MUSD Election Results, HS dropout rates, AP vs Vocational, LNCB

I don't follow Montebello politics closely enough to know the full implications, but, yes, a pair of incumbents getting ousted by a margin of 2-1 is unusual, especially without a MAJOR scandal of some sort.

[Although I still think the mishandled the Fire Department thing:  Let the people vote!]

Actually, when one compares Rosemead Elementary Schools (all 4) annual test scores to MUSD (all 18), Rosemead's avg API (or Academic Performance Index) is 809, and MUSD's avg API is 674.05, which is ONLY a difference of 135 points--800 being the desired minimum target (or a B, 1000 being an A) and 674.05 (being a C+ to B-).  Of course, MANY factors go into how one "interprets" these scores such as the number of schools being considered, student population, school crowding, teacher to student ratios,
 % on fed lunch program (a poverty level indicator), % of English learners (English as a 2nd language at home), etc.  Also, there are other socio-economic factors NOT considered such as divorce, family size, domestic violence, area criminal activity (at home or school), STABILITY, and last but not least FUNDING!

However, where scores really count, MUSD high schools are holding their own:  MUSD HS (3) API avg 642 vs Rosemead HS (1) API 675.  BTW, Rosemead High is in the the El Monte Union School District, whose overall API base is only 336, and MUSD base (28 schools total) is 303. 

(Oops, is my allegiance to MUSD showing, lol)

dear night reader, i do not mean to be insulting, but what planet or zip code are you living in 90210? because i was under the impression that this was a predominantly proud working class, predominantly asian and hispanic community.  while some educators and a few parents might appreciate setting high goals (two social classes above your own), with a 40-50% DROP OUT RATE affecting not only our area schools, but nationwide in many minority school districts, i would say that was lofty indeed.  i think the idea of mainly focusing on kids in AP classes was novel for the 70's (which benefited only the top 1-2%), but in 2007-08, MUSD and El Monte Union Districts are going back and also investing limited resources into vocational/allied health programs.  I believe a fire fighter and nurse are just as worthy professions as a teacher with a master's earning about the same (not to mention a 60K college loan to boot!).  of course, med and law school are an entirely different blog.  besides, the gates foundation is and will continue to subsidize most, if not all our gifted students' education and beyond. 

I would hope our parents have higher expectations for their children than to merely not drop out of high school.

Centaur, I think you need to google "soft bigotry of low expectations" before you start talking about leftist Kool-Aid.  This is the same discussion we had a few months ago:  I'm holding individuals responsible for their own actions (and for teaching their children values), and you want to talk about "society" failing.

My full response is below, but, that quip about AP always being there isn't true. Inner City Struggle in East LA is fighting to get more AP classes at Roosevelt and Garfield. Apparently, the schools have focused on NCLB and dropouts, and the college-hopefuls are getting fewer resources. (I think this only reinforces the "leftist kool-ade" argument, because they are definitely serving it up with a big helping of Che, and are definitely arguing for stronger academics and lower dropout rates at these schools.)

I would say it was properly attributed to President Bush:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/9/110923.shtml

And it's hardly surprising that I would take your comment as intended for me, since it appeared right after my post, and the first words in your post were, "Yes, Zebra."

No Child Left Behind does not require a "B" average of anybody.  It requires students to perform "at grade level" in math and reading.  That's on a test.  Doesn't say anything about grades in classes.

And, funny, but you added the word, "all" to my response.  I suspect you inserted the "all" into night reader's response, too.  This sort of reminds me of the old saying that "All generalizations are false, including this one."

No, I don't think everyone should go to an Ivy League school, or even that everyone should go to college.  But just because some parents may be satisfied with their child graduating high school is not a good reason for saying that money spent on gifted children or AP courses is a waste.

Zebra

You are incorect about that NCLB not requiring grading.  What do you think the API (academic performance index) is for?  And, for those not making the grade, what do you think AYP (adequate yearly progres) means?.  The numerical number assigned to the API does stand for something, and it's not a C and definitely not a D.

Zebra, are you on medications, because what ever you're taking you need to double it. 

I said that the Gates Foundation (you know Bill and Melinda) will subsidize our gifted kids now and throughout their entire academic careers, AND I said we needed them b/c they will hopefully find a cure for cancer and the andedote for AIDS.  What I don't need, and I said it,  was for us to graduate more politicians from public unversities. 

P.S. You do not have to be "argumentative for the "sake" of being argumentative when you don't understand something.  Nobody is grading you, certainly not me, and this is after all only a blog site.

