1. Saturday ONLY, July 26, 2014, 8am - 3pm, Rotary Gazebo between NM Library and Thomas Marshall Birthplace Home. North Manchester Rotary, Nice quality, multi-family items including: estate items, furniture, kitchen ware, Christmas items, clothing, and many other numerous items. Find your bargain!
2. 105 River Cove Lane - Thursday and Friday 8am-6pm, clothes, Boys 5-6, Men S-L, Ladies M-L, shoes, lamps, jewelry, entertainment center, appliances, bed sheets - twin/toddler, rugs, home decor, holiday, bread machine, new juicer, brown recliner chair, Toys
3. Friday 8am-4pm; Saturday 8am-Noon, lots of clothing and household décor (primitive) 1801 N Heckathorn Drive
4. Large Multi Family Sale 7/25 and 7/26 9am-5pm, Boys, Girls, Mens, Womens Clothing sizes 6 to Plus Very Nice, Name Brands, Antiques, Households and Misc Items, Not One to Miss 411 West 4th Street
5. Garage Sale across from Clear Creek Apartments on SR 13. 1928 Ford Model A very nice, 2011 Spree Escape 19' by KZ, teeter totter, glider, swing, kids piano, kids desk, marbles, toys, decorations, clothes 3-XL, kids - boys and girls
And many more...
The Cole Family along with Northfield High School would like to invite all golfers to participate in the Jeremy Cole Memorial Golf Tournament. This tournament is a scramble tournament that will be held on Aug. 10 at the Honeywell Golf Course. The proceeds from the tournament assist the Northfield golf programs.
The tournament begins with a shotgun start at 1 p.m. It is a four-player scramble. Participants can sign up as a team or as an individual.
Northfield Jr/Sr High School would like to welcome Carly Mast as the new head coach of their volleyball team.
Coach Mast had a very successful career as a player at Northfield, where she earned various honors as a four-year starter. Coach Mast, a 2010 Northfield graduate, was slated to be the head JV coach heading into this season, and has developed a great relationship with the student-athletes, which Northfield felt was very important due to the timing of the position opening.
Coach Mast has also been a part of the girls’ varsity coaching staff at Northfield. Northfield is excited to have Coach Mast running the volleyball program, as she will be an excellent role model for the kids with her commitment and work ethic.
“Carly has great pride and passion for the program and school and we look forward to her building on the foundation that has been set by Coach Dale,” said Athletic Director Geoff Salmon,
by Gary Andrews
The Southwood baseball team used a 5 run third inning to grab a 5-2 lead over Elwood Saturday in their first game of the regional, only to give up 5 runs the last two innings in a 7-5 loss at Wabash.
Southwood starter Clay Hinrichsen was dominate the first two innings, striking out 5 of the 6 hitters he faced, with the Knights putting three runners on base with Jackson Blair being hit by a pitch, Robbie Cole reaching on a fielders choice and Brandin Frazier drawing a walk. The Knights couldn’t plate a run and the game was scoreless heading to the third.
Elwood would get to Hinrichsen in the third. With a runner on first and two outs the Panthers hit three straight singles to grab a 2-0 lead. The Knights would respond in the bottom of the inning with 5 runs, which would end up being the only inning they scored in. With one out Jackson Blair drew a walk. After a pop out Robbie Cole roped a triple down the right field line to score Blair and make it 2-1. Christian Deeter followed with a single to tie the game, but the Knights were not done. Jacob Lloyd then singled to put runners on first and second when Brandin Frazier hit a 2rbi double to grab a 4-2 lead. John Collins then scored on an Elwood error and the Knights led 5-2.
The Knights looked like they were going to add to their lead in the fourth when Zach Ball dropped a bunt for a single and advanced to second on the bad throw. Jackson Blair then singled to put runners on the corners when Nathan Hollars was hit by a pitch to load the bases with no outs. The Knights would then hit a short fly out that couldn’t advance a runner, then had a strike out and a ground out to go score less in the inning.
by Eric Stearley
The Indiana Department of Education released 2013 accountability grades for schools across the state on Friday, Dec. 20. Educators, administrators, parents, students and community members can now see if their school made the grade. The legitimacy of these grades, however, is questionable.
The formula used to determine these grades was put in place in February 2012 and will soon be replaced by a new system following an accountability report released by Indiana Superintendent Glenda Ritz and Southwest Allen County Schools Superintendent Steven Yager this past October.
The reason the current grading system lasted only a year is due to calculation that many educators find dubious and difficult to interpret. Prior to February 2012, the grading system was very straightforward. The letter grade was solely based upon the percentage of students who passed standardized tests. If 80-89 percent passed, the school received a B. Scores between 90 and 100 percent earned schools an A, with Cs, Ds, and Fs going to schools with passing rates of 70-79 percent, 60-69 percent, and 59 percent and below respectively.
The system put in place in 2012 attempted to take more factors into account, including graduation rates, Advanced Placement exam scores, and a “growth model,” the most controversial of the new measurements. The growth model attempts to grade student improvement by comparing individual student growth over the course of a year to that of all students in the state who received the same score the previous year.
The growth model used in the current grading system is quite complex. Like the old system, schools receive a baseline grade according to the percentage of students who pass standardized tests. From there, a formula is used to calculate “high growth,” “standard growth,” and “low growth” distinctions for each student. Students are separated into two groups, the top 75 percent of students and the bottom 25 of students in each school. The school’s letter grade can then be raised or lowered based on the amount of improvement the students made in comparison with students in all other schools in the state.
The biggest problem with the current system is that it fails to accurately reflect the real scores of the students at each school. This can be best explained using a hypothetical standardized test with an optimal score of 100 and a passing score of 60. Both Student A and Student B took and passed the test last year, receiving scores of 60 and 90 respectively. This year, the two scored a 70 and 92 respectively. If the state’s average improvement for students scoring a 60 last year was 6 points, Student A would be considered “high growth.” If the average improvement for students scoring a 90 last year was 4 points, Student B would be considered “low growth.” In turn, Student A would help to boost his/her school’s score, while Student B would hurt the school’s score, regardless of the fact that Student B did much better on the test. The fact that Student B scored well last year makes it harder for him/her to fall into the “high growth” category, and easier for him/her to contribute to the school’s potential grade reduction.
The complexity of this highly simplified, hypothetical scenario makes it easy to see why educators have advocated for a new grading system. In addition, the standardized test grading, including the growth model, only accounts for 60 percent of the overall grade. The rest is comprised of graduation rates and “college and career readiness” (based upon Advanced Placement exam scores, International Baccalaureate exam scores, college credits received, and industrial certifications earned. Finally, the weighted proportions themselves change each year, the weight put on “college and career readiness” increasing by 5 percent each year, offset by a decrease in the weight of Math and English scores. This makes it very difficult for educators and administrators to gauge real improvement year to year. If you are lost at this point, you’re not the only one. Even State Superintendent Ritz is confused by the system.
“I cannot tell any school what their grade represents,” said Ritz at the April meeting of the Indiana State Board of Education. “It lacks transparency. School districts are wondering how it is that they’re supposed to improve and get to the next letter grade — what does that represent?”
Ritz and Yager hope to clarify the grading system and increase transparency with the new system of calculation proposed this past October.