Teacher Certification
Is the teacher at the front of your child’s classroom certified for that subject? Do you have an English teacher attempting to struggle thru algebra? Is the history teacher rally a coach? Or does your child benefit from a certified master math teacher who’ll introduce the joys of geometry?
How do you find out?
If you know the teachers first and last name, you can pull up Texas state certification records!
Point your web-browser to this site:
https://secure.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECONLINE/virtcert.asp
Type in Last name, then First name, then initial if you know it.
If you can’t get an exact match on the certification database, you’ll get a list of up to 20 nearly identical names. Scan the list and see if you can spot your child’s teacher. Then click on an individual name to see what credentials are on file with the Texas State Board of Education.
What do you do if your child’s teacher is NOT certified in the subject?
Start by phoning the school principal … and we’ll discuss other corrections as we go along.
At the Lancaster School Board meeting last night, one parent revealed that since the start of school -- three weeks ago -- his 3rd grader's class has been taught by a "substitute". Not that the substitute isn't credentialed. But that concern reveals how short of great, and permanent, staffing the district still is.
If you have any concerns at all -- check it out.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Monday, September 04, 2006
Plan B?
Poor teachers, who see a child’s disappointing test scores, simply schedule a "make-up" test. They tell themselves their student hadn’t been paying attention; the student was having an off day; the student suffered from outside distractions. Poor teachers dismiss low numbers as accidental and temporary. So, the child is tested again. And if necessary again. Until by repetition or practice or good luck, the numbers come out higher. Then THOSE scores are meaningful, official, and final. If not, well, a poor teacher’s attitude is "Tough luck, kid."
A great teacher, though, will study the results of a poor test; to learn and adapt. Great teachers know students may fail to learn, but teachers, too, may, fail to teach. Great teachers understand no one can succeed by merely "going through the motions" again and again and again. For a student who hasn’t learned from lecture; a reading assignment may work or a hands-on project.may break though. A teacher who wants different results will teach a different way. And this is no hardship; great teachers always have more than one lesson plan in the portfolio. Every test – good results or bad – provides meaningful direction towards helping a child.
Lancaster ISD has some great teachers. But does the district have a great school board, and a great superintendent?
When the numbers from the May ’06 Bond Election came in, and the $93 Million bond proposal had failed, would the district demonstrate greatness? Or would they treat adult voters and taxpayers as slightly stupid children who failed to pay attention, got fatally distracted by noise, and were just suffering from an off day?
Now we know.
Why can't the district offer a new plan for putting children first? Why must they simply change the dates on the old plan and try another bond, another massive construction project, another tax increase, and another slick and glossy political indoctrination campaign in another election? Why is "Plan B" the same as "Plan A" ? Can't our district have, like a great teacher, more than one plan in its portfolio?
Why must the district continue to propose tearing down the elementary schools where children are safely and productively attending this year? Why does the district continue to demand the design of large (600-or-more students each) elementary schools, farther apart, instead of small neighborhood schools our kids can walk to? Why can't the district renovate existing schools, build small new schools inside the new neighborhoods, and get focused on first-graders?
At the high school level, why does the district come back for the third time in two years asking to construct additional classrooms? Can't Advanced Placement/college level classes be "outsourced" to dual-diploma programs at Cedar Valley or Richland College? Will the district continue to let new classrooms sit idle 18 hours a day or emulate Dallas ISD and try a voluntary second shift in the late afternoons? Will the district attempt to re-invent technology solutions for itself or cooperate with the TEA Region Ten "Virtual Academy" programs – which only require kids in a classroom two days a week? And why can a century old High School be sucessfully renovated to plush offices for adminstrative staff, but 40-year-old elementary school buildings must be completely demolished and replaced? Why not move high school students to Centre Street? Why not move adminstrators to the Dallas Ave/Pleasant Run facility that (contrary to promises made in 2004) still hasn't sold to a commercial developer.
Whether an additional High School is at Centre Street or in new construction -- will academics finally matter? Or will SAT continue to slide and graduation rates continue to fall? Will over 30% of the 9th graders entering the school this year flunk, quit, or quietly "disappear" before graduation?
Can't new Trustee Marie Elliott bring new ideas, new direction, and new energy to the Lancaster ISD school board? Must she, like her peers, always "go along to get along"?
In May 2006 , the voters spoke. The numbers are recorded, and the bond failed. Isn't it time for Plan B?
*sigh*.
Plan A. Again. Borrow and Spend. Just keep voting until the voters get it "right".
