Omaha Area Schools

Visitors and Residents can ask Questions about Omaha here

Moderators: Coyote, Omaha Cowboy, Brad, nebugeater

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:55 pm

DeWalt wrote:
HuskerDave wrote:So when someone works hard and manages to move away from an area they don't want to live, to somewhere they do want to live, perhaps to a better house, perhaps to what they perceive are better schools for their children - they aren't being fair to those who prefer to sit and wallow, gnashing their teeth at how unfair life is for them?  Is that really what you're saying?


Actually Dave, that is not necessarily the case.  I will NEVER live in the vanilla cookie-cutter suburbs.  There is NOTHING about the suburbs that appeals to me.  And don't get me wrong.  I'm highly educated, have been in the same profession for over 25 years, and my wife is a highly intelligent person who works full-time and makes a very good income.  It's not that I can't get to the wealthy suburbs.  I REFUSE to.

That said...  When you have large numbers of two-income, money-seeker families that move into an area, and DEMAND that all their money and all their taxes gets spent on THEMSELVES, said people breed resentment - especially when they're so danged arrogant.


Well, DeWalt - you and I generally agree on issues - but I never thought it arrogant or selfish to think that people should be able to have more (not all) local control over their schools, or ask that less (not none) of their tax money be taken to support failed schools in other districts.

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:55 pm

HuskerDave wrote:
DeWalt wrote:
HuskerDave wrote:So when someone works hard and manages to move away from an area they don't want to live, to somewhere they do want to live, perhaps to a better house, perhaps to what they perceive are better schools for their children - they aren't being fair to those who prefer to sit and wallow, gnashing their teeth at how unfair life is for them?  Is that really what you're saying?


Actually Dave, that is not necessarily the case.  I will NEVER live in the vanilla cookie-cutter suburbs.  There is NOTHING about the suburbs that appeals to me.  And don't get me wrong.  I'm highly educated, have been in the same profession for over 25 years, and my wife is a highly intelligent person who works full-time and makes a very good income.  It's not that I can't get to the wealthy suburbs.  I REFUSE to.

That said...  When you have large numbers of two-income, money-seeker families that move into an area, and DEMAND that all their money and all their taxes gets spent on THEMSELVES, said people breed resentment - especially when they're so danged arrogant.


Well, DeWalt - you and I generally agree on issues - but I never thought it arrogant or selfish to think that people should be able to have more (not all) local control over their schools, or ask that less (not none) of their tax money be taken to support failed schools in other districts.



...and let's not forget - it was their money to begin with.

OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Postby OmahaBen » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:57 pm

HuskerDave wrote:
DeWalt wrote:
Anonymous wrote:and what exactly is 'tested better' ?   Realizing too... even the 'South High of Millard'... is no... well, 'South High'. ;)


Westside and Millard schools relentlessly push their students to "test well."  But that does not mean said students think well, or are smart.  It just means that they've been relentlessly pushed to "test well."


Keep in mind, too, that most of these "standards" are set up by the Education Association, which is a giant Union, which is first and foremost about MONEY.  And what school districts in Nebraska have MONEY?  Westside and Millard.


Well the power grab by OPS - then later by the "learning community" after OPS was rebuffed, was clearly about redistributing property taxes from the Westside, Millard, and Elkhorn districts to OPS.  Whether you believe throwing more money at so-called underprivileged schools is 'fair' or not - you could certainly understand why people living in those districts would be resentful.


And I hope you can understand why OPS is somewhat resentful that District 66 gets to remain their own little fiefdom for no reason other than they had the unicameral's ear back in the day. At least Millard and Elkhorn used to be separate municipalities at one point.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:04 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Yet you don't understand that people in OPS might not be resentful of people who are upwardly mobile enough to escape the problems of living in the city and create special school districts based on location? Why was it ok for other cities in Nebraska to adhere to "one city, one school district" but not Omaha? It is unfair to have these separate districts in the same city. Taking resources from the areas where they are needed more only compounds the problems for OPS.


