Do you really think that spending $56 million is going to improve education?
The plan for most of these funds is to build a replacement middle school for the SMS building so that it can become a Freshman Learning Center and to convert Mount Si High School "to allow for program improvements (such as adding a STEM program for an integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics instruction)." The promise is that this plan "better supports student transitions to high school and will ultimately strengthen our high school programming to better prepare students for life after high school in the 21st Century." (source: District website)
If the district is serious about improving the lot of freshman, they can and should have been doing so for years, and they don't need a separate building to do it. About five years ago, there was a committee formed at Mount Si to focus on improving the success of freshman. Much of the recommendations from this committee and those from the Learning Improvement Team were to focus on improving study skills and to align curriculum. Do you know that they are still talking about this on those Friday afternoons when kids come home early? Two years ago, this community was told that the new portables ($5.4 million of our tax money) would be used to focus on freshman. Did you know that this lasted only one year, and now those classrooms hold a variety of subjects and students from all grades? (source: Master Schedule MSHS) So, why should this community spend $48 million to build a replacement middle school so that this same management can experiment (again) on freshmen? If management cannot handle a freshman pod of 12 classrooms, do you really think they can handle a freshman campus? And, there are many unanswered questions, particularly related to how much it will cost to run a Freshman Learning Center and how to transport students and teachers between the buildings.
And with respect to the lucrative hint that the high school might incorporate STEM: the proposed taxpayer paid enhancements include simply painting hallways to identify STEM classrooms. And that improves education how? If this district is serious about science and math education, they should have been improving it over the last 5 years instead of spending so much time on facilities planning and bond elections. The current results in the district prove that there are some very serious problems with student achievement in math, so it is hard to believe that this management could handle a STEM program.
Student achievement in math has declined in many areas. I compared the state assessment test scores (source: OSPI) from 2005/6 to those from 2009/10 (the same period of time that management's attention has been focused on buildings). The scores provide the following categories of results: Total "meeting standard" (comprised of those who just "meet" the standard and those who "exceed" the standard) and the total "not meeting standard" (comprised of those who test just "below" standard and "well below" standard). I looked at 4th, 7th and 10th grade results.
The good news is that 7th grade math scores in 2009/10 show that 39% of students exceed the standard in math in comparison to 30% in 2005/6. If you combine the just "meet" and "exceed" standard into the "meet" category, the increase is from 64% to 74% over the same five year period. That's the good news, even though it means that 26% of 7th grade students are still testing below standard.
Part of the bad news is that 4th grade math results show a decrease in those who exceed standard from 37% to 32% over this period. Combining 4th grade just "meet" and "exceed" results, the total declines from 70% to 68% during this time period. And I am very disheartened to report that there is an increase in 4th grade students who tested "well below" standard from 10% to 13% over these five years.
But where the rubber hits the road is in 10th grade. This is where it starts to matter and where failing in math can impact career and college plans. Over the time period of study there has been a very significant increase of students who test "well below" standard from 11% to 26%. Let me repeat that - 26% of 10th grade high school students test "well below" standard on math. That breaks my heart, because at this point in high school, there are not many ways a student can make up this math education. Students don't even get these scores until the beginning of their junior year. And, unfortunately, the total of students who "exceed standard" dropped from 28% to 22% over this period. Combined with those who just "meet" standard, the total of students who meet or exceed standard went down from 64% to 56% over this time period. This is absolutely alarming to me.
And, it is not just math education that has suffered over the last 5 years. The percentage of 4th grade and 10th grade students who meet or exceed reading standards have dropped significantly (7% less 10th graders meet or exceed the reading standard, 8% less 4th graders meet or exceed the reading standard) Shouldn't our schools be improving? Who is monitoring this?
One of the school board members stated in a board meeting on March 5 (in support of the bond) "our schools are just getting better and better". What? Except for some improvements in middle schools, our schools aren't even staying the same. With respect to math and reading, our elementary and high schools are deteriorating. We don't need buildings to fix this, and we don't need management's focus and attention to continue to be distracted by these facilities issues and fancy ideas like STEM. First and foremost, we need a management (administration and school board) that is focused on what is happening in the classroom, is able to identify problems, and is capable of preparing and executing a real plan to improve education.
Given the track record of this administration, why would we want to tax this community $56 million for them to use?
