The D-11 Fact Sheet Alliance for What
The Alliance for Quality Public Schools was formed by Karen Teja, Jan Tanner, Tami Hasling, John Garten, as well as myself and numerous others in 2003.
It was used as a springboard to elect Tami Hasling to the School Board in 2005. I assisted with the appointment of Jan Tanner to the treasurer position through the intervention of then board president Sandy Shakes.
Through the efforts of the Alliance, more moderate and less strident voice was established at the board level.
By 2007 Jan Tanner would be formally elected to the BOE where she was elected to a full term subsequent to her winning a recall election where she ran against Sandy ShakesDELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
Total: 91,419.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The D-11 Fact Sheet Alliance for What?
The D-11 Fact Sheet Alliance for What
The Alliance for Quality Public Schools was formed by Karen Teja, Jan Tanner, Tami Hasling, John Garten, as well as myself and numerous others in 2003.
It was used as a springboard to elect Tami Hasling to the School Board in 2005. I assisted with the appointment of Jan Tanner to the treasurer position through the intervention of then board president Sandy Shakes.
Through the efforts of the Alliance, more moderate and less strident voice was established at the board level.
By 2007 Jan Tanner would be formally elected to the BOE where she was elected to a full term subsequent to her winning a recall election where she ran against Sandy ShakesDELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
Total: 91,419.24
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
The Alliance for Quality Public Schools was formed by Karen Teja, Jan Tanner, Tami Hasling, John Garten, as well as myself and numerous others in 2003.
It was used as a springboard to elect Tami Hasling to the School Board in 2005. I assisted with the appointment of Jan Tanner to the treasurer position through the intervention of then board president Sandy Shakes.
Through the efforts of the Alliance, more moderate and less strident voice was established at the board level.
By 2007 Jan Tanner would be formally elected to the BOE where she was elected to a full term subsequent to her winning a recall election where she ran against Sandy ShakesDELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/16/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 8/31/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 10/11/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/4/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/10/2004 3,765.80
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 11/22/2004 3,416.52
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 12/8/2004 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/5/2005 3,850.24
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 1/21/2005 3,371.12
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 2/24/2005 4,829.56
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/8/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 3/15/2005 5,005.41
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/4/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 4/25/2005 4,796.34
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/5/2005 4,800.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 5/18/2005 6,081.25
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/16/2005 3,503.00
DELIA ARMSTRONG-BUSBY 6/30/2005 4,800.00
Total: 91,419.24
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Delia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong BusbyDelia Armstrong Busby
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Mythology of the Impoverish High School Dropout and Other Misperceptions About High School…
Introduction
The typical high dropout is not poor.
Review the statistical report of the performance of schools statewide and review the economic status of the students who dropout and you will find that the ratio of poverty to discontinuance from school is not as highly correlated as the ratio of race/ethnicity to dropout
The typical dropout is not a minority.
Numerically, the typical high school dropout is a non minority who is not poor.
Minority governed schools do not assure that minority students will thrive there.
Some charters which are created expressly to show that minority governed schools will be more successful because of the race or ethnicity of the school leaders in relation to students have proven to be unsuccessful in student retention or academic achievement.
The truth is the unengaged student will disengage in a school environment that does not positively engage with the educational attainment of each and every student.
On the surface, minority students in predominantly white schools will attain greater levels of retention to graduation, as well, as proficient academic attainment. What would make this so? What is in the culture of some schools and districts that make the success quotient higher when the quotient is not being driven by wealth or affluence or race?
A truth
Effective Administrative and Classroom Leadership are Great Myth Busters
Clearly, there is superior educational leadership in the culture. There is a sound instructional staff. The administration and the classroom leaders facilitate the level of attainment represented in the positive statistical data. The data displaces mythology related to graduation rates, dropout rates and standardized tests performance.
