Is SSMA really that bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree 100% with the above. Re-enrollment numbers tell you how families who actually have experience with the school feel. Anyone can say anything about a school on DCUM but the fact that SSMA's re-enrollment numbers are so much lower than the comparable montessori schools, thinking Led and CHML, tells you that a large portion of the people who sent their kids there are unhappy.

Yeah. We were definitely a heavily involved family who talked the school up for a while. We were just willing to accept so much silliness thinking it was normal. Now when we get together with our old SSMA PTA friends we all laugh about how misguided we were the whole time and how awful "Dr" R is.

[Anonymous]

Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

These are standard goals. I do think that the PCSB waters down its own supposedly rigorous oversight and introduces favoritism by allowing all these exceptions and "flexibilities". But these goals are cut and paste matching lots of other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

These are standard goals. I do think that the PCSB waters down its own supposedly rigorous oversight and introduces favoritism by allowing all these exceptions and "flexibilities". But these goals are cut and paste matching lots of other schools.

You have to be doing REALLY bad to actually be shut down by PCSB. And sadly quite a few schools have been at that rock bottom recently. SSMA hasn't. The measures don't really correct enough for population served (which has hurt some other schools serving very high risk kids, too).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

These are standard goals. I do think that the PCSB waters down its own supposedly rigorous oversight and introduces favoritism by allowing all these exceptions and "flexibilities". But these goals are cut and paste matching lots of other schools.

You have to be doing REALLY bad to actually be shut down by PCSB. And sadly quite a few schools have been at that rock bottom recently. SSMA hasn't. The measures don't really correct enough for population served (which has hurt some other schools serving very high risk kids, too).

This. The scores have to be an absolute cluster for them to actually shut it down, and even then there's often a conditional continuance and more chances to improve. And I get that shutdowns are bad and hard and disruptive, but isn't the whole point of charters the ability to shut down failing schools?

Schools that serve higher-income kids have to be really, really bad to have bad test scores, because the parents are capable of supplementing academics so much. The more common outcome is that parents will leave (hence SSMA's bad re-enrollment scores) and the school fails financially.

If I were a SSMA parent I would be very, very concerned. Not so much about a quick shutdown, but if SSMA doesn't fill its seats this year, having a bad Count Day in October and not having very much money and having to make program cuts. That will make the school even less appealing to parents the following year. It's a downward spiral. Due to COVID I think a lot of people will keep their kids home with a nanny or parent for preschool, and that means that schools like SSMA may have a hard time attracting enough kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

These are standard goals. I do think that the PCSB waters down its own supposedly rigorous oversight and introduces favoritism by allowing all these exceptions and "flexibilities". But these goals are cut and paste matching lots of other schools.

You have to be doing REALLY bad to actually be shut down by PCSB. And sadly quite a few schools have been at that rock bottom recently. SSMA hasn't. The measures don't really correct enough for population served (which has hurt some other schools serving very high risk kids, too).

This. The scores have to be an absolute cluster for them to actually shut it down, and even then there's often a conditional continuance and more chances to improve. And I get that shutdowns are bad and hard and disruptive, but isn't the whole point of charters the ability to shut down failing schools?

Schools that serve higher-income kids have to be really, really bad to have bad test scores, because the parents are capable of supplementing academics so much. The more common outcome is that parents will leave (hence SSMA's bad re-enrollment scores) and the school fails financially.

If I were a SSMA parent I would be very, very concerned. Not so much about a quick shutdown, but if SSMA doesn't fill its seats this year, having a bad Count Day in October and not having very much money and having to make program cuts. That will make the school even less appealing to parents the following year. It's a downward spiral. Due to COVID I think a lot of people will keep their kids home with a nanny or parent for preschool, and that means that schools like SSMA may have a hard time attracting enough kids.

They are still actively recruiting for all grades which make me feel like enrollment/matching etc is low. I got a targeted ad in my Facebook feed (I live in an adjacent neighborhood)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

These are standard goals. I do think that the PCSB waters down its own supposedly rigorous oversight and introduces favoritism by allowing all these exceptions and "flexibilities". But these goals are cut and paste matching lots of other schools.

You have to be doing REALLY bad to actually be shut down by PCSB. And sadly quite a few schools have been at that rock bottom recently. SSMA hasn't. The measures don't really correct enough for population served (which has hurt some other schools serving very high risk kids, too).

This. The scores have to be an absolute cluster for them to actually shut it down, and even then there's often a conditional continuance and more chances to improve. And I get that shutdowns are bad and hard and disruptive, but isn't the whole point of charters the ability to shut down failing schools?

Schools that serve higher-income kids have to be really, really bad to have bad test scores, because the parents are capable of supplementing academics so much. The more common outcome is that parents will leave (hence SSMA's bad re-enrollment scores) and the school fails financially.

If I were a SSMA parent I would be very, very concerned. Not so much about a quick shutdown, but if SSMA doesn't fill its seats this year, having a bad Count Day in October and not having very much money and having to make program cuts. That will make the school even less appealing to parents the following year. It's a downward spiral. Due to COVID I think a lot of people will keep their kids home with a nanny or parent for preschool, and that means that schools like SSMA may have a hard time attracting enough kids.

