I agree with your assessment, although I would have expected your Einstein’s-definition-of-insanity analogy because these incumbents and the other four “co-conspirators” really do keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.

It is depressing that the challengers may only be better than the incumbents because the challengers have not yet has the opportunity to prove themselves as incompetent as the incumbents. But that is a risk I think is worth taking.

If you’re going to compare rankings from 2009 to 2012 you should note that at least 7 of the schools in the more recent list are selective enrollment high schools in Chicago, which cherry pick only the top students in the city. Not an apples comparison but it’s convenient to pretend it is when it skews the numbers to boost your claims of decline.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, but that’s still the same competitive pool. Many (most?) of our new residents come from Chicago, which causes our school boards, teachers, administrators and apologists to puff out their chests and brag about how those Chicago residents are coming to Park Ridge “for the schools” – because of the perception that the education their kids can get here for “free” is BETTER than what they could get in Chicago for “free.”

So when those same Chicago residents now see that their kids can get better educations from those 7 new “selective enrollment high schools” while paying Chicago taxes that are significantly lower than Park Ridge taxes, their incentive to pick up and move to Park Ridge diminishes. And that arguably reduces the demand for our residences and, therefore, our property values.

“So when those same Chicago residents now see that their kids can get better educations from those 7 new “selective enrollment high schools”

I think the point is that depending on the student and family, it is highly likely that they are not getting a “better” education at one of those schools. People scream about test scores and costs. Well these schools addressed two big drivers of these numbers up front. They weeded out the “under performers” by requiring students to test their way into the school and they limited costs by not servicing special needs students. IF MS instituted policies such as this you would see dramatic improvement in both test scores and costs.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If D-64 or D-207 wants to blame “special needs students” for their over-priced under-performance, LET THEM SAY SO, publicly, loudly and consistently! And then let them prove it by whatever data they choose.

As a follow up, I find it very interesting that not a single candidate for either board has made a single suggestion about anything behind the test scores or any way to improve test scores. There has not been a single comment about what our teachers or admin are doing wrong that they would like to change. In fact virtually all candidates have strong praise for our teachers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t expect non-educators to have a teacher’s or administrator’s specialized knowledge, training and experience of what should or shouldn’t be done to improve student performance. Those non-educators should, however, know underperformance when they see the objectively-measurable evidence of it – and they should demand that teachers and administrators be accountable for explaining it and suggesting remedies for it.

According to incumbents Sullivan and Besler, D-207 is doing so well that they don’t believe any changes are needed; and Morales offers nothing but that D-207 is doing “a good job.” So they have no reason even to ask D-207 teachers and administrators what could be improved.

At D-64 we find it noteworthy that the only TEACHER/ADMINISTRATOR in the race, PREA-recruited Greg Bublitz, offers the following in response to the H-A question “How can student achievement be improved?”:

“The board can maintain oversight of funding and educational initiatives to ensure that the right things are being done to improve the district without jumping on the latest fad or program. The board can help ensure that administration is using data, research-based practice and appropriate strategies in directing the district. As a director in a school district, nothing upsets me more than waste and inefficiency.”

So much for THIS teacher/administrator’s specialized knowledge, training and experience.

They did not use it as an excuse and neither did I. It is not an excuse. It is a fact. If you are comparing scores and or costs you have to look at differences in the programs provided and the fact that these schools (selective enrollment) do not service the same special needs students is a cost factor. Are you disputing that it costs more to “educate” a special needs child??

My response was to your post about better education at selective enrollment schools. You completely avoided the main point, that being students having to test in. Are you saying that if MS had the same “test in” procedures their test scores would not go up??

EDITOR’S NOTE: A “fact” that EXCUSES something is… wait for it…an “excuse.” And that’s exactly how you are using it.

So if the cost of special needs kids is such a big part of D-207’s or D-64’s costs, let THEM say so! And if special needs kids’ test scores are such a big part of D-207’s and D-64’s under-performance, let THEM say so! We would be more than willing to listen to those arguments and that evidence, and we are pretty certain so would all the other Park Ridge taxpayers who can’t figure out the current overpriced underperformance.

Come back here when YOU can document the single premise of your argument – that D-207’s and D-64’s overpriced underperformance is attributable to special needs kids – and we can talk again about whether your argument has any legitimacy.

Here is documentation……you!! You stated the following. “Dathan Paterno is a licensed clinical psychologist whose practice centers on children and adolescents. He has expressed a refreshing willingness to address tough issues like the cost-benefit equation for D-64’s traditional special education programs, which he correctly notes are “enormously expensive” for the relatively small number of students served”.

