Business Proposal Presentation

Part 1

Graduation Rate
Graduation rate for School	78%
Graduation rate for District	49%
Graduation rate for County	34%
Graduation rate for State	43%
Cost of Failing
Cost to School	$200,000
Cost to District	$3,558,000
Direct remediation costs to California public schools	$274,000,000
Summary
As you can see that not only is the graduation rate is low but the cost of failure within the schools are high.
Reference
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DistGrad.asp?cSelect=36676520000000--Chaffey+Joint+Union+High&cChoice=DstGrdEth&cYear=2014-15&cLevel=District&cTopic=Graduates&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit

Cost to School Cost to District Direct remediation costs to California public schools 200000 3558000 274000000 Graduation rate for School Graduation rate for District Graduation rate for County Graduation rate for State 0.78 0.49 0.34 0.43

Part 2

School Adminatration
What is your average graduation rate?	78%
Causing the graduation rate- Math	40%
Causing the graduation rate- English	50%
Do you have a plan to grow the rate?	90%
What is the cost of making sure that all students are getting the best education?	$300,000
Students
How is school going for you?	80%
Are you having difficulty learning what you are being taught?	50%
Are you getting any help from your teachers?	60%
Do you believe that the school should change the way they teach their curriculum?	100%
Summary
The school adminatration knows that they have a problem and want to try and increase their graduation rate to 90% from 78% within the next 5 years.
The Students on the other hands knows that there are mak=jor issues in the school and would like to see changes for the better.

What is your average graduation rate? Causing the graduation rate- Math Causing the graduation rate- English Do you have a plan to grow the rate? 0.78 0.4 0.5 0.9 How is school going for you? Are you having difficulty learning what you are being taught? Are you getting any help from your teachers? Do you believe that the school should change the way they teach their curriculum? 0.8 0.5 0.6 1

Part 3

Mentoring
62% of students improved their self-esteem;
52% of students skipped less school;
48% of students improved their grades;
49% of students got into less trouble in school;
Professional Development
low-achieving students increased their achievement level by as much as 53% when taught by a highly effective teacher
Students whose teachers receive professional development in higher-order thinking skills are 40% of a grade level ahead of students whose teachers lack such training in mathematics
Students whose teachers receive professional development in laboratory skills are 44% of a grade level ahead of those whose teachers lack such training in science
Educational Technology
Improve student mastery of content;
Provide individualized instruction;
Improve students’ attitudes toward learning;
Prepare students for the workforce;
After school/ Out of school opportunities
There was a 53.4% decrease in retention in the primary grades associated with the program
youth who participated for four years and those who did not found that QOP students graduated from high school more often (63% vs. 42%),
went on to postsecondary education more often (42% versus 16%)
dropped out of school less often (23% versus 50%)
Career and Technology Education
Enhancement of students’ motivation and academic achievement;
Increased personal and social competence related to work in general;
A broad understanding of an occupation or industry;
Career exploration and planning; and
Acquisition of knowledge or skills related to employment in particular occupations or more generic work competencies
Mentoring	62%
Professional Development	53%
Educational Technology	55%
After School/Out of School Opportunities	63%
Career and Technology Education	50%
Summary
After conducting some research, I found that if the school adminatration were to change and start using these techniques, their school would see a difference in a good way.
References
Boe, T. (1989). The next step for educators and the technology industry: Investing in teachers. Educational Technology, 29(3), 39-44.
Hahn, A. (1994, October). Promoting youth development in urban communities: Unprecedented success for the Quantum Opportunities Program. (A Forum Brief). Retrieved November 12, 2016. Available: http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/1994/fb102894.htm.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
National Dropout Prevention Center/Network. (n.d). Effective Strategies. Retrieved November 12, 2016, from http://dropoutprevention.org/effective-strategies/
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Retrieved November 12, 2016, from:www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTEAMAT.pdf.

Mentoring Professional Development Educational Technology After School/Out of School Opportunities Career and Technology Education 0.62 0.53 0.55000000000000004 0.63 0.5