PCSB Monday meeting agenda is up

[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.

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

Lousy and poorly run. Should you get a ticket if you are going 49 where the speed limit is 50? What if there's no posted speed limit? What the PCSB is doing is dragging schools out to publicly harangue them for bad/inaccurate data and they won't publicly post the rules they used to cite schools.

[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.

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

Lousy and poorly run. Should you get a ticket if you are going 49 where the speed limit is 50? What if there's no posted speed limit? What the PCSB is doing is dragging schools out to publicly harangue them for bad/inaccurate data and they won't publicly post the rules they used to cite schools.

It's really not the same. First, 49 is the perfect speed if the limit is 50, we don't actually want cars driving at 0; and, second, these folks aren't getting a ticket, they're getting a public warning. Here we have schools we want to be at 0 who are way, way over that... and sneak back under the "ticket" line just in time. I have no concerns at all for shaming them for their shameful performance.

[Anonymous]

Also, the schools absolutely know the metrics that get them cited. That part of the objection is just silly.