|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 14, 2013 7:10:20 GMT -5
This deserves another look: "When you start talking about failing schools like Roosevelt, I think we start approaching a different social issue, one that revolves around the decay of the traditional nuclear family and values." To be clear, the context in which Roosevelt was brought up in my earlier post was to the point of failing schools, specifically schools/districts with intractable academic failures, failures that have defied remediation. Roosevelt happens to be 93% minority demographics, and with the exception of Elementary Level Science, the district remains in a state of massive academic failure, with a 62% graduation rate in 2012, and 15% of their graduates having no plans for their future. But, the reason I pointed to Roosevelt was by way of demonstrating the fact that we, as taxpayers, are at least financially responsible under the State Constitution for providing a sound, basic education there, as well as to the other 110 "Roosevelt's" in our state, many of which are in predominately white communities. Roosevelt happens to be part of our own Town (of Hempstead) and County, and state tax dollars spent trying to fix Roosevelt's schools are dollars that are not going to Wantagh schools, or Seaford schools, etc. Among Roosevelt's documented failures are the secondary (high school) participation rates for ELA & Math. Before "Opt-Out" had become fashionable, Roosevelt had 8%-11% non-participation (see the 2011-12 Accountability Report, pages 13 & 16) in Math and ELA, respectively. With a Secondary Math Performance Index of 80*, compared with Wantagh's Secondary Math Performance Index of 174, it appears that Roosevelt's students have become personally discouraged by their school district's persistent failings, which translate to personal failures for the students themselves. Why bother taking another dumb test about stuff we don't understand? Who wants to keep on failing and failing stuff?Why do we care in Wantagh? Because we are paying dearly for those failures, and, we are experiencing a dearth of state and federal funding here in Wantagh as a result. I also will carp on the fact that this situation persists in Roosevelt despite Roosevelt having been run by the State Education Department for the prior 11 years. Billy Joel would ask, "Is that all you get for your money?" But remember, not every "Roosevelt" is in Roosevelt or even on Long Island. Chris Wendt * The Secondary Level Math Performance Index (PI) of 80 is for 'All Students' at Roosevelt High School, meaning, however, the 92% who sat for the tests, in all student categories (gender, race, special & general education, economic situation, etc.). This PI is lower for black students (78), and lower still for economically disadvantaged students (75) in Roosevelt (follow link, go to page 17). All data for Roosevelt in this post are for the 2011-12 School Year, the year before the 2013 Assessments. These data and results predate the Common Core. Items in bold, blue font, above, are hyperlinks to NYSED source data. -CW Edited for clarification of Roosevelt PI 9/15/13
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 16, 2013 11:07:55 GMT -5
Up front here I would like to make it clear that the following information is prospective and speculative, meaning, it is not data, but derived from the 2013 Assessment data. It is provided as a potential example of the effects, intended or unintended, of NYSED having unleashed the 2013 Assessments on students and schools and school districts two years ahead of the agreed-upon PARCC Common Core Assessment schedule. Using the NYSED published formula for determining the Performance Index (PI) for Elementary and Middle Level for ELA & Math, for 2012 presuming the same formula will be used in 2013, based on the 2013 Assessment results, then Roosevelt's PI for elementary and middle level ELA & Math Assessments would be as follows: ELA Performance Index: 52-54, down from 112 in 2012, for a decline of nearly 60 points, or about 50% worse than the prior year. Math Performance Index: 45-47, down from 121 in 2012, for a decline of about 75 points, or more than 60% below the prior year. Of course, NYSED could be working hard at changing the equation for computing the PI for the 2013 Assessments. Or they could be re-thinking normalizing the scores. There is also one key definition that could be changed in the PI formula, that being who is considered as being "On Track", despite scoring 1 or 2 on their Assessments. That change would be the least transparent method of rigging the results for political purposes. Readers may wish to ask themselves: if NYSED is not trying to tinker with the results of the 2013 Assessments, then what is reason for the delay in their releasing the scores to parents? Circumspect... Chris Wendt Additional Information: NYSED Formula for calculating Assessment Performance Index ("PI") in 2012: Performance Index (PI): A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative). Student scores on the tests are converted to six performance levels: Level 1 On Track, Level 1 Not On Track, Level 2 On Track, Level 2 Not On Track, Level 3, and Level 4. A PI is calculated using the levels and the following equation: ([2(Count at Level 1 On Track) + Count at Level 2 Not On Track + 2(Count at Level 2 On Track) + 2(Count at Level 3) + 2(Count at Level 4)] ÷ [Count of Tested Students]) × 100 chriswendt117@gmail.com for more information.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 17, 2013 10:42:35 GMT -5
