Hillary, bill, or helen?
I really hate turning something like this political, but he does deserve some credit.....Thankfully, MAEP has been scrapped all together, and by doing so, schools are getting more money now than ever before.....teacher pay raise was on him too....but almost all of the educational improvements have happened in the last 10 years.....from a political standpoint, do you know what has been in place the last 10 years in MS?
So adequate funding in 2008 and 2009 is paying off in 2023 and 2024! Nice!
I'm pretty sure the reading and math levels are compared on a national average based on testing. I may be wrong but i'm gonna need some proof before i take your word for it.
Agree, but this is public schools everywhere. They've brought up the bottom. And it's good, overall, but high achievers are still going to have to be responsible for themselves and not get sucked into regressing back to the middle.
yeah, and i agree with what your saying.
NAEP is usually how they compare states nationally. Of course every school and district doesn't take NAEP, but it's a sample from everywhere.
Who is doing a better job/more difficult job? A teacher with a class full of gifted students who score high every year or a teacher with a class full of remedial students who make progress toward the high end year after year?
Nobody is saying that it's a bad thing to bring up the bottom. Just point out that's what's happening.
You aren't rating based solely on that factor. In addition, EVERY school has a bottom 25 % whether they scored low or not. Therefore, EVERY school has the opportunity to grow the bottom 25%. If you think the rating is based only on what you do with the bottom, then you don't understand the model.
No one is arguing whose doing a better job or whose jobs more difficult or anything like that.
no i undestand the model fully. The problem is when your bottom 25% is already thriving its hard to improve them. Where-as if they are doing poorly there is more room for improvement.
Starkville is better than you think. It has made DRASTIC improvement in the last few years. The old "Starkville city schools suck" narrative was never completely true, but it is dead and gone now. MSU got involved in a big way and things have changed.
The good schools stay at the top because they are the good schools. 25% of the score is improvement. So as long as they dont tank the score just fine.
So improvement is a bad thing? Once they make it they have to do things to stay there. That's progress man. You are wanting to go by anecdote and tradition. That is actually even more hit or miss than the official ratings system. The system isn't perfect, but it IS resulting in better schools in more places in the state.
Thats comical. Ive got family in those schools. They've made improvements true... but theyve been made at the 6-7 grade level... The high school is still as bad as its always been with fights, drugs, teachers getting arrested amongst other things.
Huh?
What is starting teacher pay in MS now?
I honestly have no idea. I suspect that at a minimum, Tate signed something somewhere along the way that helped something in education. However, the Governor/President are not dissimilar to QBs: too much credit, too much blame; limited real contribution/impact.
My wife is a long-time teacher in MS. I wasn't even aware that there was a union. She's not in one.
What it boils down to is that the "top" schools want to be the ONLY "top" schools. They can't stand it that a poor disadvantaged school may have the same grade as THEM. They are supposed to be the elite. If you don't believe them, just ask them. Even though the model through what yall are calling "improvement" is easier for them to achieve than it is for the school with loads of students who are behind. They only have to grow their proficient students the equivalent of one school year where schools with students who are behind have to grow the students more than one year to get the same growth point. They even added acceleration to the model because those schools wanted points for simply having higher achievers attend there. Still not good enough. They have to be "seen" as elite. That's why the adjusted the cut scores a year after announcing them as soon as one of the elites didn't make an A. Not only that, the legislature has written it into the law that the cuts will be adjusted once a certain number of schools become rated A or B. That is in their effort to make those "elites" continue to look like they are elite. You can rest assured that if any of those schools don't meet the new cuts, they will readjust the cuts to make those schools As.
Most of this is right. Basically they are making it where there are many avenues to get to that A or B rating even with poor scores .... and once it happens and there are large numbers of A or B schools... they'll make the cut lines different to make it more of a bell curve.
If you are growing students toward proficiency you are doing exactly what a school is supposed to do and the score should reflect that. Why should you get all your points based on simply having higher achievers attending? This isn't a football game. I know the "top" schools want it to be a win/lose situation, but that not the point. The point is to improve schools, and that is absolutely working. Not where we want to be, but definitely growing.
There isn't really. It's against the law in Mississippi for teachers to strike. If they could make it against the law for teachers to vote, they would. Only slight **
Heck yea grow them. We want that. But a schools performance is still a schools performance. a 5-5 vanderbilt doesnt need to go to the playoffs or be ranked because they got better.
My mom is a retired teacher in the state of MS. She echoes all this.