Hmmmmm……”he correctly notes are “enormously expensive” for the relatively small number of students served”. So you think, or thought, that there is a clear difference is expenses in education special needs children. They are not just more expensive, they are ENORMOUSLY expensive. My god that is one of the reasons you gave as an endorsement.

So if our schools simply did not take on education special needs children (as do selective enrollment schools) these expenses that Dr. Paterno was concerned about, and that you commended him for being concerned about would go away. The schools cost per student would go down. By the way, exactly what has Dr. Paterno done about this whole issue since being elected to the board??

Lastly, you said the following….”And if special needs kids’ test scores are such a big part of D-207’s and D-64’s under-performance, let THEM say so!”

Either you made a typo or you don’t get it. This has nothing to do with special needs test scores. The point about selective enrollment is you have to take a test to get it…..period. If your scores are not high enough you don’t get to go to that school. Therefore the school is made up of the best and the brightest. They weed out many kids that might not do so well on the test up front by not even allowing them in the front door.

I am not saying that either of the above decisions are good or bad. I am simply saying that you have to at least factor them in when you compare schools.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Where’s your documentation:

1. that those Chicago “selective enrollment” schools DON’T take in any “special needs” kids – given that some very bright kids can be “special needs” kids because of behavioral issues or physical disabilies;

2. the additional per-pupil cost of Maine South’s (or D-207’s, or D-64’s) special needs students;

3. the per pupil cost of those “selective enrollment” schools;

4. that “special needs” kids’ are given the same tests, and that their test scores are counted the same as non-special needs kids’ test scores for purposes of compiling school or district performance figures and rankings?

If you don’t want to do your homework, don’t expect us to do it for you. Or come out of the closet and reveal your identity so that our readers can bestow proper recognition on you.

My proof is that I agree with you. Special needs programs are more expensive for the relatively small amount of persons served. Paterno was correct and you were correct to agree with him and I agree with you. As to the documentation, well I will defer to the research that you and the good Doctor did and simply agree with you. Not to be crass but it only makes sense. Forgetting about the actual teaching, their is bussing and transport and many of these children require a great deal of supervision. The district pays for these things.

As to your number 4……4. that “special needs” kids’ are given the same tests, and that their test scores are counted the same as non-special needs kids’ test scores for purposes of compiling school or district performance figures and rankings?”

Who said that they were??? Certainly not me.

I do not think that many of the special needs kids are given the same test or that scores count. To be clear there is no way that tests for many of the special needs are counted or included in rankings. How on earth could you think that some of these kids the district services would have their scores included?

The point is that Selective Enrollment schools get to pick and choose from the students (not special needs students) that the accept. They test them to get in and those that don’t meet the criteria don’t get in. If Maine south could simply not accept students based on a test and send them somewhere else the test score and school rankings would go up. Conversely, if Walter Payton was now required to accept all students in their geographic area their ranking would go down. When you compare the school rankings that fat has to be taken into consideration.

EDITOR’S NOTE: For years the smartest and most affluent Chicagoans fled to suburbs like Park Ridge once their kids got to school age. And both then and now, many of the smartest and most affluent who stayed in the city have sent their kids to Latin, UofC Lab, Francis Parker, or St. Ignatius. So just because kids have to test into those selective enrollment schools doesn’t necessarily mean that they are necessarily brighter than Maine South kids – unless you’ve got data that says otherwise.

By the way, you missed another question I asked. The guy you endorsed (in part) because “he has expressed a refreshing willingness to address tough issues like the cost-benefit equation for D-64’s traditional special education programs, which he correctly notes are “enormously expensive” for the relatively small number of students served”.

How did he address it?? What has he done about it??

EDITOR’S NOTE: To our knowledge, nothing. And if he chooses to run in two years we’ll hold him accountable for it. But since you seem to be so interested in the issue, what have John Heyde, Scott Zimmerman, Vicki Lee, et al. done about it?

Actually the selective enrollment schools do take special needs kids, they have a quota. But like the rest of their populations, they are still among the best and brightest in the city, having never received Bs and getting near perfect scores on their entrance exams and standardized tests. Only a small fraction of students who apply get into those top high schools and those who don’t are left to scramble for private schools or the burbs.

It isn’t the high functioning special needs kids who bring test scores down but the average or below average student who may not put a high premium on academics or struggles with unidentified learning disabilities.