Someone inquired offline, how did Wantagh’s Performance Indices fare after the 2013 Assessments? Again, the following information is prospective and speculative, meaning, it is not ‘hard data’, but derived from the 2013 Assessment data. It is provided by way of example of the potential effects of NYSED having deployed the 2013 Assessments upon students and schools and school districts two years ahead of the agreed-upon PARCC Common Core Assessment schedule (hyperlink to PARCC Consortium Assessment Schedule). Using the NYSED published formula* for determining the Performance Index (PI) for Elementary and Middle Level for ELA & Math, for 2012 presuming the same formula will be used in 2013, based on the 2013 Assessment results, then Wantagh's PI for Elementary and Middle Level ELA & Math Assessments could be as follows: Projected Wantagh ELA Performance Index: 136-139, down from 177 in 2012, for a decline of nearly 40 points, or about 22% worse than the prior year. Projected Wantagh Math Performance Index: 150-151, down from 185 in 2012, for a decline of about 34 points, or nearly 20% below the prior year. While the outlook for Wantagh’s (District) School Report Card (where the PI is used) is not as bleak as Roosevelt’s prospects would seem to be, this precipitous if only illusory drop in Wantagh’s performance indices between 2012 and 2013 will not be a good thing. Baseline or nonsense? You be the judge. I say: nonsense; bad results from bad tests. If you are a parent who is awaiting your child’s 2013 Assessment Scores then you should be asking yourself the question of the day: If NYSED is not trying to tinker with the results of the 2013 Assessments, then what is reason for the delay in their releasing our children’s scores to us? Still circumspect... Chris Wendt * NYSED Formula for calculating Assessment Performance Index ("PI") in 2012: Performance Index (PI): A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative). Student scores on the tests are converted to six performance levels: Level 1 On Track, Level 1 Not On Track, Level 2 On Track, Level 2 Not On Track, Level 3, and Level 4. A PI is calculated using the levels and the following equation: ([2(Count at Level 1 On Track) + Count at Level 2 Not On Track + 2(Count at Level 2 On Track) + 2(Count at Level 3) + 2(Count at Level 4)] ÷ [Count of Tested Students]) × 100 Edited for clarification 09-18-2013
|
|
|
Post by rr on Sept 27, 2013 15:46:43 GMT -5
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Sept 27, 2013 22:14:44 GMT -5
Point well made. our schools need to do more. Hopefully these new standards helps to get them on their way. If we don't challenge our students then how will they ever know what they can acheive
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 29, 2013 6:54:59 GMT -5
For anyone who is concerned about how their federal educational funds are spent, about the results of nationwide efforts to address the situation of massive numbers of high school graduates entering colleges only to learn that they have not been properly prepared to be in college, then this should be more than interesting: you should find it outrageous!In the narrower context of NY State, your reaction should be even more angered, as you have invested much more of your tax dollars, here, and NY is not a high-performing state, especially with all five of our Big Five Cities schools having poor assessment scores and low graduation rates. However, in the specific, immediate context of Wantagh schools, the article is not particularly interesting nor relevant. I will concede this, however: due to the crying need to improve both graduation rates and college readiness in many places throughout our state and our nation, even more of your future tax dollars will be diverted (from Wantagh) to Roosevelt, Hempstead, Yonkers, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and NY City. Wantagh tax dollars...squandered on wasted efforts which have produced minimal if any results in those places, while we continue to struggle financially to keep up our own standards, here. ...ever more of your tax dollars diverted (from NY State) to Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Miami and other failing Big City Schools around the U.S....squandered on similar efforts elsewhere, with little or no actual accountability for RESULTS in those places. Oh, yes, they all submit "Accountability Reports" to the U.S. Department of Education, and publish their "results" on their state and local (district) websites: Look! We FAILED Again!", alongside a story about being out of MONEY again, so please, SEND MORE MONEY! We, in Wantagh, are blessed with good schools which prepare our students well for their futures. We, on Long Island (and in Westchester County) are blessed with the good fortune of being capable of serving as a 'cash cow' for other parts of NY State who are much less fortunate. On a personal level, we, as individuals may care or not care about children elsewhere. But on a constitutional level, and therefore on an economic level, we are responsible to provide all of them in NY State with a free, sound, basic education. Be angry over the fact that, although we continue to pay the lion's share, the actual results have been as elusive as they have been illusory. Common Core is not going to fix any of that. Yours truly, Chris Wendt
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Sept 30, 2013 15:29:42 GMT -5
Chris
Your righteous indignation cracks me up. This thread has nothing to do with taxes yet when someone, whether RR or myself, mention how something needs to be done to change the way things are, you spout utter nonsense.