Oh well. Maybe, in December, we can hear Plan B.
Poor teachers, who see a child’s disappointing test scores, simply schedule a "make-up" test. They tell themselves their student hadn’t been paying attention; the student was having an off day; the student suffered from outside distractions. Poor teachers dismiss low numbers as accidental and temporary. So, the child is tested again. And if necessary again. Until by repetition or practice or good luck, the numbers come out higher. Then THOSE scores are meaningful, official, and final. If not, well, a poor teacher’s attitude is "Tough luck, kid."
A great teacher, though, will study the results of a poor test; to learn and adapt. Great teachers know students may fail to learn, but teachers, too, may, fail to teach. Great teachers understand no one can succeed by merely "going through the motions" again and again and again. For a student who hasn’t learned from lecture; a reading assignment may work or a hands-on project.may break though. A teacher who wants different results will teach a different way. And this is no hardship; great teachers always have more than one lesson plan in the portfolio. Every test – good results or bad – provides meaningful direction towards helping a child.
Lancaster ISD has some great teachers. But does the district have a great school board, and a great superintendent?
When the numbers from the May ’06 Bond Election came in, and the $93 Million bond proposal had failed, would the district demonstrate greatness? Or would they treat adult voters and taxpayers as slightly stupid children who failed to pay attention, got fatally distracted by noise, and were just suffering from an off day?
Now we know.
Why can't the district offer a new plan for putting children first? Why must they simply change the dates on the old plan and try another bond, another massive construction project, another tax increase, and another slick and glossy political indoctrination campaign in another election? Why is "Plan B" the same as "Plan A" ? Can't our district have, like a great teacher, more than one plan in its portfolio?
Why must the district continue to propose tearing down the elementary schools where children are safely and productively attending this year? Why does the district continue to demand the design of large (600-or-more students each) elementary schools, farther apart, instead of small neighborhood schools our kids can walk to? Why can't the district renovate existing schools, build small new schools inside the new neighborhoods, and get focused on first-graders?
At the high school level, why does the district come back for the third time in two years asking to construct additional classrooms? Can't Advanced Placement/college level classes be "outsourced" to dual-diploma programs at Cedar Valley or Richland College? Will the district continue to let new classrooms sit idle 18 hours a day or emulate Dallas ISD and try a voluntary second shift in the late afternoons? Will the district attempt to re-invent technology solutions for itself or cooperate with the TEA Region Ten "Virtual Academy" programs – which only require kids in a classroom two days a week? And why can a century old High School be sucessfully renovated to plush offices for adminstrative staff, but 40-year-old elementary school buildings must be completely demolished and replaced? Why not move high school students to Centre Street? Why not move adminstrators to the Dallas Ave/Pleasant Run facility that (contrary to promises made in 2004) still hasn't sold to a commercial developer.
Whether an additional High School is at Centre Street or in new construction -- will academics finally matter? Or will SAT continue to slide and graduation rates continue to fall? Will over 30% of the 9th graders entering the school this year flunk, quit, or quietly "disappear" before graduation?
Can't new Trustee Marie Elliott bring new ideas, new direction, and new energy to the Lancaster ISD school board? Must she, like her peers, always "go along to get along"?
In May 2006 , the voters spoke. The numbers are recorded, and the bond failed. Isn't it time for Plan B?
*sigh*.
Plan A. Again. Borrow and Spend. Just keep voting until the voters get it "right".
Oh well. Maybe, in December, we can hear Plan B.
Are Lancaster test scores better or worse than 4 years ago?
Bacause the state revises the "passing" standard from year to year, it can be difficult to make a direct comparison.
But it's not too difficult. Although Lancaster ISD website only reports ver little about its scores the Texas Education Agency retains test scores back to 1993 at their website .
Also, the state compares each measure for our district to the Dallas/Fort Worth vicinity ("Region 10") and the state of Texas as a whole. This allows us to compare Lancaster scores to the region and state scores -- even when the test standards change. For a simple example, if the passing rate for "all tests" over "all grades" in any given year was "40%" for the State of Texas and "42%" for Region 10, while the Lancaster ISD score was "39%" we could see that the district is performing comparably to, although slightly more poorly than, our peers in other districts. If the following year the same sort of score were shown as "50%" "49%" and "42%" we might conclude that even though LISD test scores were "up" from the prior year, our district was "falling behind" compared to our peers.