When is enough enough?  Look at where the city's tax dollars are spent.  Look at the breakdown of where parks are.  Pools.  Libraries.  And yet, those areas still produce a high number of criminals, dropouts, teen pregnancies, etc.  There HAS to be a point when the rest of the populations realizes the answer really is not as simple as "we need to throw more money at it."

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:15 pm

HuskerDave wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:
HuskerDave wrote:[quote="DeWalt"][quote="Anonymous"]and what exactly is 'tested better' ?   Realizing too... even the 'South High of Millard'... is no... well, 'South High'. ;)


Westside and Millard schools relentlessly push their students to "test well."  But that does not mean said students think well, or are smart.  It just means that they've been relentlessly pushed to "test well."


Keep in mind, too, that most of these "standards" are set up by the Education Association, which is a giant Union, which is first and foremost about MONEY.  And what school districts in Nebraska have MONEY?  Westside and Millard.


Well the power grab by OPS - then later by the "learning community" after OPS was rebuffed, was clearly about redistributing property taxes from the Westside, Millard, and Elkhorn districts to OPS.  Whether you believe throwing more money at so-called underprivileged schools is 'fair' or not - you could certainly understand why people living in those districts would be resentful.


Yet you don't understand that people in OPS might not be resentful of people who are upwardly mobile enough to escape the problems of living in the city and create special school districts based on location? Why was it ok for other cities in Nebraska to adhere to "one city, one school district" but not Omaha? It is unfair to have these separate districts in the same city. Taking resources from the areas where they are needed more only compounds the problems for OPS.[/quote]

So when someone works hard and manages to move away from an area they don't want to live, to somewhere they do want to live, perhaps to a better house, perhaps to what they perceive are better schools for their children - they aren't being fair to those who prefer to sit and wallow, gnashing their teeth at how unfair life is for them?  Is that really what you're saying?[/quote]

I'll ignore the obvious attempts to malign lower income people for now.

How does moving to another part of the same city excuse you from sharing in that cities burden for educating the children? It's absurd to think that someone living on 30th and Ames and someone on living on 90th and Pacific should have separate school systems in the same city. Doesn't this at all bother the conservative sensibility that says more government is bad? You say that people "move away" from an area yet this is not truly what is happening. It's not as if they crossed into another city/county/state. They live and pay taxes in Omaha; where they likely drive, work, use city services, etc. However, they essentially are paying extra to exclude people from going to school with their own children. (Sounds more like 1950 than 2011.) District 66 and the Millard Schools are primarily made up of one socioeconomic group, while OPS serves many different groups. It's not hard to see that one group of people (those with a higher social/financial standing) want separate, but somehow equal districts. It's not possible. If they live in the city of Omaha they should paying to support Omaha Public Schools.

It's not possible for less affluent people to band together and raise property taxes to create a separate school district. Are the children of a renter in North or South Omaha, who is able to provide a living for their family, to be left to a disadvantaged public school system because those with money who live in the same city are able to collectively raises money to exclude them from receiving a "better" education? This is blatant inequality.

nebugeater-

I remember back when the OCOSD battle was raging in Omaha that there were cases in other Nebraska cities (I think Grand Island) where it was ruled illegal to have more than one school district per city. However, they did not feel the rules applied to Omaha.
Image

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:21 pm

joeglow wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:Yet you don't understand that people in OPS might not be resentful of people who are upwardly mobile enough to escape the problems of living in the city and create special school districts based on location? Why was it ok for other cities in Nebraska to adhere to "one city, one school district" but not Omaha? It is unfair to have these separate districts in the same city. Taking resources from the areas where they are needed more only compounds the problems for OPS.


When is enough enough?  Look at where the city's tax dollars are spent.  Look at the breakdown of where parks are.  Pools.  Libraries.  And yet, those areas still produce a high number of criminals, dropouts, teen pregnancies, etc.  There HAS to be a point when the rest of the populations realizes the answer really is not as simple as "we need to throw more money at it."


Don't act like public education is any less about having proper resources than any other venture is. You really think trying shrinking OPS' budget will help the problems they currently face? I thought you were a tax attorney.