So it makes no sense to put selective enrollment schools on the same list as open enrollment schools like MS. As for other suburban schools that rank higher than MS, you can be sure the median income for those schools I is higher than in Park Ridge, in some cases, like the New Trier attendance area, much higher. MS’s low income population has increased in recent years. As has its population of English language learners. Both of which can be big factors in declining test scores. MS is holding its own pretty well when you consider those facts.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we noted earlier, unless and until we see hard data that proves the Chicago kids getting into those selective enrollment schools – “having never received Bs [from CPS elementary schools!]and getting near perfect scores on their entrance exams and standardized tests” – are that much smarter than the kids at Maine South, we’ll hold off on branding Maine South kids as dolts and dullards who can’t be educated to compete with those other schools.

They have done nothing but then again they did not run on that issue nor were they endorsed for it. So let’s review. You say he was correct that the costs for special ed were high. He has done nothing to address it (nor had anyone)’ but you want documentation from me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “documentation” did we ask from you?

So you are saying that if MS decided to put the same test in place as Walter Payton, and those who did not pass would not be allowed in, school ranking would not over time go up?!?

EDITOR’S NOTE: MS is already benefitting from “selective enrollment” by virtue of the socio-economic status of Park Ridge residents. Hence Maine South’s ranking substantially above Maine East and West.

Additionally, CPS is a disaster, so “A” students in their elementary schools might not even be as good as “B” students coming out of D-64 schools, or the local parochial schools.

And let’s not forget that the folks at D-207 and Maine South keep on insisting that there’s nothing wrong with their test scores, or the school rankings, or anything else. And Board members Sean Sullivan and Paula Besler believe D-207 is doing such a great job that no changes are necessary.

You did not answer my question. Are saying that if MS decided to put the same test in place as Walter Payton, and those who did not pass would not be allowed in, school ranking would not over time go up?!?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our job isn’t to answer every stupid question from anonymous half-wits.

That being said, we have no idea of the kind of test Walter Payton allegedly gives, or how prospective Maine South students might fare with it. And neither do you.

What more hard data for the selective enrollment schools do you need? Isn’t the criteria to get in enough? Cut off scores are published each year on CPSs website — and they amount to no Bs in 7th grade, exceptional scores on ISATs (as of this year, the NWEA MAP) and near perfect scores on the entrance exams. I imagine those kids who do get in match up with only the very top students at MS. Which is why those schools are called selective. No comparison.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t put much stock in what anonymous commentators “imagine” – without any documentation – about how an educational system as screwed up as CPS compares to D-207 or D-64.

I shouldn’t have said ” imagine” — I know only the very top kids here would get into the selective enrollment schools in Chicago. The numbers don’t lie. Those kids in Chicago feed into the top high schools from the top gifted and magnet programs in Chicago, many of which rank higher than Park Ridge and other suburban schools. Rankings seem to be the one thing about education you are willing to pay attention to.

Again, those top schools — elementary, middle and high school — rank so high because kids have to test into them. What don’t you understand about the concept of selective? You can’t really think that every kid in Park Ridge would test into a top program just because it’s in Chicago, which you apparently have zero clue about, school-wise at least.

Screwed up system or not, the selective enrollment schools are the one thing that’s working for it. For the top kids at least, everyone else in the city is out of luck.

And you never addressed the fact that while the selective high schools in Chicago have dominated the rankings in recent years (because, again, they are selective), Maine South now has a bigger low income population and a bigger English language learner population than it’s ever had. Those factors should be driving test scores down but they are remaining steady, which would indicate that someone’s doing something right.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What an anonymous commentator claims to “know” – about CPS, its selective enrollment schools, or Park Ridge schools – is worthless.

And selecting the tallest midgets in the circus still leaves you with midgets.

4:11:

I completely agree with you and he has not addressed what you have brought up. Funny how on the one hand he wants to live and die by tests that rank schools but challenges the validity of a test that controls who can get into selective enrollment schools.

It is also a consistent tactic that he hammers people who disagree as anonymous posters but never even mentions it for those who agree.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We aren’t “challeng[ing] the validity of a test that controls who can get into selective enrollment schools.” We assume it’s a “valid” test. We just whether that “selectivity” with which you are so enamored is being applied to a pool of “city” applicants who very well might be comparable to the lowest 1/2-to-2/3 of all the kids who attend Maine South; i.e., CPS “selective” = Park Ridge “average.”

But of course you don’t know that any more than we do, because you very well may be a PREA, MTA teacher, or school adminstrator who anonymously uses this forum to argue for keeping your gravy train running on schedule – children’s education and taxpayer rights be damned.

And, yes, we do hammer the anonymous commentators who post nonsense here – and you should be grateful we permit it so that your neighbors and other members of this community don’t know get to read about your freeloader/no-accountability views. But if you don’t like it, slink on over to those Facebook pages like Park Ridge Citizens Online or Park Ridge Concerned Homeowners Group, and talk the same trash under your own names.

