Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-22-2015, 10:40 AM
 
Location: lakewood
572 posts, read 548,530 times
Reputation: 317

Advertisements

Sorry to offend, that was not my intent... it was to highlight that folks who are happy with the results/proposed reforms are not likely to expend time lobbying for the issue at hand currently.

Now, can we talk about the vague scenario you brought up?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:07 AM
 
224 posts, read 557,123 times
Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatsDEN View Post
This is vague, can we talk specifics?
I did bring up a specific issue, the failure of this board to extend full-day kindergarten. Do you care to comment on that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:19 AM
 
Location: lakewood
572 posts, read 548,530 times
Reputation: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by nele View Post
I did bring up a specific issue, the failure of this board to extend full-day kindergarten. Do you care to comment on that?
I can't speak for the board, but here's how they replied to the charge, from what I've been able to research...



The board did not support full day kindergarten for the neediest families —

This board is funding free full-day kindergarten for all free and reduced lunch (lower-income) students in the district. Prior to the 2013-14 budget, the district was spending over $4.5 million a year to underwrite free full-day kindergarten in 40 of the 90 elementary schools, but it was provided by school, not by student.

So, students living in poverty but not in the bounds of the 40 schools that offered free full-day kindergarten either had to obtain transportation to one of those schools or didn’t get access. In addition, because all students in those 40 schools received free full-day kindergarten, some students who didn’t need that funding were given free full-day kindergarten while families in the other 50 elementary schools had to pay for full-day kindergarten where it was offered. The board determined that was not fair.

In addition, the board looked at the programs in the 40 schools that offered free full-day kindergarten and determined that there was a wide variation in quality with some schools offering more recreational activities and some offering more academic programs. The board wanted more focus on academics. So for 2014-15 the board did not expand the number of schools offering free full-day kindergarten.

In 2015-16, for the first time in Jeffco, the board has redesigned how free full-day kindergarten will be offered. The board has provided funding to the elementary schools to ensure that all low-income families have access to free full-day kindergarten, and has requested data collection and analysis to determine how effectively programs are working to boost achievement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:37 AM
 
402 posts, read 366,969 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by step33 View Post
I commend them for getting elected in a low turn-out year, and mobilizing their base. But, at this point I just don't believe the WNW base is really parents. Heck, I have friends who have kids in JeffCo charter schools that believe these three have to go. That's not a good sign for them - they've just vastly overstepped what is reasonable.
I know I'm yelling against the wind, but what is wrong with people?? Voting is a civic duty just like jury duty, paying taxes, and registering for the draft. I know politics isn't everybody's "thing" but ensuring our society and government is going the best way possible should be everybody's "thing". Being an informed voter and actually showing up to the polls or mailing in your ballot isn't that much work.

With that being said, if people are not going to inform themselves and just blindly vote party line, we're all better off if they just don't vote at all.

/rant /threadjack

Last edited by rumline; 07-22-2015 at 11:43 AM.. Reason: used the wrong idiom
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:50 AM
 
384 posts, read 505,367 times
Reputation: 689
Pretty sure this is well documented here: Jeffco board rejects fact-finder recommendations; Witt makes new compensation proposal | Chalkbeat

I need to go back and find the transcript (or listen to) the meeting where Witt brings up his new plan - which was a surprise to everyone, including the CFO, etc., and raised a lot more questions than it answered. There were some very interesting comments made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 12:11 PM
 
Location: lakewood
572 posts, read 548,530 times
Reputation: 317
So, you don't think the additional compensation being distributed is enough? Or are you upset the recommendations from the fact finder weren't given enough consideration? Or?


Haven't starting salaries been increased, benefits pmts increased, salaries bumped based on evaluations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 02:33 PM
 
384 posts, read 505,367 times
Reputation: 689
I am low on time, but in short, the plan announced by WNW was not as good as it could have been for either the district or the teachers. It was not collaborative and reads like some national playbook being landed in JeffCo. I don't like that. Again, to me, WNW are extremists pushing an outside agenda and we don't need that in a pretty moderate area - a place people move to avoid many of the issues we are now all arguing about. And it only got worse when Williams dropped her ill-conceived straight from Texas plan to review AP History, Health, etc. Newkirk tried to help her cover that up with more moderate language, but the damage was already done by then.