Readers may want specifics to a greater extent. The reality is that success is homegrown. The best answers are found within the environment that seeks growth and improvement for its students. It is the school staff and community that govern the success of students. Parents are as a chorus to the sermon of the school culture. They can connect with the school leadership – administrative and classroom staff and students to create the mythology busting tapestry of effective schools.
More to come---
The typical high dropout is not poor.
Review the statistical report of the performance of schools statewide and review the economic status of the students who dropout and you will find that the ratio of poverty to discontinuance from school is not as highly correlated as the ratio of race/ethnicity to dropout
The typical dropout is not a minority.
Numerically, the typical high school dropout is a non minority who is not poor.
Minority governed schools do not assure that minority students will thrive there.
Some charters which are created expressly to show that minority governed schools will be more successful because of the race or ethnicity of the school leaders in relation to students have proven to be unsuccessful in student retention or academic achievement.
The truth is the unengaged student will disengage in a school environment that does not positively engage with the educational attainment of each and every student.
On the surface, minority students in predominantly white schools will attain greater levels of retention to graduation, as well, as proficient academic attainment. What would make this so? What is in the culture of some schools and districts that make the success quotient higher when the quotient is not being driven by wealth or affluence or race?
A truth
Effective Administrative and Classroom Leadership are Great Myth Busters
Clearly, there is superior educational leadership in the culture. There is a sound instructional staff. The administration and the classroom leaders facilitate the level of attainment represented in the positive statistical data. The data displaces mythology related to graduation rates, dropout rates and standardized tests performance.
Readers may want specifics to a greater extent. The reality is that success is homegrown. The best answers are found within the environment that seeks growth and improvement for its students. It is the school staff and community that govern the success of students. Parents are as a chorus to the sermon of the school culture. They can connect with the school leadership – administrative and classroom staff and students to create the mythology busting tapestry of effective schools.
More to come---
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Robin Hood Effect of No Child Left Behind
Sam Dillon, writer for the New York Times, writes the following in Wednesday's New York Times, June 18, 2008
" A new study argues that the nation's focus on helping students who are furtherest behind may have provided a Robin Hood Effect, yielding steady academic gain for low achieving students in recent years at the expense of top students"
What? One wonders why the research dots are connected so that the above conclusion might be reached?
On one level, lets take the high schools. Top students tend to have highly qualified teachers. These teachers meet the standards in some cases for teaching advanced placement classes. Such teachers, because of their qualifications, may not maintain a teaching schedule that includes academically underachieving students.
On another level, lets look at lesson planning. Are we saying that classroom teachers do no planning for any students but the low achieving? Thus, the improvement in scores for that demographic? Really? My reality is such that the high achieving student requires the most extensive planning to address the depth of curriculum content that their intellect and cumulative knowledge requires.
Hmmmmmm-more to come on this topic
" A new study argues that the nation's focus on helping students who are furtherest behind may have provided a Robin Hood Effect, yielding steady academic gain for low achieving students in recent years at the expense of top students"
What? One wonders why the research dots are connected so that the above conclusion might be reached?
On one level, lets take the high schools. Top students tend to have highly qualified teachers. These teachers meet the standards in some cases for teaching advanced placement classes. Such teachers, because of their qualifications, may not maintain a teaching schedule that includes academically underachieving students.
On another level, lets look at lesson planning. Are we saying that classroom teachers do no planning for any students but the low achieving? Thus, the improvement in scores for that demographic? Really? My reality is such that the high achieving student requires the most extensive planning to address the depth of curriculum content that their intellect and cumulative knowledge requires.
Hmmmmmm-more to come on this topic
The Magic of the Absence Addiction Approach: A proven response to student engagement and retention
The Magic of the Absence Addiction Approach
The Magic of the Absence Addiction Approach: A proven response to student engagement and retention
The Absence Addiction Approach is a proven response to meeting the needs for secondary student engagement. With the proper commitment of all in the school setting, all students can be linked to the pathways of their life journey. The teaching of readin and writing and rithmatic is conducted in a school context that can be enriched by adding school cultural adjustments that enhance the success factor of the students and the staff.