As a taxpayer, sure we all get upset at where are dollars go but this is where we decided to live. The only money coming out of Wantagh to NYS comes from income tax but with a aggregate gross income of less than $100k it is not that much. And part of that is offset by Star. And when Medicaid consumes more than 50% of the budget and fraud is rampant, anger may best be directed there
I don't believe that we are getting anywhere near fair value for what is spent on education in this country. If people really cared about giving people a sound education we would give out vouchers and let the parents choose where their kids go to school. But if unions and politicians in bed with each other, we know that will never happen.
If you want an example of where education can work like it should, look at New Orleans. Their whole school system was destroyed with Katrina and they have implemented an extensive charter school which is producing verifiable "hard data" which show a significant improvement.
Now I don't know why you publish these rants, but to each his own. All I know is that the school work that my kids are doing know is harder than the stuff from a couple of years ago. They may not like it but 15 years from now they will be better equipped to handle whatever it is they choose to do. And they will have both their teachers and Common Core to thank. As you yourself stated above "actual results have been as elusive as they have been illusory." It is about time something is done to shake things up.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 30, 2013 20:56:30 GMT -5
...The only money coming out of Wantagh to NYS comes from income tax.... Incorrect: The following money comes out of Wantagh to NYS: - Income Tax
- Sales Tax
- Petroleum Products Tax
- Tobacco Tax
- Alcoholic Beverage Tax
- Automobile & Boat Registration Fees
- Drivers License Fees
- State Park Fees
- Mortgage Recording Tax
- Real Estate Transfer Tax
Gift Tax (Repealed)
- Estate Tax
- Franchise Tax
- Beverage Container Tax (Reusable Bottle Deposit Tax)
- Waste Tire Management Fees
The 2011 Adjusted Gross Income for the Wantagh School District was approximately 571 Million Dollars. What did you suggest the State Income Tax for Wantagh was? I think the phrase you used was "...not that much"? On a different note, your suggestion about vouchers may have merit. You should really expound more about that. More to the point, did you get your kids' assessment scores yet? How did they do? How's that sitting with you? (Rhetorical question). Chris Wendt
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Sept 30, 2013 21:23:15 GMT -5
most of the fees listed above go towards certain funds and not the general reserve. and if you don't buy or use the above then you don't cost you anything.
And only 4% of sales tax goes back to the state
My children did get their scores. One got a 4 and a 3. the other a 3 and a 2. As a baseline, not too bad.
And what about your kids? did they handle the test well? Did they like or learn more from the new curriculum? Do you feel it is challenging them more? As I have stated previously, my youngest child is being taught more than my oldest. And she is handling it well.
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Oct 1, 2013 8:53:22 GMT -5
Mr. Wendt - here is something for you to read (from Saturday's WSJ) as you rehash old data that everyone already knows shows that public education is not doing what it should - and why change is needed.
Why Tough Teachers Get Good Results – by Joanne Lipman I had a teacher once who called his students "idiots" when they screwed up. He was our orchestra conductor, a fierce Ukrainian immigrant named Jerry Kupchynsky, and when someone played out of tune, he would stop the entire group to yell, "Who eez deaf in first violins!?" He made us rehearse until our fingers almost bled. He corrected our wayward hands and arms by poking at us with a pencil.