PD:

Apparently a pretty heavy weight guy disagrees with you. This is a person who could have sent their kid anywhere they wanted…..ANYWHERE!!!!!! This is also a person who (I imagine) sent their kid to the best schools before high school. Probably had great tutors and all the best technology.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130424/BLOGS02/130429892/bruce-rauner-clouted-kid-into-payton-high-school-sources-say

Apparently this child did not make the grade the first time. Apparently he went to great lengths to establish a residence in Chicago so his child could even try to get in. Granted it was not great lengths for him with his bucks but for me it sure would be. All this while his child qualified and he was being taxed for New Trier!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Or maybe it was that our new Gov. might have been concerned that Li’l Miss Rauner wasn’t smart enough to hack the higher tracks at New Trier so he clouted her into into Payton to avoid a more “remedial” track at NT. And “being taxed for New Trier” meant nothing.

Yes Rauner clouted his kid in as did Michael Jordan some years ago before CPS started cracking down on it. And those are just a couple of high profile people that we know about. PD is making up this narrative that these Chicago schools are somehow inferior to suburban schools when in fact they have more cachet than even New Trier, especially among those who are looking to apply to top colleges. Check the ACT scores of Northside Prep. Perhaps you’ll believe those numbers since you can’t seem to believe that their top rankings have any merit.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve NEVER said that those “selective” CPS high schools “are somehow inferior to suburban schools.” We’ve consistently acknowledged their achievement – which could very well be due to SUPERIOR INSTRUCTION by the teachers in those schools AFTER the kids are in those schools, rather than to all of the kids entering those schools being significantly smarter than the kids entering Maine South.

Since nobody commenting here has any data that demonstrates how much smarter and more motivated, if any, those CPS kids are when they ENTER those schools over our kids entering Maine South..

Adding to previous post: According to Chicago Tribune’s 2014 school report card, Northside’s average ACT score was 30.2. For comparison, New Trier’s was 27.4 and Maine South’s was 24.2. Clearly the selective schools in Chicago are indeed selective and the average kid that MS serves couldn’t just waltz in. Nor can just any kid in Winnetka.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Not “clearly” at all. For all you or anybody else knows, the quality of instruction at Northside Prep is so much superior to what Maine South – or even New Trier – provides that after 2-3 years such instruction is responsible for driving up those ACT scores.

One more bit of data, Payton’s average ACT last year was 30.0. So I don’t think Rauner was worried about his daughter not being able to handle New Trier.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe Rauner believed the instructional quality at Payton is better than New Trier’s. We know a number of people from the New Trier district who don’t think NT is as good as it used to be. Kind of like Maine South, only still notably higher.

You did imply that Chicago’s selective enrollment high schools were inferior when you said Rauner probably wanted his daughter to go Payton because he was afraid she wouldn’t measure up at New Trier. And when you said the pool of kids applying was likely subpar compared to suburban counterparts simply because they are Chicagoans.

As for the teachers being responsible for the high ACT scores, you’re barking up the wrong tree again. EXPLORE test scores taken by freshman are consistently accurate predictors of ACT scores. The high caliber of kids at the selective schools arguably makes the teachers’ jobs easier than those who are required to teach students other than the top percentile.

Which brings me back to my original point: if Maine South could cherry pick the best and brightest its scores and ranking would be higher, too. But because they have to accept everyone in their enrollment boundaries — low income (8% at Maine South vs 1% at New Trier) and English language learners, it’s not fair to compare the two types of schools. Take the selective enrollment schools out of the equation and Maine South hasn’t declined as steeply as you love to insist.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, we suggested that if Rauner’s daughter couldn’t get into the top track(s) at NT, she’d likely be better off as a Payton grad. And yes, the Chicago applicant pool IS likely to be inferior to the better suburbs’ pools because the vast majority of those CPS kids can’t move to the more affluent burbs; and many of Chicago’s best and brightest end up at Latin, Parker, Lab, Ignatius and Loyola.

As for your other points, your insistence on hiding in the anonymous closet robs them of the education “professional” bona fides you appear to be striving for.

But let’s take those 8 “selective enrollment” schools (from the U.S. News & World’s 2014 analysis) out of the mix, and now you can try explaining the glory of Maine South’s ranking behind Stevenson, Deerfield, Hinsdale Central, Hersey, Highland Park, Prospect, New Trier, Glenbrook North, Vernon Hills, Buffalo Grove, Oak Park/River Forest, Glenbrook South, Evanston, Barrington, Rolling Meadows, Lake Forest, Libertyville and St. Charles North – all of whom have to accept everybody within their boundaries.

Or you can be like our D-207 Board members and brag about being No. 19…and slipping.