It is my deep belief that the biggest factor in the assisted completion of the high school curriculum or course of study is the affective relationship of the student intra-personally and extra -personally. My next deeply held belief is that every secondary school in the United States has the potential to assist the graduation of every student who enters its doors. Any high school staff or concerned parent group or central office staff that wants more “kids” to graduate has all of the ingredients for attaining that outcome already. Each school setting must create the culture essential to the student outcomes it professes for all of its children.
“The Absence Addiction Approach (AAA) is a proven response to meeting the needs for secondary student engagement. “ This statement is repeated to bridge to the creation of an award winning conceptualization for the purpose of empowering students to take control of their success factor in the school setting. Using this process for student re-engagement, the measurable retention rate for students at risk of discontinuing from the high school setting rose to one of the highest reported in the state of Colorado. This retention growth was verified by the Colorado Department of Education and Denver Post reporter Bernie Morrison.
The content for the change in the curricular instruction for targeted students is driven by de-briefing students about their school behavior patterns in ways that permitted them to objectify rather than personalize past successes or failures in the school setting.
Next, brief lessons in the repetition of behavioral patterns are given as information. This imparting of information about personal choice assists the eagle’s view or balcony approach. This is energizing because it frees the energy being sapped by the student remaining equal to her least effective school performance. Next of course is the goal-setting. It is impossible for students to set meaningful goals with inhibiting barriers intruding on the success tract. Inherent in this educational approach is that both the staff and student can change to create new academic outcomes.
The third significant step in the AAA is the establishment of means to support the students and staff in managing change. In one case, this may mean some type of weekly or daily re-enforcement for change in the academic achievement gulf for targeted students. It may also mean some type of initially frequent re-enforcement for appropriate staff members. It is important that the majority of the staff involved is certificated elders in the instructional village also known as a school.
The fourth step is frequent assessment of the attainment of staff and student change goals. And in between practice, practice, practice.
The process above assisted in my selection for the National Educational Leadership Award given by the Milken Foundation and the Colorado Governor’s Award as Outstanding Individual
The Magic of the Absence Addiction Approach: A proven response to student engagement and retention
The Absence Addiction Approach is a proven response to meeting the needs for secondary student engagement. With the proper commitment of all in the school setting, all students can be linked to the pathways of their life journey. The teaching of readin and writing and rithmatic is conducted in a school context that can be enriched by adding school cultural adjustments that enhance the success factor of the students and the staff.
It is my deep belief that the biggest factor in the assisted completion of the high school curriculum or course of study is the affective relationship of the student intra-personally and extra -personally. My next deeply held belief is that every secondary school in the United States has the potential to assist the graduation of every student who enters its doors. Any high school staff or concerned parent group or central office staff that wants more “kids” to graduate has all of the ingredients for attaining that outcome already. Each school setting must create the culture essential to the student outcomes it professes for all of its children.
“The Absence Addiction Approach (AAA) is a proven response to meeting the needs for secondary student engagement. “ This statement is repeated to bridge to the creation of an award winning conceptualization for the purpose of empowering students to take control of their success factor in the school setting. Using this process for student re-engagement, the measurable retention rate for students at risk of discontinuing from the high school setting rose to one of the highest reported in the state of Colorado. This retention growth was verified by the Colorado Department of Education and Denver Post reporter Bernie Morrison.
The content for the change in the curricular instruction for targeted students is driven by de-briefing students about their school behavior patterns in ways that permitted them to objectify rather than personalize past successes or failures in the school setting.
Next, brief lessons in the repetition of behavioral patterns are given as information. This imparting of information about personal choice assists the eagle’s view or balcony approach. This is energizing because it frees the energy being sapped by the student remaining equal to her least effective school performance. Next of course is the goal-setting. It is impossible for students to set meaningful goals with inhibiting barriers intruding on the success tract. Inherent in this educational approach is that both the staff and student can change to create new academic outcomes.