The table below shows the changing scores for "all tests" over "all grades'" * for the period of the 2004-05 school year, back through the recent years of Dr Lewis's tenure, for the past dozen years. The first column is the state's passing rate, the second is the passing rate for the region, and the third is the passing rate for LISD. The fouth column divides the LISD passing rate to the smaller of the region or state rate of the same year. (By comparing our rate to the lesser of the two other values we give LISD the best possible comparison score.)
This chart indicates that a dozen years ago the LISD TASS scores were
within 10% of scores of neighboring school systems. But between 1994 and 2002,. though the actual comparison drifted up and down, LISD compared slightly less well -- about 20% more poorly than our neighbors. But beginning in 2003, the first year of Dr Lewis's administration, our comparison to the state and region dropped sharply. We fell from over 80% comparable in 1998 to just over 60% in 2003, and fell further to about 50% comparable in the two years following.
It's possible this is a statistical anomaly, so the AEIS data on SAT and ACT scores for high school students should be reviewed as a "sanity check". The following tables again shows state and region scores by year and local district scores for the same year and calculates a ratio for comparison.
We see the same sort of decline in High School
test scores as we see in state TASS and TAKS tests.
A dozen years ago, scores were comparable if
slightly lower. The past couple of years under
Dr Lewis, the scores have declined.
Dr Lewis invites those who disagree with his reported numbers to sit down with him one on one to discuss. I hope the parents of the district will check out the TEA website and gather their own data for the grade levels of their own children and schedule just such a meeting.
Bacause the state revises the "passing" standard from year to year, it can be difficult to make a direct comparison.
But it's not too difficult. Although Lancaster ISD website only reports ver little about its scores the Texas Education Agency retains test scores back to 1993 at their website .
Also, the state compares each measure for our district to the Dallas/Fort Worth vicinity ("Region 10") and the state of Texas as a whole. This allows us to compare Lancaster scores to the region and state scores -- even when the test standards change. For a simple example, if the passing rate for "all tests" over "all grades" in any given year was "40%" for the State of Texas and "42%" for Region 10, while the Lancaster ISD score was "39%" we could see that the district is performing comparably to, although slightly more poorly than, our peers in other districts. If the following year the same sort of score were shown as "50%" "49%" and "42%" we might conclude that even though LISD test scores were "up" from the prior year, our district was "falling behind" compared to our peers.
The table below shows the changing scores for "all tests" over "all grades'" * for the period of the 2004-05 school year, back through the recent years of Dr Lewis's tenure, for the past dozen years. The first column is the state's passing rate, the second is the passing rate for the region, and the third is the passing rate for LISD. The fouth column divides the LISD passing rate to the smaller of the region or state rate of the same year. (By comparing our rate to the lesser of the two other values we give LISD the best possible comparison score.)
TAKS all tests, all Grades
Comparison
Year state reg LISD district/region
2005 62 64 34 54.84%
2004 58 60 31 53.45%
2003 58 60 36 62.07%
2002 85 84 73 86.90%
2001 82 81 71 87.65%
2000 80 78 66 84.62%
1999 80 78 66 84.62%
1998 78 78 64 82.05%
1997 73 74 58 79.45%
1996 73 73 64 87.67%
1995 61 65 54 88.52%
1994 56 60 52 92.86%
This chart indicates that a dozen years ago the LISD TASS scores were
within 10% of scores of neighboring school systems. But between 1994 and 2002,. though the actual comparison drifted up and down, LISD compared slightly less well -- about 20% more poorly than our neighbors. But beginning in 2003, the first year of Dr Lewis's administration, our comparison to the state and region dropped sharply. We fell from over 80% comparable in 1998 to just over 60% in 2003, and fell further to about 50% comparable in the two years following.
It's possible this is a statistical anomaly, so the AEIS data on SAT and ACT scores for high school students should be reviewed as a "sanity check". The following tables again shows state and region scores by year and local district scores for the same year and calculates a ratio for comparison.
HIGH SCHOOL SAT YEAR
MEAN SAT SCORE,
TEXAS Region 10 LISD district/region
2004 987 1008 802 81.26%
2003 989 1009 808 81.70%
2002 986 1009 847 85.90%
2001 987 1008 830 84.09%
2000 990 1012 888 89.70%
1999 989 1013 859 86.86%
1998 992 1016 913 92.04%
1997 992 1010 928 93.55%
1996 993 1011 985 99.19%
1995 993 1011 985 99.19%
1994 891 918 863 96.86%
We see the same sort of decline in High School
test scores as we see in state TASS and TAKS tests.