*sigh*

First you call me a leftist.  Then you say I'm on medication.  Then you presume to know what I do and where I went to school.  THEN you say *I* should not be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and that *I* don't understand something?

Hey, guess what?  Just for the fun of it, I googled [api grades nclb].  The first hit from google explained the API scores here.

A brief excerpt:

It is then followed by a list of TESTS. No mention is made of grades anywhere.  As Homer Simpson would say, "D'oh!"

Zebra,

Tell me you can't be that "clueless".  Ask a taacher, ANY teacher what the numerical API score means, THEN ask what happens if they do not meet an API score of 800 by the year 2008?  (dee dee dee)

I see.  So we should take what you say the law means rather than what the California Department of Education says the law means.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Zebra!

LNCB or (Leave No Child Behind Law), is a mandated FEDERAL law (which passed w/ bipartisan support) and SUPERSEDES state law. The CA Dept of Ed has the task of carrying out LNCB w/ a grading system.  That grading system uses API and AYP, CA uses a numerical value, but that num value does ultimately indicate a letter grade, and a B avg must be met by 2008-09 or all schools risk losing fed dollars--GET IT NOW?

I didn't say that the district discouraged going to UC or the Ivies. They encourage UC, but don't push the Ivies. I said that it's parents who discourage their kids. Evidently, you don't discourage your kids (except going to Berkeley), but I've met enough people who suffered because of their parents' active, passive, or unintentional discouragement.

Even the encouraging parents are going to be at a disadvantage, because they might think the most elite schools are unreachable, and teach this to their kids without intending it.

There's likely to be a lack of knowledge, on the part of teachers, about what it takes to get into the elite schools. So, they can be encouraging, but may not have the nitty gritty details that can help the ambitious students develop a strategy for getting to where they want.

There's also a lack of knowledge on the part of parents and students, about the existence of colleges. How many folks out here know about Brown, Princeton, U Penn, or Wellesley? Jeez. I barely know about them today. How can you know that you might want to go, if you haven't ever heard of them?

I speak from personal experience. When I was a clueless student looking for colleges, I'd never heard of Princeton. I hadn't even heard of Berkeley, because I wasn't into college football. University of Michigan. Oberlin. Oxford. New School. Columbia. All unknown. In fact, I didn't know about most of those schools until I went to college. In 9th grade, I recall being asked about college, and thinking that Cal Tech was part of the Cal State system, and the other options out here were UCLA and USC.

Did you or anyone know that if you make under $60,000, you probably qualify for free education at the Ivies? I just learned that (here, in a conservative essay). Does the district promulgate this info? That kid who wrote that inspiring article could have gone to Yale for free, except he did not knowing about Yale early enough to adjust his academic plans for high school.

Do any of us here know about the myriad ways to apply to UC, so that even if your grades aren't great, you can still manage to get in? I learned the tricks in college, a year after all the fine young people at the elite prep schools were told. Maybe this info could help someone out?

(By the way, UC Berkeley isn't as radical as it's reputation. It's the surrounding city that has a radical self-image, but a lot of it is just "image.")

Also, regarding the dropout situation. I don't know that much about it, except what I've read, and some anecdotes from a few dropouts. It seems to be under-researched, and also misunderstood. It looks like most dropouts are choosing between school, work, and family, and are not failing out of school.

Here's a clip from: http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/dropouts_give_reasons

When 500 dropouts, ages 16-25, were interviewed, they gave many reasons for leaving school:

* 47% said classes were not interesting
* 43% missed too many days to catch up
* 45% entered high school poorly prepared by their earlier schooling
* 69% said they were not motivated to work hard
* 35% said they were failing
* 32% said they left to get a job
* 25% left to become parents
* 22% left to take care of a relative

Two-thirds said they would have tried harder if more was expected from them.
------------------------------
Only 35% were failing. 32% specifically said it was for work.

Of course, this wasn't MUSD. The reasons here probably differ.

I don't see how having the district *not* focus on college would cause money to be freed up to support whatever it might take to reduce dropout rates. The majority of reasons for dropping out have little to do with failing grades.

It seems like some of the people are making rational near-term decisions, based on their situation. If you have a child, school takes 6 hours out of your day. If you have a job, and need to make money for the family, school is 6 hours out of the day, without pay. If you have to take care of a relative, school is 6 hours you can't run errands.

These are bad decisions, but, nonetheless, rational if you don't have long-term goals that would require a decision to stay in school.

HS vocational programs, and that worries me b/c you sound like an educator or even a school board member.  Nonetheless, thankfully, there are private schools here like Don Bosco (which goes up to grade 14) and like it or not, two school districts (which I'm NOT going to mention the names of) are building new schools geared just towards vocational programs (Amen!).  Also, LNCB will eventually lead to Charter Schools, which will HAVE TO adjust their programs to benefit ALL stakeholders, not just the unions. 

