Attendance Targets Hit by 76 Schools
In her weekly e-newsletter, St. Louis Public Schools Superintendent Diana Bourisaw announced this week that 76 of the district’s 96 schools have reached attendance goals she set shortly after assuming the post in July.
“Earlier this year, I established attendance rate targets for all schools, including 95% for elementary, 92% for middle/junior high, and 90% for high,” said Bourisaw.
“At the end of the first month of school, I highlighted those schools that met or exceeded those targets. I’m pleased to again share with you that nine more schools have been added to the list for the first half of the 2006-2007 school year.”
Bourisaw indicated that eight out of 17 high schools, 15 out of 18 middle schools, 51 out of 57 elementary schools, and 2 out of 4 alternative schools have reached those targets.
About This Author: Antonio D. French is a writer, political consultant, and newly-elected Democratic Committeeman living in north St. Louis, Missouri. If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
So, my question is this: What were the attendance numbers for each month that Creg Williams was here?
Is that same information available by school? What plan did Bourisaw have that allowed her to “reach her targets? Was it something she came up with by herself, from community input, or was it left behind by Dr. Williams and she simply implimented it?
OMG, must even a good thing be a fight with you people? If Williams did develop the plan, she should still get the credit for acknowledging something good and not just throwing it out b/c it was his idea.
How is over 20% of our children not attending school a “good thing”? If someone were actually displaying a concern for the children, they would be fighting to ensure that attendance was at 100%, not bickering over Bourisaw vs. Williams. SHEESH.
It’s a good thing when there is improvement. Setting impossible goals like 100% attendance (the flu happens to be going around, I don’t want some germy kid hacking all over mine, keep them at home until they are better thank you very much) is not a good thing. It’s not Bourisaw v. Williams, it’s about people who will never give the SLPS a break–find me a suburban district with 100% attendance–try asking Rep. Gibbons from Kirkwood, maybe, since he’s all gung-ho to take over the SLPS. Are Kirkwood schools at 100% attendance?
OMG!! !
Anonymous [ 1/04/2007 12:30 PM ] said…
” OMG, must even a good thing be a fight with you people? “
This was taeken out of the body of Antonio’s story:
“Earlier this year, I established attendance rate targets for all schools, including 95% for elementary, 92% for middle/junior high, and 90% for high,” said Bourisaw.
Therfore she was not merely acknowledge the numbers, she took credit for them? Why can’t we agree to holding those who are in paid leadership positions to the same standards? Is it becuase she famle? cause she’s white? Or just because her and Purdy are friends?
The person who posted at 1/04/2007 12:14 PM asked some simple questions. Why is that seen as wanting to fight? Probably because that is all some people who are in this discussion choose to do is fight.
. . . .and their troublesome children are evidence of it!!!! Fight, Fight, Fight
However she or anyone else got there GOOD JOB! Maybe we can get to 80% over the next month or so, or bring up the other schools to 76%. Let’ try to unite instead of divide. Good numbers and let’s help make them better.
The original post said that only 76 of the 96 schools are meeting the established goals of 90+% depending on grade level. 76 of 96 is 79%. Therefore, over 20% of our schools are missing the target (not 20% of the kids missing).
Either way, this is BAD NEWS and represents a BAD JOB. No place meets 100%, but we cannot even meet 90%. So, instead of patting people on the back for mediocrity (or worse), we should be kicking thier butts, whether it’s Bourisaw or Williams or God Himself. How can anyone be satisfied with these numbers?
Anonymous 1/04/2007 9:06 PM
“Let’ try to unite instead of divide.”
It’s amazing that this same sentiment was not expressed while Creg Williams was here. Like the above person said, all people wanted to do then was fight.
You all are such a hypocritical group. Yes, the state needs to step in!!
It’s no different when, in some communitites, criminals get a foothold and residents are/feel powerless to do anything. In those cases the people who are doing right simply want the problem taken care of. They/We don’t want to wait for the fighting to stop, a plan to be developed, then possibly implimented. We want the problems taken care of. While you’re saying give the district a chance to work it out, how many children are falling throught the cracks and ending up under-employed or incarcerated?
I won’t tell the state you don’t need money to adress “your” issues, and in kind you should not tell them “I” don’t need money to address mine!
That same sentiment was expressed while Williams was here (let’s unite, not divide). But people have chosen their camps and won’t listen to anything the other camp says. And if a child is falling through the cracks and unemployed or incarcerated, I blame the parents and society, not the SLPS.
hmm wonder why I didn’t see this positive spin on the SLPS reported in the Post?
BTW- Antonio I just wanted to commend you on a good job on reporting the real deal on this website. Last night one women spoke of the only good reporting was coming from the Post by Slyvester Brown. Obviously she’s never been to your site.
Once again - good job!
Baby steps people, baby steps. No one is saying Williams vs Bourisaw. We set a goal, we achieved a goal. Now we’ll set another goal. A goal higher and better than the last. And so on. It’s called progress. You cannot climb a mountain with one giant step. Would we be satisfied with these % forever? No. Should we set a new goal higher? Yes. It’s that simple. One step at a time in an upward trend. That’s all anyone can ask at this time. Would you expect your child, if they were having problems in school and got an F, to immediately achieve an A? No, that would be unreasonable. Would you expect them to target a C? Maybe, then a B? Then hopefully an A? Would you chastize this child for not immediately reaching an A, if they improved but only reached a C? Or would you celebrate their achievement. If you would chastize them, what would be their motivation to do even better the next time? Why make any effort or improvement, if no one even notices? Obviously anyone’s ultimate goal is perfection. But perfection is not always a reasonable goal and can be severely depressing to those who can never achieve it. One step, one goal at a time. Congrats.
Finally, something positive in the midst of all the chaos.
Finally, someone actually displaying a concern for the children.