The third significant step in the AAA is the establishment of means to support the students and staff in managing change. In one case, this may mean some type of weekly or daily re-enforcement for change in the academic achievement gulf for targeted students. It may also mean some type of initially frequent re-enforcement for appropriate staff members. It is important that the majority of the staff involved is certificated elders in the instructional village also known as a school.
The fourth step is frequent assessment of the attainment of staff and student change goals. And in between practice, practice, practice.
The process above assisted in my selection for the National Educational Leadership Award given by the Milken Foundation and the Colorado Governor’s Award as Outstanding Individual
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Has No Child Left Behind Failed?
An educator's response to Claudia Wallis.
Ms. Wallis, I recently read your article on Time.com regarding Dr. Neuman and No Child Left Behind.
I am most drawn to the article statement which shares that the "Economic Policy Institute,... is releasing a document entitled "A Broader Bolder Approach to Education" which "lays out an expansive vision for leveling the
playing for low income kids, one that looks toward new policies in
child health and support for parents and communities."
To me, the crux of the statement by the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank, is the approximately 25 billion dollar budget allocation to
Title One. The figure regarding the budgetary allocation is sourced by the Democratic staff committee on Education and Labor, US House of Representatives, February 5, 2007.
The Economic Policy Institute statement -proposal is intended to influence the dollars currently allocated to instruction under the current Title One parameters.
Under the current title one guidelines additional vendors
outside of the instructional realm are not the primary recipients of these monies.
Title One dollars do not necessarily flow directly into the hands of social interventionists or developmental theorists.
Yet, if the representatives of the Broader,Bolder, Approach attain political leverage, then the amended allocation guidelines can reflect their political influence.
Ms. Wallis, I recently read your article on Time.com regarding Dr. Neuman and No Child Left Behind.
I am most drawn to the article statement which shares that the "Economic Policy Institute,... is releasing a document entitled "A Broader Bolder Approach to Education" which "lays out an expansive vision for leveling the
playing for low income kids, one that looks toward new policies in
child health and support for parents and communities."
To me, the crux of the statement by the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank, is the approximately 25 billion dollar budget allocation to
Title One. The figure regarding the budgetary allocation is sourced by the Democratic staff committee on Education and Labor, US House of Representatives, February 5, 2007.
The Economic Policy Institute statement -proposal is intended to influence the dollars currently allocated to instruction under the current Title One parameters.
Under the current title one guidelines additional vendors
outside of the instructional realm are not the primary recipients of these monies.
Title One dollars do not necessarily flow directly into the hands of social interventionists or developmental theorists.
Yet, if the representatives of the Broader,Bolder, Approach attain political leverage, then the amended allocation guidelines can reflect their political influence.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Delia A. Busby, Educator has left a new comment on the post "Mandated Tutoring Not Helping Md., Va. Scores":
I am Delia Armstrong Busby, Milken Educator and Harvard Fellow. I provide educational support services both as an supplemental services provider and educational consultant on dropout intervention.
My experience as a private consultant to school districts contradicts the information included here regarding measurable results for reading or math in one on one tutoring situations.
With well over a thousand students as a base for experience, the data I have compiled suggests that with the proper supervision and instructional competency that all children involved in our program get measurable change in the achievement markers.
To me, the comments posted do not represent a substantive assessment of what can be a complex approach to improving the achievement gap.
I am Delia Armstrong Busby, Milken Educator and Harvard Fellow. I provide educational support services both as an supplemental services provider and educational consultant on dropout intervention.
My experience as a private consultant to school districts contradicts the information included here regarding measurable results for reading or math in one on one tutoring situations.
With well over a thousand students as a base for experience, the data I have compiled suggests that with the proper supervision and instructional competency that all children involved in our program get measurable change in the achievement markers.
To me, the comments posted do not represent a substantive assessment of what can be a complex approach to improving the achievement gap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
