Feb 23 PCSB meeting thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

I don't understand how the process works here -- there seems to be a startling lack of transparency and due process. The conditions call for Shining Stars doubling proficiency to reach a higher percentile or they will close. I don't have a problem with the rigor of the condition -- the school needs to do better obviously -- but putting the condition into the consent agenda with no public discussion? No public interrogation of the school that they can meet the conditions and their plans to do so? Not having these conditions examined publicly means that parents choosing this school (and the broader public) have little chance to consider if they want to be part of this.

Also, the PCSB can vote at one meeting that there will be continuance/renewal/probation etc with conditions and then set any conditions they want with a future consent agenda item? Consent agendas should be for routine, non-controversial, and procedural items. This is anything but that.

Yeah, I don't know the answers to your questions. Honestly the PCSB makes it up as they go along, which is how SSMA got a probation concept here in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

I don't understand how the process works here -- there seems to be a startling lack of transparency and due process. The conditions call for Shining Stars doubling proficiency to reach a higher percentile or they will close. I don't have a problem with the rigor of the condition -- the school needs to do better obviously -- but putting the condition into the consent agenda with no public discussion? No public interrogation of the school that they can meet the conditions and their plans to do so? Not having these conditions examined publicly means that parents choosing this school (and the broader public) have little chance to consider if they want to be part of this.

Also, the PCSB can vote at one meeting that there will be continuance/renewal/probation etc with conditions and then set any conditions they want with a future consent agenda item? Consent agendas should be for routine, non-controversial, and procedural items. This is anything but that.

Yeah, I don't know the answers to your questions. Honestly the PCSB makes it up as they go along, which is how SSMA got a probation concept here in the first place.

EXACTLY. The 15-year renewal is supposed to be an up or down vote to renew the charter or not. In the past, PCSB has asserted that conditions are only possible during the 5-year charter reviews. It is maddening from a process perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

I don't understand how the process works here -- there seems to be a startling lack of transparency and due process. The conditions call for Shining Stars doubling proficiency to reach a higher percentile or they will close. I don't have a problem with the rigor of the condition -- the school needs to do better obviously -- but putting the condition into the consent agenda with no public discussion? No public interrogation of the school that they can meet the conditions and their plans to do so? Not having these conditions examined publicly means that parents choosing this school (and the broader public) have little chance to consider if they want to be part of this.

Also, the PCSB can vote at one meeting that there will be continuance/renewal/probation etc with conditions and then set any conditions they want with a future consent agenda item? Consent agendas should be for routine, non-controversial, and procedural items. This is anything but that.

Yeah, I don't know the answers to your questions. Honestly the PCSB makes it up as they go along, which is how SSMA got a probation concept here in the first place.

EXACTLY. The 15-year renewal is supposed to be an up or down vote to renew the charter or not. In the past, PCSB has asserted that conditions are only possible during the 5-year charter reviews. It is maddening from a process perspective.

Basically they do whatever they think is best, and backfill whatever rationale seems to make the most sense.

I'll do a thread soon on all schools that have conditions. Because it might seem like a good idea to avoid closing now, but really it just sets up ticking time bombs for a lot of closures in the future.

[Anonymous]

I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

Hello Rocketship staff person. Please explain why you think the communities need these schools given that they are performing lower than many nearby schools.

[Anonymous]

Oh look a Rocketship booster! Why don't you tell us why enrollment has declined so drastically.

[Anonymous]

Students have the potential to improve under the right conditions. It is unreasonable to compare enrollment numbers from pre- and post-COVID periods, as academic performance relies on many interdependent systems.

Rocketship deserves another opportunity to navigate these complexities and identify the best path forward for institutional success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

Hello Rocketship staff person. Please explain why you think the communities need these schools given that they are performing lower than many nearby schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students have the potential to improve under the right conditions. It is unreasonable to compare enrollment numbers from pre- and post-COVID periods, as academic performance relies on many interdependent systems.

Rocketship deserves another opportunity to navigate these complexities and identify the best path forward for institutional success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

Hello Rocketship staff person. Please explain why you think the communities need these schools given that they are performing lower than many nearby schools.