I'll take use teen pregnancy as an example. If some girl gets pregnant, is it better for her to drop out of school and enter the workforce uneducated and hamstrung by having a child; or, would she and other pregnant disadvantaged students be helped by having child care provided so they can attain an education and not become these societal sponges you all seem to abhor?
Image

User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Postby Omababe » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:40 pm

I'll ignore the obvious attempts to malign lower income people for now.


Are children of higher-income families entitled to a better education than children of families without such means?

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:18 pm

HuskerDave wrote:
DeWalt wrote:
HuskerDave wrote:So when someone works hard and manages to move away from an area they don't want to live, to somewhere they do want to live, perhaps to a better house, perhaps to what they perceive are better schools for their children - they aren't being fair to those who prefer to sit and wallow, gnashing their teeth at how unfair life is for them?  Is that really what you're saying?


Actually Dave, that is not necessarily the case.  I will NEVER live in the vanilla cookie-cutter suburbs.  There is NOTHING about the suburbs that appeals to me.  And don't get me wrong.  I'm highly educated, have been in the same profession for over 25 years, and my wife is a highly intelligent person who works full-time and makes a very good income.  It's not that I can't get to the wealthy suburbs.  I REFUSE to.

That said...  When you have large numbers of two-income, money-seeker families that move into an area, and DEMAND that all their money and all their taxes gets spent on THEMSELVES, said people breed resentment - especially when they're so danged arrogant.


Well, DeWalt - you and I generally agree on issues - but I never thought it arrogant or selfish to think that people should be able to have more (not all) local control over their schools, or ask that less (not none) of their tax money be taken to support failed schools in other districts.


See now...  There's a part of that audacious Millard & Westside arrogance I was talking about.

Do you have ANY IDEA how good Omaha North High School is?  Omaha Central?  Any idea?  Of course not.  All you listen to is Westside & Millard propaganda.  To call OPS schools "failed schools" is utterly ridiculous.

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:20 pm

Omababe wrote:
I'll ignore the obvious attempts to malign lower income people for now.


Are children of higher-income families entitled to a better education than children of families without such means?

If you were to ask people in the Westside & Millard districts, the answer would be a resounding YES!!!

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:10 am

Omababe wrote:
I'll ignore the obvious attempts to malign lower income people for now.


Are children of higher-income families entitled to a better education than children of families without such means?


Yes.  Shocker, I know; but that's the American Dream.  I work hard, to provide for my children, and improve their situation.  If I can put them in better schools, live in a better neighborhood, etc.  

I know it's a third rail.. but it's also true.

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:14 am

DTO Luv wrote:I'll ignore the obvious attempts to malign lower income people for now.



You'll ignore it by mentioning it?... I think perhaps you need a better dictionary.

I've done nothing to malign lower income people.  

What liberals don't understand, is that conservatives want EVERYONE to be rich.  That's really the point.  Go make something of yourself, being the best photographer you can be or whatever.  Get rich.. We'll help...

It's the liberals who need to keep people dependent on government programs in order to keep them in power.  We'd rather you were well enough off to provide for yourself.

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:17 am

DeWalt wrote:
See now...  There's a part of that audacious Millard & Westside arrogance I was talking about.

Do you have ANY IDEA how good Omaha North High School is?  Omaha Central?  Any idea?  Of course not.  All you listen to is Westside & Millard propaganda.  To call OPS schools "failed schools" is utterly ridiculous.


I do think those schools turn out some fine students.  Please don't presume to tell me what I don't know.

However - if Omaha North, Central, Westside, Benson - whatever, needs additional tax base, shouldn't it be up to the parents living in that district to provide it?  If not, what possible argument is there except for the tired old "it's not fair" of progressives?

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:22 am

DTO Luv wrote:
joeglow wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:Yet you don't understand that people in OPS might not be resentful of people who are upwardly mobile enough to escape the problems of living in the city and create special school districts based on location? Why was it ok for other cities in Nebraska to adhere to "one city, one school district" but not Omaha? It is unfair to have these separate districts in the same city. Taking resources from the areas where they are needed more only compounds the problems for OPS.


