While it is not my practice to repost comments made on this blog, the following deserves further airing. Perhaps someone will clear up some points made. Remembering the Sanders-Clyde fiasco does give pause.
Clisby Williams said...
One downside is that it would be illegal under cdoeurrent state law. That's why the state Education Dept. staff recommended against it - the state law allows a district only one School of Choice.
Another is the lack of transparency. Where is the documentation of the testing gains? Remember the miracle worker of Sanders-Clyde? We should all be a little skeptical of this.
Also - the whole point of setting up a state-approved School of Choice ought to be to try out something different with the idea that, if it succeeds, CCSD itself could replicate the program. So, what do we know about Brentwood? We know CCSD is spending about $13,000 per student. How much is MSA (or Sherman Financial Group, or other private donors) contributing? Unless we know that, we don't know how much it costs, so we have no frame of reference to decide how financially feasible that model is.
If CCSD were acting with due diligence, the Memorandum of Agreement would specify at least 2 things: Everything to do with Brentwood is subject to the FOIA; and CCSD is either administering or monitoring all relevant testing.Any further thoughts?
Posts
1 comment:
By the way, my comment that it would be illegal is not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the state attorney general's office.
http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Spearman-M.-OS-9909-FINAL-Opinion-7-9-2015-00693562xD2C78.pdf
Post a Comment