Oshkosh? Do you, Mrs. Thiel, have some knowledge of the effectiveness of the program here in Oshkosh? I suppose it will be in the SAGE presentation to the board. Of course though, given the SAGE committee is comprised of Dr. Heilmann’s minions, we know their really is no chance of getting an honest assessment of the program. Oh well… more of our money down the tubes in the name of education.
Mrs Thiel,
I live on the West side and have 3 children. Two in Oakwood and One in Traeger. When will they be getting "Sage" size classrooms?
If this district is trying to be so equal, why won't the west side benefit from it? Why is it that the north side will see all of the rewards?
Maybe Mr. Traska can better answer my question. I will send him an email.
Anonymous 7:59 You keep mistaking equitable for equal.
Spend a week at Jefferson (A SAGE West Side school by the way -- so your contention that ONLY the North side gets SAGE is wrong).
Again, SAGE is about sending the resources where they are most needed. Oakwood with a Free/Reduced Lunch rate of about 5% just doesn't compare to a Jefferson with 65% or a Lincoln with 68%. So when the West side schools have Free/Reduced lunch rates that are equal to or greater than those of North Side schools, then the resources, like SAGE will be directed to Oakwood and Traeger.
I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of equity and trying to give all students the same opportunities. I highly doubt that 1/3 to 1/2 of the incoming Kindergarteners at Oakwood cannot recognize the first letter of their name, or cannot count to 10 yet you will find that to be the case in our high poverty schools. Those students have just not had the same opportunities that middle and upper class families have and many of the students in high poverty schools start school far behind their peers, SAGE is one way to help "bring them up to speed".
Anonymous 8:26 Project STAR RANDOMLY assigned students and teachers to classrooms of either 13-17 students or 22-25 students. The only factor was class size. These students have been followed post high school. The results are clear. Students are more successful throughout their schooling and beyond if they were in the 13-17 size classes for at least 3 years.
This study has taken the STAR data and looked at it in a new way and it has been show once again that the Return on Investment is huge.
Why, other than just your opinion, would you say that the STAR data (remember all it looked at was the effects of class size) does not work in Oshkosh? SAGE size classrooms are within the 13-17 students of STAR and there were no other factors with STAR since students were randomly assigned. It is unfortunate that Wisconsin and Oshkosh have not conducted the same longitudinal, randomized studies that Project STAR has but it is costly and I see no reason that smaller class sizes would be so successful in Tennessee but in Wisconsin, for no reason any naysayer can give, it just doesn't have the same effect.
Show me your research that SAGE is not working, there is plenty of reserach to show that smaller class sizes make a difference as well as data from UW-Milwaukee and other places that shows SAGE is working in Wisconsin (how else do you explain even conservative Republicans supporting the program with dollars?) as well as Oshkosh data that shows SAGE makes a difference.
What do you have to offer... other than your jaded opinion. Don't bother responding if you don't have clear research that shows SAGE has made no difference for students. I'm not going to post opinions with no basis in fact.
Mrs. Thiel, while some of us appreciate your trying to explain things to these people, it is a futile battle because they don't want to accept what is obvious. They'd rather pick fights and keep arguing because it's you doing the posting. It's undoubtedly the same person over and over and over again. It's so clear that she only understands a portion and never will get the rest.
Here you go Mrs. Thiel,
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11916
Here is an article written by a researcher from Marquette University.
It states..."When Eric Hanushek, chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Rochester, reviewed 152 studies of class size, he found only 14--less than 1 in 10--that reported significant relationships between class size and student achievement. About an equal number showed a negative relationship as showed a positive relationship, and the majority showed no significant relationship at all. A 1989 study at Johns Hopkins University concluded that results were minimal even when classes were reduced to as few as 15 students per class.
The cost of class-size reduction, on the other hand, is far from minimal. Michael Kirst has noted that California's mandate for smaller classes cost an extra $800 per pupil per school year . . . not including the cost of new classroom space."
You argue that one needs to bring research, well here it is. While it may only be a single article, but it suggests that only 14 out of 152 studies showed class size reduction works. Now you have your STAR project... and that certainly does provide some credence for your claims. However, researchers at large academic institutions advance their careers via publications. They have incentive to publish as much as they can, so it really isn't surprising that someone would rehash old data and try and publish it. The problem is though that people like you take it as new evidence and try to use it to bolster a claim.
Mrs Thiel wrote "Show me your research that SAGE is not working, there is plenty of reserach to show that smaller class sizes make a difference as well as data from UW-Milwaukee and other places that shows SAGE is working in Wisconsin" and "I'm not going to post opinions with no basis in fact."
I applaud this, but still must pose my previous question. Where is the evidence it is working in Oshkosh? One would have to believe if it were doing such great things for this district, other than bringing in money, that the district would be happily bragging this up as justification of this plan. Again, where is this evidence?!?
Who is your friend that thinks evey anti-Theil poster is Michelle Monte? Get real!
Typical liberal response: You want to spend millions of dollars expanding SAGE in Oshkosh and it it up to us to prove that it is not the best use of our limited dollars! Are you serious?
Anonymous 10:57 I have no way of knowing what the quality of those 152 studies of class size were like --- that is one reason I cite the Project STAR data, as numerous researchers have stated... "it is one of the highest quality long-term experiment to date in the field of education."
California is one state that did have difficulty implementing smaller class sizes because they tried to do it all a once and found that they did not have nearly enough qualified teachers to staff all the classrooms, so it was not successful because in many cases they were filling classrooms with warm bodies, not qualified teachers. This is not the case with SAGE.
As for data that SAGE works in Oshkosh, Mrs. Vickman has presented that data to the board since SAGE was implemented in Oshkosh. I have the highest respect for Mrs. Vickman and trust she is presenting valid data. That you choose not to believe it because she is an administrator in the district, is your problem, not proof that SAGE isn't working in Oshkosh. I'm sure plenty of data will be forthcoming at a board meeting in the near future.
Mrs Thiel, (from 7:59)
First off, I am a HE not a SHE. Second, how are my kids getting an "equitable" education if the teachers have twice as many students in the room? Are you trying to tell us that poor people are stupid? How do you know how much I make? As a matter of fact, my kids DO get reduced lunch.
I don't have any idea if Sage works or not. I am simply pointing out that if you give to one, you should give to the rest. Just because a person lives on the west side doesn't make them "well off". It simply means that they have a residence on the west side. I happen to RENT (at a significantly lower cost) my house from a relative that moved to another community.
My children DESERVE the same advantages that the ones on the north side are getting.
(editors note: the poster does not have a computer. This post was dictated over the phone and written by a friend.)
Anonymous 7:59 first of all I have no way of knowing if an anon. is Male or Female and I didn't refer to you as either.
Secondly, lets look at F/R lunch rates... if Oakwood has a rate of 5% out of 500 students that would be a total of 25 students in the entire school on F/R lunch so if you average that out per grade that would be 4.2 students per grade and since Oakwood has 4 sections of most grades that would mean 1 or 2 children on F/R lunch at Oakwood. Now contrast that with Jefferson 64% F/R lunch in a school of 229 or 147 student on F/R lunch average that out over grades and you have 24.5 students per grade on F/R lunch and since Jefferson has only 2 classes per grade that would mean the majority of the class in grades K-3 and about half of each classroom in grades 4 and 5 have students on F/R lunch. If you can't see the difference in the challenge for a teacher to give those students the extra help they need I don't know how to explain it to you.
I never said "poor people are stupid" I said that many of the children on F/R lunch at Jefferson do not come to school with the same experiences as their middle class/ wealthier peers. I spent 7 years volunteering and tutoring at Jefferson, I know the challenges teachers face and I was there before SAGE was implemented and after and I do know that SAGE has made a difference and I'm sure if you asked the teachers in SAGE schools they would be able to tell you the difference. I have a friend who teaches in a SAGE school and while on maternity leave she volunteered in her child's class at Traeger and was amazed at how much further along in skills etc. her child's peers were compared to her own students. A good teacher should have no problem meeting the needs of one child in poverty in a class of 22, even the best of teachers finds it very difficult to meet the needs of 12 students in poverty out of 22. That is why SAGE is at our schools with the highest poverty. It is one way to bring equity to a classroom.
To follow up -- Anon. 7:59, are you saying that because the district cannot afford to have SAGE at Oakwood, no child should benefit from SAGE? That seems wrong to me.
Also, SAGE classrooms have a maximum of 15-17 students you said at Oakwood there are twice as many students in a class -- I thought the district tried to keep class sizes at 22 K-3 are you telling me the class sizes are really 30-34 students per teacher at Oakwood?
A bit off topic but here is my question anyhow...
How is it possible that 1/2 of students coming into Jefferson cannot recognize the first letter of his/her name if they are eligible for Head Start? Is Head Start making the grade or is it failing?
Anon. 7:28 --- You sure do jump to assumptions don't you?
Being eligible for Head Start does not mean one actually participates. Children are not required to participate in Head Start so some parents choose not to send their children to Head Start, and Head Start has a waiting list so all children eligible for Head Start are not able to be served at Head Start.
You can deny all you want the affects poverty has on children but I saw the affects day after day for 7 years and each year things got a little worse in the number of children affected and the severity of the issues children faced.
Head Start is a very effective program and I'm sure K teachers can tell you which of their students have had the benefits of Head Start.
Wow.
I don't believe I jumped to that assumption; however, I hope you didn't hurt yourself jumping to the conclusion that I'd like to ignore the effects of poverty on education.
I am not assuming that all eligible children use the Head Start program but certainly a fair number are using it. My question was: is Head Start making the grade? Are we sure that the children coming out of that program have properly benefitted? After speaking with some kindergarten teachers, I'm not convinced that Head Start is all it should be.
While we're talking about poverty in education, allow me to remind you that qualifying for free/reduced lunch does not qualify one for poverty status. Perhaps we'd be more accurate if we spoke in terms of free/red lunch, not poverty. We are not provided numbers of children living in poverty, but information about how many children qualify for free/reduced lunch. Huge difference.
please STUDY the following and quit using the Star report as gospel. just becuase something is randomized- does not make it a quality study. many more improtant factors were not controlled for.
http://www.wallis.rochester.edu/WallisPapers/wallis_10.pdf
Ah but you'd like us to use THIS report as gospel, right? Give us a break. No matter what side of the fence you're on, you can find a reort or data to support your postion if you look hard enough. But here's the thing. It is common sense that poverty and other socio-economic factors can have a negative effect on learning. I will point to Michelle Monte to support that statement. During her failed campaign she talked about being in poverty growing up and how it made a difference in her learning. It still must have an effect today because she only grasps or pays attention to half the information out there.
How very irresponsible of you, Ms. Theil, for allowing such bashing on your site. You refuse to publish my pithy comments but you allow drivel such as 6:56? Does your husband know about this?
i would prefer real statistically valid research that shows statisitcal significance over "COMMON SENSE". thae Star study does not meet these standards. if you do not beleive that - do some reading.
common sense in education has created a ton of bad education- whole language being just one example.
Anonymous 7:39 posts:
"i would prefer real statistically valid research that shows statisitcal significance over "COMMON SENSE". "
Really, you anonymous poster(s) act like I made this data up... Many different SCHOLARLY journals refer to the STAR data as "a high quality long-term experiment to date in the field of education."
I highly doubt the Columbia School of Public Health would use a study that was not statistically significant. But we should believe instead an anonymous poster with no credentials and in fact not even the courage to sign his/her name. Sorry, the STAR study has plenty of statistically significant information and the ONE study posted that supposedly refutes the STAR reseach actually states that smaller class sizes have benefits for poor children (exactly the students served by SAGE in Oshkosh).
As for the other posts I did not post here... well they contributed NOTHING to the discussion...
That's telling 'em Teresa.
It's interesting how when the Montes start posting again, the anonymous comments start popping up on blogs too. It's as odd as they are.
Hats off to you Mrs. Thiel. You're always able to hold your own against these posters. I have to laugh at some of them, really. It's so terribly obvious that they have no genuine interest in debating issues. What they do have an interest in is debating personalities and tearing down anything and anyone that disagrees with them. That's synonymous with a Michelle Monte.
Speaking of which, some of the people posting on Michelle Monte's blog are eerily transparent too (I've suspected for some time many of them are her). But the ones that are most laughable are the ones she posts herself. Besides being rife with inaccuracies, outright lies, and the drivel of someone who's clueless about so much, she has the gall to act like she's got such class and morality about her.
If you can stomach it, check out some of the latest. She has edited what she claims someone sent her, leaving out all kinds of attacks they made on you. In her speech to the author she says she won't publish something that attacks a person's appearance, family, what have you. Is that so?!?!?!?
I remember not all that long ago she was ragging about the clothes Amy Weinsheim wore, even though her own cleavage was quite prominantly displayed at a couple different board meetings and her shirts more than a little inappropriate. It also wasn't all that long ago that she posted nasty little gems on her blog about Amy's child being at a meeting. She also bitches in her posts that some people are so cold they won't even talk to her even though she tries to be nice. She's too dense to realize most people aren't as deceptively two-faced as her.
She wants people to believe she's just an upstanding kinda gal. But that's just a facade. The woman has two faces and there are fangs in the mouths of both. The knife is never far from her grasp and Oshkosh knows it.
As for all the things she gripes about. Hey Michelle, if you can't handle the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. Even though you want to be the pampered chef. Peppered chef is more like it given the drivel you post.
I find it so amuzing that some posters on M. Monte's site and the NW OshKonversation go on and on about how I only post comments against Ms. Monte and NONE that criticize me. First of all, I didn't start moderating comments until this thread which I posted on Oct. 19, so it's not even been a month that I've moderated comments and I had a whopping FIVE that I hadn't published... as you will see 2 are more or less supportive of me and 3 are not... one of the three according to anon. poster Nov. 1 7:29 is supposed to have "pithy comments" I'm still searching for that one.
I waited to post the comments because I wanted to have time to comment myself and this is the first I've had time.
Anon. Nov. 5 2:34 --- I did check out the comments on M. Monte's site and find nothing but a big ole contradiction -- she and her supporters go on about nasty comments, then Michelle post some nasty stuff about me... fine but it is just laughable that she then beleives she has "taken the high road". I suppose her supporters don't think it is "nasty" to write about Blue Door "hosing some business" I guess in Monte's eyes that would what, be a compliment. There is NO high road there. One of her "supporters" who goes off on me, proceeds to dismiss those who post here anonymously --- of course this very same poster on her site does NOT sign his/her name.
I do appreciate the supportive comments from those of you who have posted in my defense. I share some of your same concerns about M. Monte's nasty and sometimes downright hateful comments about people in this community --- some of whom are my friends and some of whom are just people I respect. That said, I would ask that those of you who support me, for the most part leave the Montes out of the comments. I don't really want to waste my blog space on them, while they may be a negative influence on this community, I would prefer to focus on the issues and not waste time with distractions.
That said, I will continue to point out the factual errors, mistakes, and just plain wrong information that M. Monte puts out there. I think people should know what the facts are and that she often does not understand what she comments on. I will not be posting comments about her, even if they support me because I really want people to focus on the issues, this community has so many to work through.
Makes sense, even though M. Monte is still out there publishing trash. The fact of the matter is M. Monte moderates her comments and publishes ONLY the ones she wants, despite a statement on her blog asking people to be respectful of other's opinions. It's a sad fact that her loyal suporters can't see that while they beat you up for it. Such is life, I guess. The best thing is to ignore her blog in the future. The visitor log has dropped considerably anyway so others must have the same thought.
On a budgetary note, how will the increase in the amount of the levy freeze (from 2 to 3.86%) impact the district?
Anon. (Nov. 12, 3:41) Your advice about ignoring is good advice. One cannot open a mind that is closed to the facts, futile to try.
As for your budget question. I do not believe the increase to 3.86% is for K-12 schools, I think it is just for cities, towns, village under shared revenue. I'm pretty sure the Revenue Caps are the same as in the past for school districts.
You are correct Teresa. School district revenue is generated by enrollment. Of course, it stands to reason if a city or township does well in new construction/development more people will likely move to the area and the district's enrollment will increase as a result. That should be a goal anyway, which is why it's important for a district to take a partnership role in community development.
Post a Comment