When is enough enough?  Look at where the city's tax dollars are spent.  Look at the breakdown of where parks are.  Pools.  Libraries.  And yet, those areas still produce a high number of criminals, dropouts, teen pregnancies, etc.  There HAS to be a point when the rest of the populations realizes the answer really is not as simple as "we need to throw more money at it."


Don't act like public education is any less about having proper resources than any other venture is. You really think trying shrinking OPS' budget will help the problems they currently face? I thought you were a tax attorney.

I'll take use teen pregnancy as an example. If some girl gets pregnant, is it better for her to drop out of school and enter the workforce uneducated and hamstrung by having a child; or, would she and other pregnant disadvantaged students be helped by having child care provided so they can attain an education and not become these societal sponges you all seem to abhor?


Ok I don't mean to monopolize the discuss, but it's after midnight and I'm probably the only one here..

DTO - joeglow is right.

Your argument about "proper resources" gets weaker when we look at how much is already being spent.. Do you know these schools take in more than $10,000 per student in tax money, each year?  A 20-student classroom should be flush with $200,000 each year.  Are we getting our money's worth?  

If the answer is no - do you really think the solution is to throw even MORE money at it?

joeglow is exactly right.  There comes a time when the taxpayers need to put the brakes on.

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:05 am

HuskerDave wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:
What liberals don't understand, is that conservatives want EVERYONE to be rich.  




:lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:  :lafcry:


Goodnight for now.
Image

User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Postby Omababe » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:02 am

DeWalt wrote:
Omababe wrote:Are children of higher-income families entitled to a better education than children of families without such means?

If you were to ask people in the Westside & Millard districts, the answer would be a resounding YES!!!


Okay, I get it. We're all equal except the upwardly-mobile white-flight folks in west Omaha are just a little bit more equal, right? :)

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:24 am

DTO Luv wrote:
joeglow wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:Yet you don't understand that people in OPS might not be resentful of people who are upwardly mobile enough to escape the problems of living in the city and create special school districts based on location? Why was it ok for other cities in Nebraska to adhere to "one city, one school district" but not Omaha? It is unfair to have these separate districts in the same city. Taking resources from the areas where they are needed more only compounds the problems for OPS.


When is enough enough?  Look at where the city's tax dollars are spent.  Look at the breakdown of where parks are.  Pools.  Libraries.  And yet, those areas still produce a high number of criminals, dropouts, teen pregnancies, etc.  There HAS to be a point when the rest of the populations realizes the answer really is not as simple as "we need to throw more money at it."


Don't act like public education is any less about having proper resources than any other venture is. You really think trying shrinking OPS' budget will help the problems they currently face? I thought you were a tax attorney.

I'll take use teen pregnancy as an example. If some girl gets pregnant, is it better for her to drop out of school and enter the workforce uneducated and hamstrung by having a child; or, would she and other pregnant disadvantaged students be helped by having child care provided so they can attain an education and not become these societal sponges you all seem to abhor?


Two points:

1. When I was an education major in college, we watched a news program covering the Kansas City schools (sometime in the 1980's or early 1990's).  They were essentially given a blank check, because ALL these schools really need is more money.  Needless to say, their overall performance did not change a lick.  You are being lazy and disingenuous if you honestly think it is more money that will solve the problem.  The fact of the matter is that the problem is cultural.  When my brother in law is ridiculed by his classmates for "acting white" because he studied, there is a problem that will NOT be solved by an extra million dollars or two.  Unfortunately, very few people want to touch the cultural issues lest they are labeled racist or an Uncle Tom (look at how popular Bill Cosby is viewed in many areas).

2. I agree with your point on teen pregnancy.  However, there is also this thing called personal responsibility.  As someone who has 3 kids, I can assure you it is darn hard and expensive to raise them (and this is with a good education and job).  There are people lined up waiting to adopt kids (2 different friends of mine have been waiting for years).  We KNOW it is a sh*tty decision to keep and raise a kid in that situation, and yet we allow and, even encourage, this terrible decision and tell taxpayers we need to pay for the thought out sh*tty decision some kid is making.  I'm sorry, but in looking at our standing in the world when it comes to education, I am less worried about placating the lowest common denominator and would rather foster development in those who actually give two sh*ts.  That said, those services are already being offered.  Please show me how that has eliminated OPS's multiple "dropout factories."  