Today, he'd be fired. But when he died a few years ago, he was celebrated: Forty years' worth of former students and colleagues flew back to my New Jersey hometown from every corner of the country, old instruments in tow, to play a concert in his memory. I was among them, toting my long-neglected viola. When the curtain rose on our concert that day, we had formed a symphony orchestra the size of the New York Philharmonic.
I was stunned by the outpouring for the gruff old teacher we knew as Mr. K. But I was equally struck by the success of his former students. Some were musicians, but most had distinguished themselves in other fields, like law, academia and medicine. Research tells us that there is a positive correlation between music education and academic achievement. But that alone didn't explain the belated surge of gratitude for a teacher who basically tortured us through adolescence.
We're in the midst of a national wave of self-recrimination over the U.S. education system. Every day there is hand-wringing over our students falling behind the rest of the world. Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. trail students in 12 other nations in science and 17 in math, bested by their counterparts not just in Asia but in Finland, Estonia and the Netherlands, too. An entire industry of books and consultants has grown up that capitalizes on our collective fear that American education is inadequate and asks what American educators are doing wrong.
I would ask a different question. What did Mr. K do right? What can we learn from a teacher whose methods fly in the face of everything we think we know about education today, but who was undeniably effective?
As it turns out, quite a lot. Comparing Mr. K's methods with the latest findings in fields from music to math to medicine leads to a single, startling conclusion: It's time to revive old-fashioned education. Not just traditional but old-fashioned in the sense that so many of us knew as kids, with strict discipline and unyielding demands. Because here's the thing: It works. Now I'm not calling for abuse; I'd be the first to complain if a teacher called my kids names. But the latest evidence backs up my modest proposal. Studies have now shown, among other things, the benefits of moderate childhood stress; how praise kills kids' self-esteem; and why grit is a better predictor of success than SAT scores.
All of which flies in the face of the kinder, gentler philosophy that has dominated American education over the past few decades. The conventional wisdom holds that teachers are supposed to tease knowledge out of students, rather than pound it into their heads. Projects and collaborative learning are applauded; traditional methods like lecturing and memorization—derided as "drill and kill"—are frowned upon, dismissed as a surefire way to suck young minds dry of creativity and motivation.
But the conventional wisdom is wrong. And the following eight principles—a manifesto if you will, a battle cry inspired by my old teacher and buttressed by new research—explain why.
1. A little pain is good for you. Psychologist K. Anders Ericsson gained fame for his research showing that true expertise requires about 10,000 hours of practice, a notion popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers." But an often-overlooked finding from the same study is equally important: True expertise requires teachers who give "constructive, even painful, feedback," as Dr. Ericsson put it in a 2007 Harvard Business Review article. He assessed research on top performers in fields ranging from violin performance to surgery to computer programming to chess. And he found that all of them "deliberately picked unsentimental coaches who would challenge them and drive them to higher levels of performance."
2. Drill, baby, drill. Rote learning, long discredited, is now recognized as one reason that children whose families come from India (where memorization is still prized) are creaming their peers in the National Spelling Bee Championship. This cultural difference also helps to explain why students in China (and Chinese families in the U.S.) are better at math. Meanwhile, American students struggle with complex math problems because, as research makes abundantly clear, they lack fluency in basic addition and subtraction—and few of them were made to memorize their times tables.
William Klemm of Texas A&M University argues that the U.S. needs to reverse the bias against memorization. Even the U.S. Department of Education raised alarm bells, chastising American schools in a 2008 report that bemoaned the lack of math fluency (a notion it mentioned no fewer than 17 times). It concluded that schools need to embrace the dreaded "drill and practice."
3. Failure is an option. Kids who understand that failure is a necessary aspect of learning actually perform better. In a 2012 study, 111 French sixth-graders were given anagram problems that were too difficult for them to solve. One group was then told that failure and trying again are part of the learning process. On subsequent tests, those children consistently outperformed their peers. The fear, of course is that failure will traumatize our kids, sapping them of self-esteem. Wrong again. In a 2006 study, a Bowling Green State University graduate student followed 31 Ohio band students who were required to audition for placement and found that even students who placed lowest "did not decrease in their motivation and self-esteem in the long term." The study concluded that educators need "not be as concerned about the negative effects" of picking winners and losers.