A dozen years ago, scores were comparable if
slightly lower. The past couple of years under
Dr Lewis, the scores have declined.
Dr Lewis invites those who disagree with his reported numbers to sit down with him one on one to discuss. I hope the parents of the district will check out the TEA website and gather their own data for the grade levels of their own children and schedule just such a meeting.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Football, or voting?
Dallas Progress asks a very important question.
Go read. Then, come back and tell me what you think.
Dallas Progress asks a very important question.
Go read. Then, come back and tell me what you think.
We all realize by now that the Lancaster District has hired Red Whiddon as a "facilitator" to help with the 2007 Bond election.
There is nothing illegal about this. The District can't advocate passage of a bond. That WOULD be illegal.
But they can facilitate.
Educate.
Inform.
Advise, promote, advertise, host community meetings, feed the voters sandwiches and softdrinks, distribute thousands of dollars worth of printed materials explaining how dire and desparate the need for more bond money RIGHT NOW is, explaining how stupid the (other) voters in the May 2006 election (who were in the majority) were, and how thoroughly the hundred million dollars in the February 2004 election have been squandered, (do I mean "squandered" or "invested" ? I get those words confused sometimes.). It's legal for the district to hire a handsome, calm, and professional-appearing spokesman to shake you firmly by the hand, look you squarely in the eye, and recite the careful script the district has laid before him. That's not advocacy.
It's not like the district was hanging signs on public right-of-ways along city streets or anything.
It's not like the district would use school resources to print flyers and district postage funds to flood your mailbox with ...
Oh.
Well, nevermind that.
The district does not do political advocacy. No schoold district would break Texas Law.
There is nothing illegal about any of this sort of bond package education or facilitating such meetings.
It's not illegal to hire a "facilitator" with a history of scope creep -- running up huge unanticipated expenses for overtime and hanging around for months after his service was supposed to be complete. And it's not illegal to bill a school district for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they bargained for.
But will the district pay? As far as I can tell, the 2006-07 budget makes no provision for Mr Whiddon's fees -- fixed, inflated, overtime, bonus or otherwise.
And I haven't seen the minutes of a meeting where the Board of Trustees approved his contract. (I might have missed it. But a Google search of the LancasterISD.org website turns up zilch as of this evening.)
Why should the Trustees pay Mr Whiddon?
And for that matter, why should the Lancaster taxpayers?
There is nothing illegal about this. The District can't advocate passage of a bond. That WOULD be illegal.
But they can facilitate.
Educate.
Inform.
Advise, promote, advertise, host community meetings, feed the voters sandwiches and softdrinks, distribute thousands of dollars worth of printed materials explaining how dire and desparate the need for more bond money RIGHT NOW is, explaining how stupid the (other) voters in the May 2006 election (who were in the majority) were, and how thoroughly the hundred million dollars in the February 2004 election have been squandered, (do I mean "squandered" or "invested" ? I get those words confused sometimes.). It's legal for the district to hire a handsome, calm, and professional-appearing spokesman to shake you firmly by the hand, look you squarely in the eye, and recite the careful script the district has laid before him. That's not advocacy.
It's not like the district was hanging signs on public right-of-ways along city streets or anything.
It's not like the district would use school resources to print flyers and district postage funds to flood your mailbox with ...
Oh.
Well, nevermind that.
The district does not do political advocacy. No schoold district would break Texas Law.
There is nothing illegal about any of this sort of bond package education or facilitating such meetings.
It's not illegal to hire a "facilitator" with a history of scope creep -- running up huge unanticipated expenses for overtime and hanging around for months after his service was supposed to be complete. And it's not illegal to bill a school district for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they bargained for.
But will the district pay? As far as I can tell, the 2006-07 budget makes no provision for Mr Whiddon's fees -- fixed, inflated, overtime, bonus or otherwise.
And I haven't seen the minutes of a meeting where the Board of Trustees approved his contract. (I might have missed it. But a Google search of the LancasterISD.org website turns up zilch as of this evening.)
Why should the Trustees pay Mr Whiddon?
And for that matter, why should the Lancaster taxpayers?
If the November, 2006 Bond Election fails; Does Red Whiddon get paid?
This question arises out of the 2006-07 Lancaster ISD budget. Lancaster Superintendent Larry Lewis deserves praise and credit for putting before the Trustees and the public perhaps the most detailed accounting of the district's expenses ever assembled. Two hundred twenty eight pages of detailed budget documents detailing everything from the $8,500 the district pays in wages to crossing guards to $381,898 paid in wages/salaries/and benefits to the Superintented himself.