Like I said, it is lazy and ignorant to actually think more money is what is needed.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:28 am

DeWalt wrote:Do you have ANY IDEA how good Omaha North High School is?  Omaha Central?  Any idea?  Of course not.  All you listen to is Westside & Millard propaganda.  To call OPS schools "failed schools" is utterly ridiculous.


Yeah.  I consider schools with drop-out rates over 50% to be AWESOME.  We should model more schools after North and Central.  Imagine how great our city would be if ALL our high schools could attain the feat of graduating less than 1 of every 2 students.
 

As state above, you are trying to take an honors program and pretend like it is indicative of the entire school.  If you want to see how good a school is, ignore the honors and remedial programs.  Look at the "average" education offered (as 80% of the students will be in this bucket) and you quickly see how sucky North and Central are.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:33 am

Omababe wrote:
I'll ignore the obvious attempts to malign lower income people for now.


Are children of higher-income families entitled to a better education than children of families without such means?


MPS - $7,824 spent per student

http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/u ... -district/

OPS - $9,087 per student

http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/u ... -district/

Like I said:  lazy and disingenuous.

User avatar
Stargazer
County Board
Posts: 3931
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:06 am
Location: west Omaha

Postby Stargazer » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:56 am

We've covered this before... other districts don't have nearly the social and economic issues to deal with that OPS does... this means Headstart, alternative education programs, etc, etc.  Of COURSE, it is going to cost OPS more money per student.

OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Postby OmahaBen » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:16 am

joeglow wrote:
DeWalt wrote:Do you have ANY IDEA how good Omaha North High School is?  Omaha Central?  Any idea?  Of course not.  All you listen to is Westside & Millard propaganda.  To call OPS schools "failed schools" is utterly ridiculous.


Yeah.  I consider schools with drop-out rates over 50% to be AWESOME.  We should model more schools after North and Central.  Imagine how great our city would be if ALL our high schools could attain the feat of graduating less than 1 of every 2 students.
 

As state above, you are trying to take an honors program and pretend like it is indicative of the entire school.  If you want to see how good a school is, ignore the honors and remedial programs.  Look at the "average" education offered (as 80% of the students will be in this bucket) and you quickly see how sucky North and Central are.


Joe, If an alum is going to call Norf sucky, that's one thing; but I'll be if some stoner helicopter parent from district 66 or some suburb halfway to Lincoln will call my alma mater sucky.

North's dropout rate isn't an indictment of the school; but of a segment of the student body who attends it. If you have a point, it's that North probably is not a bell curve distribution, but a double hump. What you ignore is that if you moved that 2nd group to Westside, they wouldn't do any better than they do at Norf.

By all measurements, Central, Burke, and North are the best three OPS schools. And probably in that order these days, though they tend to fluctuate over time: I'd say North was on top 10-15 years ago, and Burke was on top 5-10 years ago. All three will provide as good an education as Westside or Millard to those who seek it. The issue is that certain students choose not to seek it, which has nothing to do with the school itself.

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:03 am

joeglow wrote:
DeWalt wrote:Do you have ANY IDEA how good Omaha North High School is?  Omaha Central?  Any idea?  Of course not.  All you listen to is Westside & Millard propaganda.  To call OPS schools "failed schools" is utterly ridiculous.


Yeah.  I consider schools with drop-out rates over 50% to be AWESOME.  We should model more schools after North and Central.  Imagine how great our city would be if ALL our high schools could attain the feat of graduating less than 1 of every 2 students.
 

As state above, you are trying to take an honors program and pretend like it is indicative of the entire school.  If you want to see how good a school is, ignore the honors and remedial programs.  Look at the "average" education offered (as 80% of the students will be in this bucket) and you quickly see how sucky North and Central are.


First of all, you need to stop pulling numbers out of your arse.  North High's dropout rate is not 50%.

But think about it, genius...  What is the drop out rate of the Veterinarian Program at Iowa State University?  Care to touch that one?  You have to ask WHY the dropout rate is high - and you're not able or willing to do that.


