Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda

[Anonymous]

Just spitballing here - they should have a condition that Latin lottery - at least for a few years - is singular across campuses, i.e., you can't choose a campus for new families. I think that it should be to fill up the new campus first and then the existing campus.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if the Latin Board and Administration is willing to accept these conditions? IOW, how badly do they want to expand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if the Latin Board and Administration is willing to accept these conditions? IOW, how badly do they want to expand?

I'm assuming they pre-agreed on these and that's why we saw the vote get delayed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if the Latin Board and Administration is willing to accept these conditions? IOW, how badly do they want to expand?

I'm assuming they pre-agreed on these and that's why we saw the vote get delayed.

This feels like a new day from the PCSB. Hess are pretty significant conditions — especially linking demonstrable progress on them to the 2020 renewal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin replication vote is on the agenda for the July 15 PSCB meeting.

Looks like they recommend approve with conditions:
https://www.livebinders.com/b/2570454

What are the conditions?

They appear to address equity issues:

1) The school will actively consider admitting students in grades 10, 11, and 12,
engaging its faculty, board, parents, and students in the decision. The school
will report the results of this decision to DC PCSB by March 1, 2020.
2) The school will not permit its sibling preference to be used across its two
campuses. This change will be memorialized in the school’s charter
agreement as follows:
If the school chooses to adopt a sibling preference, such
preference shall not apply to siblings attending different
campuses of the school.
3) The school will update its student discipline policy, reserving out-of-school
suspensions for only the most serious situations. An updated draft of the
policy, which will include these modifications, will be voted on by the school’s
board at its August 2019 meeting to go into effect for the 2019-20 school year.
4) The school will ensure that each faculty member whose job responsibilities
include interfacing with students at least 25% of the time will participate in
comprehensive training in trauma-informed practices during the 2019-20
school year.
5) The school will add stops or provide separate vans/buses for students living in
Wards 5 and 7 whose families request such service, provided there are a
minimum of five such students. No fee will be charged to families whose
children qualify for free or reduced-price meals.
6) The school will implement the plans outlined in its letter to DC PCSB from
June 7, 2019, found at Attachment C, including:
a. Targeted recruitment of lower-income students,
b. Redesign and test at-risk support strategies,
c. Strengthen the RTI (Response to Intervention) Model,
d. Hire an At-Risk program manager, and
e. Expand the reach of restorative discipline and trauma-informed
initiatives.
7) The school will be eligible for charter renewal in school year 2020-21. If the
school’s charter is renewed, it will need to negotiate a new charter agreement
with DC PCSB. Provided the charter is renewed, should the DC PCSB Board
determine, at the time of the renewal decision, that the school has failed to
make satisfactory progress in addressing disproportionality in the use of
exclusionary discipline, the number of at-risk students served, and/or the
3
performance of historically underperforming subgroups, the new charter
agreement shall contain a mission-specific goal or goals to hold the school
accountable in the remaining areas of concern.
8) Finally, due to an oversight, the location of the school’s existing campus at
5200 Second Street NW is not currently listed in the school’s charter
agreement. Therefore, the charter amendment will include this corrected
location.

I work at a school that serves primarily at-risk kids. The school was founded to do so and it's a part of its mission. I believe we need options for at-risk kids. That said, I think it's ridiculous that the charter board is tasking Latin with these conditions. We need lots of school options and Latin is very much in demand with parents for what it does well. Charters should focus on what they do well and not try to be all things to everyone.

which of these specifically do you think are too much to ask of them? as a lottery school, they are going to get some at-risk kids, and right now those kids aren't being well served. I don't see anything wrong with doing things to help at-risk kids be better served, and none of it will take away from non-at-risk kids, some of whom might also benefit from improved RTI, trauma-informed staff, and buses from Ward 5 and 7.

[Anonymous]

They also haven't served non- at-risk minority students well (see item 7 above).

[Anonymous]

Enrollment increase and replication request approved with conditions by the PCSB by a vote of 5-2.

https://twitter.com/dcpcsb/status/1150933297163362304

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enrollment increase and replication request approved with conditions by the PCSB by a vote of 5-2.

https://twitter.com/dcpcsb/status/1150933297163362304

Why did some vote against?

[Anonymous]

Because they thought the conditions should have to be met first. The school by a number of measures is failing to serve the students of color enrolled now and shouldn’t be rewarded for that with an expansion.

[Anonymous]

Because they thought the conditions should have to be met first. The school by a number of measures is failing to serve the students of color enrolled now and shouldn’t be rewarded for that with an expansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Does anyone know if the Latin Board and Administration is willing to accept these conditions? IOW, how badly do they want to expand?


I'm assuming they pre-agreed on these and that's why we saw the vote get delayed.

That is not true. The Latin Board has not yet had an opportunity to vote on these conditions.

[Anonymous]

Because they thought the conditions should have to be met first. The school by a number of measures is failing to serve the students of color enrolled now and shouldn’t be rewarded for that with an expansion.

[Anonymous]

Is the enrollment increase applicable to the current school or the new one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the enrollment increase applicable to the current school or the new one?

New one only. The size of the current school will not change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Does anyone know if the Latin Board and Administration is willing to accept these conditions? IOW, how badly do they want to expand?


I'm assuming they pre-agreed on these and that's why we saw the vote get delayed.

That is not true. The Latin Board has not yet had an opportunity to vote on these conditions.

Are you saying that the Latin Board may not sign the replication agreement that the PCSB approved last night?