Wednesday, February 3, 2010

New Technology Network contract proposal is about improving scores by replacing Students ... but NOT providing better instruction for SE students

Directors, I am Dan Dempsey 2-03-2010

What’s the intent of the NTN contract proposal? I have clearly missed it.

My initial thought was it should improve the educational opportunities for a large portion of Southeast students.

After extensive research, way more than those who generated this plan appear to have done, I discovered that improving such educational opportunities has NO chance of occurring with the passage of this proposal.

There is extensive usable research that could be used to create increased academic achievement but this proposal rejects the obvious solutions. Instead we see yet another proposal promoting the use of ineffective practices. Without sound well-researched plans, good intentions and spending will never produce much.

The Staff has repeatedly failed to answer questions about the clearly inferior results generated by almost all NTN schools. Instead the public gets claims of a 98% student graduation rate that, while correct, is calculated using a bizarre formula. Data reveals less than 70% of 9th graders became 11th graders at that NTN-school and a smaller percentage graduated; but Ed Stats generated a 98% graduation rate. This is a typical use of the Education Club’s generated statistics to deceive the public.

Will the public ever see schools producing improved academic achievement? Unfortunately our students rarely experience efficient learning through the use of proven successful materials and practices.

In Math many students achieve far less than optimal results, because teachers are forced to use inferior materials and a pacing plan. This is beginning to look like the Administration likes poor performance, which can then drive their “Performance Management” agenda.

This district has futilely attempted to improve Cleveland with failing ideas a multiplicity of times, so now that school will be improved by replacing the students not creating a better k-12 learning situation for them.

The best data, research, and instructional practices should form a foundation for all we do. Instead it is proposed we copy ineffective schools for only $800,000 …. We are Not in need of “Performance Management” but rather a better foundation.

Directors, please show strong leadership tonight by rejecting this proposal.

This $800,000 fits perfectly with our Superintendent’s plans for herself, math and the district, but not our students.

The Southeast families have yearned for effective efficient k-12 education the culmination of which would be a Great Comprehensive high school.

This poorly researched proposal when magnified by the Student Assignment Plan misses the real desires and needs of the Southeast community completely. It reveals how far out of touch the "Broad" Superintendent is from Seattle Families and their needs.

Proposals must Serve Seattle families NOT the "Broad Foundation".


Stu said...


With testimony limited to 3 minutes, and no guarantee that board members ever really read what's put in front of them, I know it's hard to cover everything that's necessary. That said, I feel that one of the main arguments against NTN at Cleveland is that it does nothing to improve the academic standing of the existing students. Instead of making the school better, and serving the needs of the community, they're playing a shell game with the south end and, in the end, will be able to show the "greatly improved" test scores at the school only because they've changed the attendees.


dan dempsey said...


Write to the board NOW expressing your concern. I think that those who actually do research and have Not OD'd on Broad Foundation Koolade, will vote against.

I know that describes more than 0 board members... hopefully n > 3.