Second, I'm not trying to say their honors program is indicative of the entire school  You're putting words in my mouth.  The FACT is that there is a EXCEPTIONAL educational program available at Omaha North High School.  My daughter was part of it.  As a 10th grader she was taking college level physicals, chemistry and psychology.  She was able to graduate early, and enter UNO as a sophomore.

Yeah, that North High School is really sucky.


Fact is, you calling North & Central "sucky" schools does absolutely nothing but show what an arrogant ignoramus you are.

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:21 am

OmahaBen wrote:Joe,If an alum is going to call Norf sucky, that's one thing; but I'll be if some stoner helicopter parent from district 66 or some suburb halfway to Lincoln will call my alma mater sucky.

North's dropout rate isn't an indictment of the school; but of a segment of the student body who attends it. If you have a point, it's that North probably is not a bell curve distribution, but a double hump. What you ignore is that if you moved that 2nd group to Westside, they wouldn't do any better than they do at Norf.


By all measurements, Central, Burke, and North are the best three OPS schools. And probably in that order these days, though they tend to fluctuate over time: I'd say North was on top 10-15 years ago, and Burke was on top 5-10 years ago. All three will provide as good an education as Westside or Millard to those who seek it. The issue is that certain students choose not to seek it, which has nothing to do with the school itself.


There's the issue.  You've hit it spot-on.

North High School  (I won't speak for Central or Burke because I have no vested interest in either) is actually two schools in one.  There is the Honors Track (think Honorary Doctorate - aka, fake degree) and there is the AP Track (think full-scholarships to any college).  

The great thing about North High School is that BOTH tracks are available to ALL students.  It is a level playing field - which is exactly what should be offered. But, as you aptly pointed out, all students do not CHOOSE to take the high road.


Some examples - all of them North High graduates I know well...
- Person #1 will be going to UNL on full scholarship in their Engineering Program.  While a student at North, his "part time job" was to enter science fairs and win them, usually winning prizes of $500 - $1500.  As a senior, one of his engineering projects was research on making ethanol out of switchgrass.  ACT score of 35.

- Person #2 graduated a year ago and went to MIT on scholarship.  Again, in the area of engineering.  

- Person #3 also graduated a year ago, and went to UNL on scholarship for Orchestra.  Did you know that North High is the ONLY school in the state with an Honors Orchestra, and that North High has more musicians in the All-State Orchestra than all other metro schools COMBINED?



I'm guessing all of this is news to JoeGlow.  When he thinks of Omaha North, all he can see is black kids with their pants hanging down in the back.   :roll:

Big E
City Council
Posts: 7767
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Postby Big E » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:34 am

Also, I was first chair all-state sax from Burke years ago.

OPS FTMFW, yo.
"The above statement was not intended to be factual."

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:46 am

I'm not sure what you think an 'AP track' is... but taking AP classes does not earn you scholarships to universities... it MAY earn you some college credit, depending on the institution.  :)

By the way... Millard North is the only high school in the metro which offers an International Baccalaureate program... which doesn't provide scholarships either... but represents a big feather in the portfolio of a student seeking scholarships.

The sad thing about a non-public or non-resident college education these days is... you either have to be VERY wealthy... or VERY poor to afford one.  Omaha North probably benefits from some of the latter... ie if you can put up the numbers, put together a good academic resume... there's a good chance you can 'afford' to go to school at an 'MIT'.  If however, you are like my son... in a middle income family, who is a national merit finalist... perfect score on ACT... 4.0+ average... 'all-academic everything'... you are still expected to contribute $15-20k+ a year annually to their undergraduate education.

Fortunately, Minnesota... which just by luck happened to be one of the best chemical engineering schools in the nation... public or private... brought our portion of the expense down under $10k a year.  They actually showed more personal interest in him than UNL did... which is funny, considering they're also one of the very largest schools in the nation.

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:05 am

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you think an 'AP track' is... but taking AP classes does not earn you scholarships to universities... it MAY earn you some college credit, depending on the institution.  :)

By the way... Millard North is the only high school in the metro which offers an International Baccalaureate program... which doesn't provide scholarships either... but represents a big feather in the portfolio of a student seeking scholarships.

