Cleveland High School Grade counts as of 9/27 at SPS.
The NTN STEM Option Cleveland features Project Based Learning as the primary mode of instruction in all subject areas.
Grade 9 - 232
Grade 10 - 206
Grade 11 - 155
Grade 12 - 118
Total - 711
Good News … Cleveland has 232 in grade 9 and 711 total
in preliminary numbers out on 9/27.
New Tech Network (NTN) schools rarely have as many as 70% of cohort making it to grade 11 … 60% is usually more likely. Let us use 65% to guess for an 11th grade enrollment in 2012. It returns 151 for grade 11 in 2012.
Given what happened at a large number of other NTN Start-ups in the first three years, a 700 enrollment at year three seems optimistic. Yet given the enormous amount of financial resources being put at Cleveland aimed primarily at grades 9 and 10, enrollment might be likely to exceed what happened elsewhere. ….. Except that no other NTN school is requiring Calculus for all by graduation.
Cleveland Math classes are almost all offered at 85 minute length per day for a full year. That is a very good thing and should produce somewhat improved results above most other NTN schools with similar demographic characteristics. Note Cleveland is running an alternating day schedule with a 4 period day + help session. This would normally mean students are taking 8 classes, except most math classes meet everyday.
NT Sacramento's math is a major disaster as is the math at most NTN schools. Project Based Learning gets most of the blame from me for this lack of math performance at NTN schools. Even at the “mother-ship” NT NAPA math scores are below the NAPA regular high school, which is demographically more challenged.
Director Maier was looking for around 1000 students in 2015, which is the same as MGJ and the CAO mentioned in their Cleveland Open house presentation (late January 2010).
I would put the May 2014 over-under line at 634 for those bettors out there.
That will be the fourth year for these 232 freshmen. I will be very surprised if real Calculus competency for all survives as any kind of a real requirement. --- Anyone looking for Cliff notes Calculus?
If we are talking about May 2015 enrollment numbers, I'll take the under. This of course assumes that the SPS is still continuing with the advertised product and delivering it as advertised.
I will note that the Board awarded an $800,000 contract without going through a competitive bid process. CHECK This piece from Charlie Mas.
The required SPS "sole source justification form" was filled in on October 15, 2009 by Susan Derse but it was never signed and dated by anyone. (Good thing not signed as some of it was not true and that signing would have been either perjury or ignorance or both.) The State law requires competitive bids on a project like this. They do have exemptions for non-competitive bid but in reading the exemptions, I believe that this project would not have qualified for an exemption had one been sought.
Now read or reread Mr. Mas's linked piece above. Also I agree with Mr. Mas the data was all readily available because I had been sending it to Board members. This was a clear case of "fooling board members" four of whom wanted to be fooled.
I believe a recall case can be made that each of those four board members should be recalled for violation of RCW 28A.335.190 because no exceptions from RCW 43.19.1906 are applicable. Again an $800,000 contract was awarded without a competitive bid, when Directors Carr, Maier, Martin-Morris, and Sundquist voted to approve an $800,000 contract. They did this twice. Once on 2/3/2010 and again on 4/7/2010.
If the SPS is a municipality then toss in RCW 39.04.280 also.
See Board Policies G45.00 G46.00 and G46.01 HERE.
====================
What did they know and when did they know it?
Plenty they knew plenty.
They just chose to tell the public stories and vote yes.
Facts are a bother for these four.
How to Flush $800,000 Seattle Style. - Major rant.
==========
A few thoughts from 2/4/2010 .... made just after the original 4-2 vote on 2/3/10.
Note the District filed a new action report on 3/15/10 and then approved a slightly modified contract that matched the action report on 4/7/2010.
My testimony from 4/7/2010
No comments:
Post a Comment