Yeah, yeah, we all heard in our HS junior and senior year and in college about "deferred gratification",  BUT this is a new desperate time.  There are parents here raising 3 or more kids w/ each parent holding down 3, yes 3 minimal wage jobs.  In my generation, we didn't have the volume of illegal migration of today. 

So, so what if these new immigrants (or old immigrants for that matter) want to maintain cohesiveness in the family, wholesome family values, religious values, take pride in having large families, want to buy a house (the American Dream and expect the kids to chip in), if multigenerational members live in one household, or want their children to go into business with them?

This is what our community is mainly all about--and we need to "cherish" that fact as well.

You seem a little "fixated" on Ivy League (which traditionally meant East Coast colleges), but never mind.  That seems to have been YOUR goal, and the personal goal of most teachers I suspect, BUT clearly as an educator, if our students don't hold your same dreams and goals, you seem to come up empty handed. 

We need to do better. 

You know, one family started and own Panda Express.  Is that so bad? Maybe some of their family members went to college, maybe none did. 

There is an Asian proverbs--all our ten fingers are not exactly the same for a reason, to remind us that people aren't either (or something like that). 
 

FYI:  Peggy and Andrew Cherng are the founders of Panda.  They both graduated with masters degrees from the University of Missouri.  Peggy has a PhD.  They're engineers, by training:

http://atmizzou.missouri.edu/jan04/PandaExpress.htm

. . . which goes to show that the value of a college education is not just in the specific skills you learn, but also in terms of critical thinking, logic, problem solving, etc.

Master Chef Robert Cherng, on whom's recipes the company was founded on.  Zebra, we can go on and on and on and on and on and on about "Asian success stories", which is almost a cliche ad nauseum at this point.  But, how can one tout one group's personal success stories, when others around us, or next door to us, are flunking out at 40% and are hungry, maybe almost homeless?  Yes, one certain group might have qualities of being "clever, motivated, value education at the point of suicide (yes, I have heard horror stories), but what happened to understanding and generosity? Is this a "winner takes all attitude"?  All my blogs above point to the fact that I have taken a position as a "stakeholder" in my school district and support NCLB.

I was not talking about "Asian success stories," per se.  I was responding specifically to your comment that, "You know, one family started and own Panda Express.  Is that so bad? Maybe some of their family members went to college, maybe none did."

It seemed to me you were implying that you could become fabulous wealthy without having to go to college.  Fair enough--it's possible.  Kobe Bryant and LeBron James are examples of that.  But your example does not illustrate this point.  Your example illustrates exactly the opposite:  The folks who made Panda a success DID have to go to college and did get advanced degrees.  If all they had was the vocational knowledge, then they'd be cooks in a restaurant like Panda Express and not the owners/CEOs.

Dear Zebra,

This is what I said in a previous post, AND I was referring to family cohesiveness and family values.

.....["So, so what if these new immigrants (or old immigrants for that matter) want to maintain cohesiveness in the family, wholesome family values, religious values, take pride in having large families, wanting to buy a home (the American Dream and expect the kids to chip in), if multigenerational members live in one household, or want their children to go into business with them? This is what our community is mainly all about--and we need to "cherish" that fact as well"]....

BTW, I don't mind being "doubled team" by both night rider and zebra.  It is me and my family members who went to PRIVATE colleges (and where religious studies were required and NOT ridiculed), NOT public ones.  And, while teaching is a noble profession, it is still a GOVERNMENT JOB--not a Fortune 500.

See: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/09/09162003.html

ed.gov says they peaked in 1990 when I was in. The interest rate was 9%. We had also coming out of a period of high inflation and high interest rates, so people may have borrowed more, to pay expenses, and found themselves entering a period where interest rates dropped, and they were paying a higher, fixed rate. So the future looked more expensive than expected (because the principal doesn't decline in value as fast). Also, credit rules were relaxing, and personal credit was more available than before. That probably made defaulting on a loan seem like a good idea. They sacrificed their credit ratings to get cash for living.

In 2003, it was less than 4%.

Also, there's a growing income gap between the college grads and everyone else (aka, the vanishing middle class), so for some people, the payments aren't so onerous because their income, or expected future income, is higher. So it makes sense to keep paying, to keep a good credit rating for large capital purchases, like a house.

Personally, I took on a few loans, but not for very much, and payed them off in a few years. I got some help from parents, and worked a lot, and lived in low-income neighborhoods. I'm debt-phobic.