4. Strict is better than nice. What makes a teacher successful? To find out, starting in 2005 a team of researchers led by Claremont Graduate University education professor Mary Poplin spent five years observing 31 of the most highly effective teachers (measured by student test scores) in the worst schools of Los Angeles, in neighborhoods like South Central and Watts. Their No. 1 finding: "They were strict," she says. "None of us expected that." The researchers had assumed that the most effective teachers would lead students to knowledge through collaborative learning and discussion. Instead, they found disciplinarians who relied on traditional methods of explicit instruction, like lectures. "The core belief of these teachers was, 'Every student in my room is underperforming based on their potential, and it's my job to do something about it—and I can do something about it,'" says Prof. Poplin.
She reported her findings in a lengthy academic paper. But she says that a fourth-grader summarized her conclusions much more succinctly this way: "When I was in first grade and second grade and third grade, when I cried my teachers coddled me. When I got to Mrs. T's room, she told me to suck it up and get to work. I think she's right. I need to work harder."
5. Creativity can be learned. The rap on traditional education is that it kills children's' creativity. But Temple University psychology professor Robert W. Weisberg's research suggests just the opposite. Prof. Weisberg has studied creative geniuses including Thomas Edison, Frank Lloyd Wright and Picasso—and has concluded that there is no such thing as a born genius. Most creative giants work ferociously hard and, through a series of incremental steps, achieve things that appear (to the outside world) like epiphanies and breakthroughs.
Prof. Weisberg analyzed Picasso's 1937 masterpiece Guernica, for instance, which was painted after the Spanish city was bombed by the Germans. The painting is considered a fresh and original concept, but Prof. Weisberg found instead that it was closely related to several of Picasso's earlier works and drew upon his study of paintings by Goya and then-prevalent Communist Party imagery. The bottom line, Prof. Weisberg told me, is that creativity goes back in many ways to the basics. "You have to immerse yourself in a discipline before you create in that discipline. It is built on a foundation of learning the discipline, which is what your music teacher was requiring of you."
6. Grit trumps talent. In recent years, University of Pennsylvania psychology professor Angela Duckworth has studied spelling bee champs, Ivy League undergrads and cadets at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.—all together, over 2,800 subjects. In all of them, she found that grit—defined as passion and perseverance for long-term goals—is the best predictor of success. In fact, grit is usually unrelated or even negatively correlated with talent.
Tough on the podium, Mr. K was always appreciative when he sat in the audience. Above, applauding his students in the mid-1970s.
Prof. Duckworth, who started her career as a public school math teacher and just won a 2013 MacArthur "genius grant," developed a "Grit Scale" that asks people to rate themselves on a dozen statements, like "I finish whatever I begin" and "I become interested in new pursuits every few months." When she applied the scale to incoming West Point cadets, she found that those who scored higher were less likely to drop out of the school's notoriously brutal summer boot camp known as "Beast Barracks." West Point's own measure—an index that includes SAT scores, class rank, leadership and physical aptitude—wasn't able to predict retention.
Prof. Duckworth believes that grit can be taught. One surprisingly simple factor, she says, is optimism—the belief among both teachers and students that they have the ability to change and thus to improve. In a 2009 study of newly minted teachers, she rated each for optimism (as measured by a questionnaire) before the school year began. At the end of the year, the students whose teachers were optimists had made greater academic gains.
7. Praise makes you weak… My old teacher Mr. K seldom praised us. His highest compliment was "not bad." It turns out he was onto something. Stanford psychology professor Carol Dweck has found that 10-year-olds praised for being "smart" became less confident. But kids told that they were "hard workers" became more confident and better performers.
"The whole point of intelligence praise is to boost confidence and motivation, but both were gone in a flash," wrote Prof. Dweck in a 2007 article in the journal Educational Leadership. "If success meant they were smart, then struggling meant they were not."