The sad thing about a non-public or non-resident college education these days is... you either have to be VERY wealthy... or VERY poor to afford one.  Omaha North probably benefits from some of the latter... ie if you can put up the numbers, put together a good academic resume... there's a good chance you can 'afford' to go to school at an 'MIT'.  If however, you are like my son... in a middle income family, who is a national merit finalist... perfect score on ACT... 4.0+ average... 'all-academic everything'... you are still expected to contribute $15-20k+ a year annually to their undergraduate education.

Fortunately, Minnesota... which just by luck happened to be one of the best chemical engineering schools in the nation... public or private... brought our portion of the expense down under $10k a year.  They actually showed more personal interest in him than UNL did... which is funny, considering they're also one of the very largest schools in the nation.


U of M has an excellent university system.  It's far better than UNL, even though the Golden Gophers always suck at football...

I'm fully aware of the fact that these "AP Track Courses" do not earn scholarships, which is why I did not say they do.  On a practical level, what they will do is earn you college credits in the Nebraska University system.  And let's not kid ourselves as to the value of that.


Millard North's "International Baccalaureate Program" is nothing more than the AP Track program at North.  They just call it something different - something that makes Millard people think their schools are special.


And by the way, isn't it JUST AWESOME!!!! that every Westside student has their own Apple laptop computer?  I mean, it's SO valuable in light of the fact that all the rich kids who go to school there have their own laptops anyway...  But hey, it gives Westside people something to brag about!   :?

User avatar
Stargazer
County Board
Posts: 3931
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:06 am
Location: west Omaha

Postby Stargazer » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:23 am

The IB program is NOT an 'AP track' at Millard North.  I suggest you look into it ( http://www.ibo.org/ ).  It is an entirely separate curriculum ... in only a FEW cases, do AP classes overlap.  The IB program, in fact, starts in elementary school... and Millard has accredited several schools do support the entire program.

My son, as it happens, did not enroll in IB.  I thought it made more sense that he focus all his attention on AP courses... and to that end, he enrolled at UMN with 32 credit hours!

User avatar
Stargazer
County Board
Posts: 3931
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:06 am
Location: west Omaha

Postby Stargazer » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:47 am

You're kidding... right?

Image

User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4552
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Postby S33 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:53 am

Lol - I can't tell if you're serious or if you are sarcastically qualifying my question by showing a picture of Bill Clinton playing the sax.

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:20 pm

S33 wrote:Lol - I can't tell if you're serious or if you are sarcastically qualifying my question by showing a picture of Bill Clinton playing the sax.


Gotta admit that's pretty funny though!

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:59 pm

DeWalt wrote:First of all, you need to stop pulling numbers out of your arse.  North High's dropout rate is not 50%.


I am basing this on the John Hopkins study of graduation rates.  However, I am glad to see you cite your sources when claiming it is bunk.  Also:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... hool_N.htm


DeWalt wrote:
But think about it, genius...  What is the drop out rate of the Veterinarian Program at Iowa State University?  Care to touch that one?  You have to ask WHY the dropout rate is high - and you're not able or willing to do that.



Apples and oranges.  However, I will touch it:  because we have lazy people who want to feel like they contribute something to society without having to exert any thought or effort: i.e. their answer to everything is class warfare and claims that they just don't have enough money.  However, if you read my posts above, that would have been extremely clear.

DeWalt wrote:Second, I'm not trying to say their honors program is indicative of the entire school  You're putting words in my mouth.  The FACT is that there is a EXCEPTIONAL educational program available at Omaha North High School.  My daughter was part of it.  As a 10th grader she was taking college level physicals, chemistry and psychology.  She was able to graduate early, and enter UNO as a sophomore.

Yeah, that North High School is really sucky..


So, you admit that it is not accurate to use the honor program as a basis for rating the school and then proceed to rate the school based on......your daughter's experience in the honors program.  Interesting!