Also note, raises were due to happen regardless. They can't trumpet "we gave raises" as some big prize to the teachers when the notion of NOT raising salaries after the freeze years was never on the table.

A little more effort on the pilot plans already in place would have generated a far better plan. Instead we got a "baby out with the bathwater" plan that made no one happy.

I must ask the simple question of have you attended or listened to one of these Witt led school board meetings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 03:56 PM
 
Location: lakewood
572 posts, read 548,530 times
Reputation: 317
Last week, 56 professors and historians published a*petition*on the website of the National Association of Scholars, urging opposition to the College Board’s framework. Pushback against the new AP U.S. history curriculum has also emerged in Texas, Colorado, Tennessee, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Georgia.

Bye, Bye, American History - WSJ

To me, characterizing this questioning of the College Board's revised framework as "straight out of Texas" seems quite judgemental....


I doubt most of what "people" do, is as best as could be done... it is the nature of things... always room for improvement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 10:31 AM
 
384 posts, read 505,367 times
Reputation: 689
Here is the proposal Ms Williams submitted on September 14th or 15th, 2014:

http://www.boarddocs.com/co/jeffco/B...m%20Review.pdf

The committee shall be seated by the Board. Each director may nominated up to three candidates for the committee and the entire board then will vote to select the nine (9) members of the committee. The charge to the committee is to review curricular choices for conformity to JeffCo academic standards, accuracy and omissions, and to inform the board of any objectionable materials.

The committee shall regularly review texts and curriculum according to priorities that it establishes, however, at any time, the Board may add items to the list for review. The committee shall report all comments (majority and minority) to the board in writing on a weekly basis as items are reviewed. Board members may move for discussion or action on items reported when matters warrant public discussion or action. The committee’s initial projects will be a review of the AP US History curriculum and elementary health curriculum.

Review criteria shall include the following: instructional materials should present the most current factual information accurately and objectively. Theories should be distinguished from fact. Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.

Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions.""

And for comparison, here is the quite similar text from the Texas Education Agency - SBOE Operating Rules Amended 1-30-13

SBOE Operating Rules Amended 1-30-13

""(4) The board may adopt a resolution expressing an opinion related to instructional materials based on the following criteria:

(A) Instructional materials should present the most current factual information accurately and objectively without editorial opinion or bias by the authors. Theories should be clearly distinguished from fact and presented in an objective educational manner.

(B) Instructional materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, understanding of the essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for recognized authority, and respect for individual rights. The materials should not include selections or works that encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife, or disregard of the law. Violence, if it appears, should be treated in the context of its cause and consequence. It should not appear for reasons of unwholesome excitement or sensationalism.

(i) Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage.

(ii) When significant political or social movements in history generate no clear consensus, instructional materials should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions.""

-------

So yes, I would say that some of this does in fact come "straight out of Texas."

One thing I think most of us agree on here in Colorado is we do NOT want to be like Texas (nor pretty much any states on that rather dubious list you posted. Most folks I know would say that being on such a list is a negative - not a confirmation of anything positive). You'll find that opinion pretty consistently from the liberal cities to the conservative ranching counties.

I'm also not interested in being on a short list that was only IL, CA, NY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 11:17 AM
 
Location: lakewood
572 posts, read 548,530 times
Reputation: 317
My point in posting the information was that Colorado is not alone in questioning the framework...

Academics, and other interested parties have also expressed concern...


In fact, if my understanding is correct, the College Board is in the process of revising the framework yet again,
In part due to the numerous comments and attention the materials have garnered nationally...

The tone and content of your response, to me, seems quite judgemental...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top