PCSB Monday meeting agenda is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Appletree review was very surprising. They were deemed as not meeting goals but the PCSB decided to use its discretion to continue the school with conditions.

What goals did they not meet?

Literally and social emotional learning and math. It's a mixed review since there are many campuses.

[Anonymous]

Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Appletree review was very surprising. They were deemed as not meeting goals but the PCSB decided to use its discretion to continue the school with conditions.

What goals did they not meet?

Literally and social emotional learning and math. It's a mixed review since there are many campuses.

I wonder if this will lead them to open more locations in areas where the students are likely to be more prepared/less traumatized/richer to get their averages up. The Spring Valley location is one example of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Appletree review was very surprising. They were deemed as not meeting goals but the PCSB decided to use its discretion to continue the school with conditions.

What goals did they not meet?

Literally and social emotional learning and math. It's a mixed review since there are many campuses.

I wonder if this will lead them to open more locations in areas where the students are likely to be more prepared/less traumatized/richer to get their averages up. The Spring Valley location is one example of this.

They'd have to get permission to open in more locations. So the question is will the charter board approve more locations for a charter it deems as not performing?

What's interesting is that the only campus to fully meet goals last year is the one that is in Ward 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

They had six or seven charters on the agenda but only three charter orgs were actually in the materials. The charter board data is bad/inaccurate. Their rules aren't clear. The schools that know enough to push back have been taken off the agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They also just noticed a special closed meeting for Wednesday. Wonder what's up.

https://dcpcsb.org/special-board-meeting-may-21

The newest fiasco is SEED so it's probably SEED and/or the schools they flagged with financial issues. Unless they are doing more private discussion of upcoming reviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also just noticed a special closed meeting for Wednesday. Wonder what's up.

https://dcpcsb.org/special-board-meeting-may-21

The newest fiasco is SEED so it's probably SEED and/or the schools they flagged with financial issues. Unless they are doing more private discussion of upcoming reviews.

It says SEED and Capital Village in the agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

If true, that stinks for them to be tagged with it in the agenda if they aren't ultimately in violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

If true, that stinks for them to be tagged with it in the agenda if they aren't ultimately in violation.

They're not far from it. And it's the least of their problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

If true, that stinks for them to be tagged with it in the agenda if they aren't ultimately in violation.

They're not far from it. And it's the least of their problems.

That's a weak response. If they aren't on the truancy watch list then they shouldn't be included on the agenda as such.

[Anonymous]

i think it will be the end of capital village. Ward 5 could not sustain CV, Social Justice, Truth and Latin 2 all opening within 2 miles of each other in the same two years. Good ideas. Bad execution. Truth and Latin 2 will benefit from

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

If true, that stinks for them to be tagged with it in the agenda if they aren't ultimately in violation.

They're not far from it. And it's the least of their problems.

That's a weak response. If they aren't on the truancy watch list then they shouldn't be included on the agenda as such.

At the meeting, PCSB noted that it runs the truancy data daily to see if any schools fall off with additional data. However, the Office of Open Government told them that once they post an agenda it shouldn't be amended. So schools that fall of the list stay on the agenda, but don't appear at the meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

If true, that stinks for them to be tagged with it in the agenda if they aren't ultimately in violation.

They're not far from it. And it's the least of their problems.

That's a weak response. If they aren't on the truancy watch list then they shouldn't be included on the agenda as such.

At the meeting, PCSB noted that it runs the truancy data daily to see if any schools fall off with additional data. However, the Office of Open Government told them that once they post an agenda it shouldn't be amended. So schools that fall of the list stay on the agenda, but don't appear at the meeting.

Appreciate the info. That seems a generally lousy way to run data and report metrics. Useful and meaningful metrics have measuring and reporting periods. If what you say is accurate it is an example of a poorly run and designed oversight entity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers appears on the Agenda but not in the materials. Wonder what that's all about?

I think they were supposed to get a truancy citation but pushed back against it at the prior meeting. So having them on the agenda may have been just a mistake.

If true, that stinks for them to be tagged with it in the agenda if they aren't ultimately in violation.

They're not far from it. And it's the least of their problems.

That's a weak response. If they aren't on the truancy watch list then they shouldn't be included on the agenda as such.

At the meeting, PCSB noted that it runs the truancy data daily to see if any schools fall off with additional data. However, the Office of Open Government told them that once they post an agenda it shouldn't be amended. So schools that fall of the list stay on the agenda, but don't appear at the meeting.

Appreciate the info. That seems a generally lousy way to run data and report metrics. Useful and meaningful metrics have measuring and reporting periods. If what you say is accurate it is an example of a poorly run and designed oversight entity.

I mean, it means those schools are very, very close to the margin, which is probably valuable info for folks to have anyway.