But Red Whiddon's fees aren't apparent in that budget.
It may be that Mr Widdon's fees are, like the salary of "special assistant to the superintendent" Elvin Lotten, not being budgeted. Mr Lotten's salary used to be budgeted, under the superintendent's office. But this year, in a "cost cutting" move, Mr Lotten is not being paid by the district. Well, not exactly. Mr Lotten's salary is now coming out of the bond money. According to Dr Lewis, since Mr Lotten works full time on bond construction and accounting issues, it's appropriate that he be paid with bond funds.
Not that the engineer's annual salary was one of the things voters specifically approved in the 2004 election. Borrowing money for thirty years to pay for one year's salary wouldn't have been a very popular line item in that proposal ... but there's nothing illegal about it. And we need Mr Lotten's talent and expertise. And we have this 110 million dollar pot of money just lying around anyhow so why NOT pay him out of the bond funds?
Except -- well, Mr Whiddon tells us the 2004 bond money has all been spent. Not only spent, but WELL spent. $110 Million, spent, gone, under the bridge. Even the superintendent tells us the 2004 bond is over -- finished, three years ahead of schedule, he says.
A package being finished, and a package that's run out of funding, might be two slightly different things, but let's not quibble now.
The question is, if Mr Lotten is being paid his salary from an empty pocket -- a pocket of bond funds that has no funds -- is Mr Whiddon being paid from that same pocket?
Obviously if the 2006 bond election succeeds the pocket full of bond money will be bulging all over again. Then Mr Lotten can be paid, and can ever repay the pocket of teacher-salaries money or football-coach's money, or whatever other pocket has been supporting the empty bond pocket while the election has been being debated. If the election approves the bond, all is well for Mr Lotten. And presumably, even for Mr Whiddon.
But if the election fails, will Mr Whiddon find a pocket of district money to support all his time and efforts?
And if not, doesn't that sort of give him a MAJOR incentive to ensure that the bond passes?
And if he has such a huge incentive and personal financial stake in the outcome of the election -- how objective can he be?
This question arises out of the 2006-07 Lancaster ISD budget. Lancaster Superintendent Larry Lewis deserves praise and credit for putting before the Trustees and the public perhaps the most detailed accounting of the district's expenses ever assembled. Two hundred twenty eight pages of detailed budget documents detailing everything from the $8,500 the district pays in wages to crossing guards to $381,898 paid in wages/salaries/and benefits to the Superintented himself.
But Red Whiddon's fees aren't apparent in that budget.
It may be that Mr Widdon's fees are, like the salary of "special assistant to the superintendent" Elvin Lotten, not being budgeted. Mr Lotten's salary used to be budgeted, under the superintendent's office. But this year, in a "cost cutting" move, Mr Lotten is not being paid by the district. Well, not exactly. Mr Lotten's salary is now coming out of the bond money. According to Dr Lewis, since Mr Lotten works full time on bond construction and accounting issues, it's appropriate that he be paid with bond funds.
Not that the engineer's annual salary was one of the things voters specifically approved in the 2004 election. Borrowing money for thirty years to pay for one year's salary wouldn't have been a very popular line item in that proposal ... but there's nothing illegal about it. And we need Mr Lotten's talent and expertise. And we have this 110 million dollar pot of money just lying around anyhow so why NOT pay him out of the bond funds?
Except -- well, Mr Whiddon tells us the 2004 bond money has all been spent. Not only spent, but WELL spent. $110 Million, spent, gone, under the bridge. Even the superintendent tells us the 2004 bond is over -- finished, three years ahead of schedule, he says.
A package being finished, and a package that's run out of funding, might be two slightly different things, but let's not quibble now.
The question is, if Mr Lotten is being paid his salary from an empty pocket -- a pocket of bond funds that has no funds -- is Mr Whiddon being paid from that same pocket?
Obviously if the 2006 bond election succeeds the pocket full of bond money will be bulging all over again. Then Mr Lotten can be paid, and can ever repay the pocket of teacher-salaries money or football-coach's money, or whatever other pocket has been supporting the empty bond pocket while the election has been being debated. If the election approves the bond, all is well for Mr Lotten. And presumably, even for Mr Whiddon.
But if the election fails, will Mr Whiddon find a pocket of district money to support all his time and efforts?
And if not, doesn't that sort of give him a MAJOR incentive to ensure that the bond passes?
And if he has such a huge incentive and personal financial stake in the outcome of the election -- how objective can he be?