Some schools haven't lost enrollment despite COVID. But Rocketship has lost a lot of its enrollment. Why?

And why does it deserve another chance after Rocketship itself acknowledges they have performed unacceptably? Just for fun? Just because it *might* succeed despite having failed thus far? Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

I also hope that Rocketship starts to thrive. The PCSB has given them time and kids are there so those wishing for Rocketship's failure are wishing for the failure of kids during critical elementary years. What I don't understand is the model -- is it really innovative today when so many schools now rely on technology to support instruction and have blended software/online programs into their core offerings. Can you say more about the model and how it's innovative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

I also hope that Rocketship starts to thrive. The PCSB has given them time and kids are there so those wishing for Rocketship's failure are wishing for the failure of kids during critical elementary years. What I don't understand is the model -- is it really innovative today when so many schools now rely on technology to support instruction and have blended software/online programs into their core offerings. Can you say more about the model and how it's innovative?

Oh FFS. Nobody is wishing for failure of the kids! The kids will do better if Rocketship is closed and they are sent to any of the many better-performing schools in the area. Yes, Ward 8 has many schools that are better than Rocketship. Enough already. Five years of poorly serving these kids is enough. Accountability means closure happens when performance is low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students have the potential to improve under the right conditions. It is unreasonable to compare enrollment numbers from pre- and post-COVID periods, as academic performance relies on many interdependent systems.

Rocketship deserves another opportunity to navigate these complexities and identify the best path forward for institutional success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

Hello Rocketship staff person. Please explain why you think the communities need these schools given that they are performing lower than many nearby schools.

This sounds like Ed Consultant nonsense. Every school was impacted by COVID. Why are you giving Rocketship a pass when other schools have recovered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

I also hope that Rocketship starts to thrive. The PCSB has given them time and kids are there so those wishing for Rocketship's failure are wishing for the failure of kids during critical elementary years. What I don't understand is the model -- is it really innovative today when so many schools now rely on technology to support instruction and have blended software/online programs into their core offerings. Can you say more about the model and how it's innovative?

Oh FFS. Nobody is wishing for failure of the kids! The kids will do better if Rocketship is closed and they are sent to any of the many better-performing schools in the area. Yes, Ward 8 has many schools that are better than Rocketship. Enough already. Five years of poorly serving these kids is enough. Accountability means closure happens when performance is low.

I don't disagree with "enough already" BUT here's what is being missed -- Rocketship isn't closed. It isn't being closed. It isn't in danger of being closed. The PCSB has already decided that they are getting more time so the kids in Rocketship now need it to improve. In fact, the PCSB has given Rocketship at least three years for continued failure. Or to thrive. I'm hoping for thriving because a PK-5 student losing three years of a quality education is rarely repairable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

I also hope that Rocketship starts to thrive. The PCSB has given them time and kids are there so those wishing for Rocketship's failure are wishing for the failure of kids during critical elementary years. What I don't understand is the model -- is it really innovative today when so many schools now rely on technology to support instruction and have blended software/online programs into their core offerings. Can you say more about the model and how it's innovative?

Oh FFS. Nobody is wishing for failure of the kids! The kids will do better if Rocketship is closed and they are sent to any of the many better-performing schools in the area. Yes, Ward 8 has many schools that are better than Rocketship. Enough already. Five years of poorly serving these kids is enough. Accountability means closure happens when performance is low.

I don't disagree with "enough already" BUT here's what is being missed -- Rocketship isn't closed. It isn't being closed. It isn't in danger of being closed. The PCSB has already decided that they are getting more time so the kids in Rocketship now need it to improve. In fact, the PCSB has given Rocketship at least three years for continued failure. Or to thrive. I'm hoping for thriving because a PK-5 student losing three years of a quality education is rarely repairable.

On the contrary, it is in danger of being closed if it does not meet the performance metrics starting in school year 27-28. Now, the PCSB does whatever they want so they might not close Rocketship even if it doesn't meet the stated goal. But if you look at how terrible Rocketship Legacy's scores are, it's hard to see how it can improve fast enough.

Rocketship DC is also in danger of being closed by the Rocketship organization if enrollment continues to decline. Ridiculous Rocketship booster PP whines about not comparing to pre-COVID metrics, but that's beside the point. Rocketship's DC enrollment in the current school year is 1078, down from 1197 last year and 1376 the year before that. (I did this with the Subsequent Financial Memo). Legacy, the worst-performing camps, lost 92 kids relative to the 530 it had last year. This is simply not sustainable. No kids = no school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

I also hope that Rocketship starts to thrive. The PCSB has given them time and kids are there so those wishing for Rocketship's failure are wishing for the failure of kids during critical elementary years. What I don't understand is the model -- is it really innovative today when so many schools now rely on technology to support instruction and have blended software/online programs into their core offerings. Can you say more about the model and how it's innovative?

Oh FFS. Nobody is wishing for failure of the kids! The kids will do better if Rocketship is closed and they are sent to any of the many better-performing schools in the area. Yes, Ward 8 has many schools that are better than Rocketship. Enough already. Five years of poorly serving these kids is enough. Accountability means closure happens when performance is low.

I don't disagree with "enough already" BUT here's what is being missed -- Rocketship isn't closed. It isn't being closed. It isn't in danger of being closed. The PCSB has already decided that they are getting more time so the kids in Rocketship now need it to improve. In fact, the PCSB has given Rocketship at least three years for continued failure. Or to thrive. I'm hoping for thriving because a PK-5 student losing three years of a quality education is rarely repairable.

What you're missing is that schools sometimes close "voluntarily" (or are closed by their organization) when they realize they can't survive. Hope Tolson went that way. It avoids a humiliating public closure that makes the organization look bad. If the Rocketship org ever gets out of its denial, that may happen. Or they may "consolidate" with nearby Rocketship Rise and pretend it isn't a failure of Legacy. But it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

I also hope that Rocketship starts to thrive. The PCSB has given them time and kids are there so those wishing for Rocketship's failure are wishing for the failure of kids during critical elementary years. What I don't understand is the model -- is it really innovative today when so many schools now rely on technology to support instruction and have blended software/online programs into their core offerings. Can you say more about the model and how it's innovative?

Oh FFS. Nobody is wishing for failure of the kids! The kids will do better if Rocketship is closed and they are sent to any of the many better-performing schools in the area. Yes, Ward 8 has many schools that are better than Rocketship. Enough already. Five years of poorly serving these kids is enough. Accountability means closure happens when performance is low.

I don't disagree with "enough already" BUT here's what is being missed -- Rocketship isn't closed. It isn't being closed. It isn't in danger of being closed. The PCSB has already decided that they are getting more time so the kids in Rocketship now need it to improve. In fact, the PCSB has given Rocketship at least three years for continued failure. Or to thrive. I'm hoping for thriving because a PK-5 student losing three years of a quality education is rarely repairable.

On the contrary, it is in danger of being closed if it does not meet the performance metrics starting in school year 27-28. Now, the PCSB does whatever they want so they might not close Rocketship even if it doesn't meet the stated goal. But if you look at how terrible Rocketship Legacy's scores are, it's hard to see how it can improve fast enough.

Rocketship DC is also in danger of being closed by the Rocketship organization if enrollment continues to decline. Ridiculous Rocketship booster PP whines about not comparing to pre-COVID metrics, but that's beside the point. Rocketship's DC enrollment in the current school year is 1078, down from 1197 last year and 1376 the year before that. (I did this with the Subsequent Financial Memo). Legacy, the worst-performing camps, lost 92 kids relative to the 530 it had last year. This is simply not sustainable. No kids = no school.

I so get it. The earliest possible closure by the PCSB would be at the end of the 28-29 school year. That's a long time from now if you are a kid/family in that school who may not have the knowledge to get out. Closure by the national organization? Seems very unlikely given the sunk costs -- how will they recoup the facility investments or make good on facility-related debt? School buildings are staying empty for a reason. IMO, the PCSB conditions aren't enough to make them go right away. Enrollment loss might be but that too seems like it will be a slow burn leading to closure a few years out - not at the end of this year and not at the end of next year.