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:01 pm

DeWalt wrote:
I'm guessing all of this is news to JoeGlow.  When he thinks of Omaha North, all he can see is black kids with their pants hanging down in the back.   :roll:


I love this.  I can clarify a thousand times that issues are socio-economic issues and simple-minded people do not want to have discussions will just yell "RACISM!!!."  You want to come tell my brother-in-law how racist I am?  I am guessing he would disagree with you (and he was one of "those blacks at Omaha North").

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:13 pm

^^ As usual, Joe, you make virtually NO SENSE when you prattle along like this.

Your link says nothing about Omaha North High School, by the way.

In addition, every time you post something you prove that you know absolutely NOTHING about Omaha North High School.  In fact, my bet is that not only do you know nothing about the school, you've never been IN the school and probably never even driven BY the school.  You're THAT scared of it!


But please, by all means, continue to hide out there in Millard, where you can insulate yourself from black people and others that you don't think are good enough for you.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:38 pm

DeWalt wrote:^^ As usual, Joe, you make virtually NO SENSE when you prattle along like this.

Your link says nothing about Omaha North High School, by the way.

In addition, every time you post something you prove that you know absolutely NOTHING about Omaha North High School.  In fact, my bet is that not only do you know nothing about the school, you've never been IN the school and probably never even driven BY the school.  You're THAT scared of it!


But please, by all means, continue to hide out there in Millard, where you can insulate yourself from black people and others that you don't think are good enough for you.


http://www.all4ed.org/files/Prioritizin ... chools.pdf

There are 6 "dropout factories" in Nebraska.  The little map shows you where they are located.  I'll let you guess which one is on that list.

But, you can run to your little racism cop-out to avoid confronting the truth.

User avatar
Stargazer
County Board
Posts: 3931
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:06 am
Location: west Omaha

Postby Stargazer » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:55 pm

I suspect Joe is talking about 'graduation rate'... rather than 'dropout rate'... although I'm not sure in the end, there's really a difference.

Here's some relatively recent data... http://www.all4ed.org/about_the_crisis/ ... earch_form

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:28 pm

Stargazer wrote:I suspect Joe is talking about 'graduation rate'... rather than 'dropout rate'... although I'm not sure in the end, there's really a difference.

Here's some relatively recent data... http://www.all4ed.org/about_the_crisis/ ... earch_form


Joe simply does not understand education, the correlation between poverty and poor performance in school, and the fact that a school can have excellent academics and not have a 100% graduation rate.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:17 pm

The great thing about the country is that you can send your kids to North if you think their education is great.  Personally, I intend to send my kids to Prep as I want a college preparatory environment for them.  To each their own.

That said, my argument this whole thread is that socio-economic status is what impacts lower performance in schools (NOT race.  YOU are the one who went straight to race when I mentioned academic performance).  I also said that the answer is NOT "throw more money at it").  The schools have enough money.  Rather, they need to analyze how they are using said money to educate the kids.  I think Sacred Heart has done a pretty good job, as their approach to education is tailored to the students they teach.  However, given the charitable, caring, NE Omaha expert you are, I assume you spend countless hours volunteering there and already knew that.

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:20 pm

Might I suggest this has now become a thread for somewhere other than "Welcome to Omaha?"

User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Postby Omababe » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:30 pm

HuskerDave wrote:Might I suggest this has now become a thread for somewhere other than "Welcome to Omaha?"


Don't those new to Omaha want to know what the white-bread "safe" schools are?

User avatar
Stargazer
County Board
Posts: 3931
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:06 am
Location: west Omaha

Postby Stargazer » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:34 pm

Personally, I intend to send my kids to Prep as I want a college preparatory environment for them.


That's something my kids have obviously missed out on... the 'college preparatory environment' which public schools are so lacking in.  If I had only thought to make the additional investment in the quality parochial education for them.

HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Postby HuskerDave » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:38 pm

Omababe wrote:
HuskerDave wrote:Might I suggest this has now become a thread for somewhere other than "Welcome to Omaha?"


Don't those new to Omaha want to know what the white-bread "safe" schools are?


Tsk, tsk, tsk...


Return to “Welcome to Omaha”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest