Sallie, the other Co

It has been great to work together with our school board trustees, our school sites and our school district. Additionally, the support we feel from our community has brought us to where we are today – the SCEF board is a very strong group of volunteers but we need these kind of kudos to carry us through! SCEF can’t do it for our kids without the encouragement and support of our parents, businesses and broader community.

Thanks again,
Jennifer

Mark and Seth, thank you for pulling this important information together and communicating it to the larger community. It’s something that Heather parents have known for a long time, but not something that is easy to discuss. When doing so, it can be easily misinterpreted that a certain segment of the student population is being “blamed” for the lower API scores. Something that would be a grave disservice to the administrators, teachers, parents and students of Heather who work hard to create an inclusive environment for ALL students.

Rather, this information is just a recognition that Heather serves a broader and more diverse student population than other schools in the district — something that actually appeals to my family and many other families that choose to send their children to Heather.

Thanks again.

Mike Thompson

Thanks for these clarifying comments. It helps to hear this explained in greater detail. The fact that there is evidence of growth for those kids from out of district and in special education is important for everyone to hear. Mark’s post on his blog does not give this kind of detail which is too bad. Thank you for helping to clarify the data.

As any teacher or administrator will tell you, a giant portion of a student’s success in school is based on what they bring to school, mainly the effect of their home environment and specifically their parents, such as the parents’ level of education and involvement in their kids’ learning. It just so happens that in poorer neighborhoods like EPA, on average those students will start out at a disadvantage compared to their San Carlos peers (obviously this is unfortunate, but I can’t solve the problem of regional socio-economic inequality). That in no way suggests that the school district is not serving those students well. It would be unrealistic to assume the API scores of all sub-populations would be equivalent, and if anything the year-to-year growth in those numbers suggest we are serving out-of-district students very well (I would certainly encourage you to ask any out-of-district families about their experience here).

As for Special Education students, it is also unrealistic to assume that their API scores would be equivalent to those in the general education pool. Obviously some students have some severe disadvantages, so it would be foolish to compare their “success” to the success of a student in general education using API scores. Also note that if a student in Special Ed performs so well as to no longer require special education support, they are moved to general education, and then their API scores would be included in that population. Hence it would be statistically impossible for their API scores to ever be equivalent.

You also ask the question as to why we even care about this point of API scores. I agree with you that all of our scores are excellent and that it doesn’t make any difference if you’re at 864 or 905. The administration and Board have consistently said that over the years. This analysis was done to address a very narrow question — the incorrect perception in some people’s mind that Heather was not as good as the other schools. So, the point wasn’t that the scores were higher if you exclude certain populations; the point was that the scores were equilavent across the four schools if you compare similar populations. Please don’t read anything more into that or assume that the school district gives more weight to the meaning of API scores because Mark did this analysis.

To your last issue — the reason why Heather had more students in Special Ed is simple — there was more physical space available on that campus and the administration felt that it would best serve students by concentrating some of the resources on certain campuses. Even if there were room at every school, it would be worse for these students to just “spread them evenly.”

I can’t end my reply without also noting actually how amazingly successful our Special Ed program is. In fact, just last week we were notified that we will be receiving a Kent Award from the County School Board Association for all of our great work in Special Education. It has required a ton of work and a lot of resources, but it has shown amazing results. Although this success has been the topic of a number of board meetings, it would require a whole new detailed post to talk about what we have done — and the success metrics — in Special Ed. But I am extremely confident in saying that we serve Special Education students — as well as out-of-district students — extemely well in this district.

I have to say that I do not agree with alot of what Mark Olbert posted earlier today. Though I think it is an important conversation to have. By showing API scores when factoring out children of color (i.e. Tinsley kids and other out of district kids) and children with learning disabilities, people can come to conclusions that SCSD does not do a very good job educating these two kinds of student populations.

The implication that the estimated 11% of the out of district students “bring down” API scores and the fact that the SCSD board has stated that the Tinsley program which brings in students of color to SCSD is expensive (and they would fall into the “out of district kids” who seem to lower API scores) creates an impression that San Carlos schools do not seem equipped to teach all of the kids in their district. Why is there such an inequity?

I think whether the score is 905 or 930 makes little difference since both are excellent scores. Yet, if the SCSD board really felt this way, why go to the trouble to make this point about the scores being closer to 930? The fact is that whether it is 864 or 930, it still means Heather is a good school. What is even more interesting is that Heather earns a score of 864 with all of its kids and the score jumps by almost 8% to 929 once kids with learning disabilities and out of district kids (i.e. Tinsley kids from EPA who are primarily students of color) are taken out of the equation.

A conclusion that can be drawn, whether or not it is answering the questions being posed here in the posting, is that Heather School is not serving kids with learning disabilities or Tinsley kids as well as the San Carlos kids. Shouldn’t more resources be directed to Heather School to help narrow the gap between these numbers? This way, kids with learning disabilities and the out of district kids (i.e. Tinsley kids) are achieving closer to where “San Carlos Kids without Learning Disabilities” are achieving?

And, if the issue is as Mark pointed out–that there are twice as many kids with learning disabilities at Heather compared to other schools–why not spread these kids out more evenly across the four schools so that they can be better supported? The notion that “all children can learn” and the idea that children with learning disabilities are, by definition, intelligent and capable when given the appropriate modifications and accommodations does not seem to be supported here in a district that does a good job—but seemingly much better with San Carlos kids without learning disabilities.

Derek