8.…while stress makes you strong. A 2011 University at Buffalo study found that a moderate amount of stress in childhood promotes resilience. Psychology professor Mark D. Seery gave healthy undergraduates a stress assessment based on their exposure to 37 different kinds of significant negative events, such as death or illness of a family member. Then he plunged their hands into ice water. The students who had experienced a moderate number of stressful events actually felt less pain than those who had experienced no stress at all. "Having this history of dealing with these negative things leads people to be more likely to have a propensity for general resilience," Prof. Seery told me. "They are better equipped to deal with even mundane, everyday stressors."
Prof. Seery's findings build on research by University of Nebraska psychologist Richard Dienstbier, who pioneered the concept of "toughness"—the idea that dealing with even routine stresses makes you stronger. How would you define routine stresses? "Mundane things, like having a hardass kind of teacher," Prof. Seery says.
My tough old teacher Mr. K could have written the book on any one of these principles. Admittedly, individually, these are forbidding precepts: cold, unyielding, and kind of scary. But collectively, they convey something very different: confidence. At their core is the belief, the faith really, in students' ability to do better. There is something to be said about a teacher who is demanding and tough not because he thinks students will never learn but because he is so absolutely certain that they will. Decades later, Mr. K's former students finally figured it out, too. "He taught us discipline," explained a violinist who went on to become an Ivy League-trained doctor. "Self-motivation," added a tech executive who once played the cello. "Resilience," said a professional cellist. "He taught us how to fail—and how to pick ourselves up again."
Clearly, Mr. K's methods aren't for everyone. But you can't argue with his results. And that's a lesson we can all learn from.
Ms. Lipman is co-author, with Melanie Kupchynsky, of "Strings Attached: One Tough Teacher and the Gift of Great Expectations," to be published by Hyperion on Oct. 1. She is a former deputy managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and former editor-in-chief of Condé Nast Portfolio.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 2, 2013 6:42:23 GMT -5
Such is not the way of the world. A version of this was making the rounds of the evening news yesterday. I regard it as educational fascism with a touch of Nietzsche's Superman philosophy written in an updated Maoist tone. I am less surprised that The Journal featured it than I am that you cut-and-pasted it, here. Of course, this is completely off-topic (Failure Analysis), but the shame is on me for having responded to it. I ask readers to pardon me for doing so, recognizing that I do so to affirmatively reject the premise out-of-hand. In Wantagh, for the last 3-4 decades, Board Trustees have had the privilege to hand-out roses to our teachers. I may have the order of the colors incorrect, but at a gathering just before the Board meeting when new teachers are appointed, we give each of them a white rose as they are introduced to us. Three years later, in a similar gathering, we give each teacher who passed probation a yellow rose as we grant them tenure. Many years later, at the annual Staff Recognition evenings, we hand them each a red rose upon their retirement. In between the white and the yellow and the red roses, thousands of Wantagh students grow and mature from Kindergartners to well-rounded and well-educated High School seniors, gathering laurels along the way for themselves, for their parents, and for those very same teachers to whom we had handed beautiful roses. The ultimate reward comes as we hand our graduates their diplomas and send them off into the world as well-grounded young adults. No name calling, no "poking them with pencils", and no "... teacher who basically tortured (any of them) through adolescence". Instead, we provided good Wantagh teaching "...in a secure, supportive environment..." designed to "...inspire students to develop a strong sense of individual worth and respect for others...and to fulfill themselves as concerned citizens in a diverse world." ( Mission Statement of the Wantagh School District). Read it, learn it. See how we do things, here. Chris Wendt
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Oct 2, 2013 10:48:36 GMT -5
Did you actually read the full and complete article? Or were you too busy analyizing your hard data to come up with your already preordained conclusion ?
While you hand out roses (more like fiddling while Rome burns) and ignore the fact that our kids are not prepared for college or the real world, which numerous articles and facts support but you choose to ignore. Change needs to occur. And while the Common Core may not be the correct way to do it, it is hopefully a start in the right direction. (and btw do you even know what is now being taught as compared to a couple of years ago. Or are you still ignoring the question and relying on something that your kids were taught years ago when they were actually in school?
You profess to care about the students but honestly all you seem to care about is the teachers and the administrators. And that is truly a shame but not surprising
|
|