They are still actively recruiting for all grades which make me feel like enrollment/matching etc is low. I got a targeted ad in my Facebook feed (I live in an adjacent neighborhood)

They are on the Short Waitlists list for some grades already. After the real enrollment deadline I expect schools will make a ton of offers. A lot of kids will sit out preschool i assume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

These are standard goals. I do think that the PCSB waters down its own supposedly rigorous oversight and introduces favoritism by allowing all these exceptions and "flexibilities". But these goals are cut and paste matching lots of other schools.

You have to be doing REALLY bad to actually be shut down by PCSB. And sadly quite a few schools have been at that rock bottom recently. SSMA hasn't. The measures don't really correct enough for population served (which has hurt some other schools serving very high risk kids, too).

This. The scores have to be an absolute cluster for them to actually shut it down, and even then there's often a conditional continuance and more chances to improve. And I get that shutdowns are bad and hard and disruptive, but isn't the whole point of charters the ability to shut down failing schools?

Schools that serve higher-income kids have to be really, really bad to have bad test scores, because the parents are capable of supplementing academics so much. The more common outcome is that parents will leave (hence SSMA's bad re-enrollment scores) and the school fails financially.

If I were a SSMA parent I would be very, very concerned. Not so much about a quick shutdown, but if SSMA doesn't fill its seats this year, having a bad Count Day in October and not having very much money and having to make program cuts. That will make the school even less appealing to parents the following year. It's a downward spiral. Due to COVID I think a lot of people will keep their kids home with a nanny or parent for preschool, and that means that schools like SSMA may have a hard time attracting enough kids.

They are still actively recruiting for all grades which make me feel like enrollment/matching etc is low. I got a targeted ad in my Facebook feed (I live in an adjacent neighborhood)

They are on the Short Waitlists list for some grades already. After the real enrollment deadline I expect schools will make a ton of offers. A lot of kids will sit out preschool i assume.

Since full time DL will likely be an option I think people will keep their seats. If your child is going to be home no matter what, some virtual school is better than nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming family: Does SSMA have any communication on the Charter Board hearing this week where their goals were amended. It feels like they are prepping for a hard hearing (as a believer in the opportunities of charter schools, this feels too gaming the system and kind of gross.)

"Shining Stars PCS requests the following amendment to its charter agreement,
to reflect the revised standard for charter review and renewal under the policy.
Standard for charter review and renewal:
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the five-year
review equal to or exceeding 45%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at its ten-year
charter review.
§ The school must earn an average PMF score since the ten-year
review equal to or exceeding 50%, to be considered as having met
its goals and student achievement expectations at charter renewal.
§ In cases where a school has not achieved the above threshold, the
DC PCSB Board may, at its discretion, determine that a school has
met its goals and student achievement expectations if the School
Corporation has met either of the following:
o Improvement Provision: The School Corporation has
demonstrated consistent improvement in overall PMF scores
during the most recent three years of the review period.
2 In
exercising its discretion, the DC PCSB Board shall also
consider the strength of un-tiered measures.
o Demonstrated Promise Provision: At charter renewal, the
school has earned a PMF score equal to or exceeding 50 in
the most recent year of the PMF (the last year of the review period); OR the school’s rating on OSSE’s School
Transparency and Report (STAR) framework for the most
recent year is a 3 or above. 3,4"

Just so many ORS

These are standard goals. I do think that the PCSB waters down its own supposedly rigorous oversight and introduces favoritism by allowing all these exceptions and "flexibilities". But these goals are cut and paste matching lots of other schools.

You have to be doing REALLY bad to actually be shut down by PCSB. And sadly quite a few schools have been at that rock bottom recently. SSMA hasn't. The measures don't really correct enough for population served (which has hurt some other schools serving very high risk kids, too).

This. The scores have to be an absolute cluster for them to actually shut it down, and even then there's often a conditional continuance and more chances to improve. And I get that shutdowns are bad and hard and disruptive, but isn't the whole point of charters the ability to shut down failing schools?

Schools that serve higher-income kids have to be really, really bad to have bad test scores, because the parents are capable of supplementing academics so much. The more common outcome is that parents will leave (hence SSMA's bad re-enrollment scores) and the school fails financially.

If I were a SSMA parent I would be very, very concerned. Not so much about a quick shutdown, but if SSMA doesn't fill its seats this year, having a bad Count Day in October and not having very much money and having to make program cuts. That will make the school even less appealing to parents the following year. It's a downward spiral. Due to COVID I think a lot of people will keep their kids home with a nanny or parent for preschool, and that means that schools like SSMA may have a hard time attracting enough kids.

They are still actively recruiting for all grades which make me feel like enrollment/matching etc is low. I got a targeted ad in my Facebook feed (I live in an adjacent neighborhood)

They are on the Short Waitlists list for some grades already. After the real enrollment deadline I expect schools will make a ton of offers. A lot of kids will sit out preschool i assume.

Since full time DL will likely be an option I think people will keep their seats. If your child is going to be home no matter what, some virtual school is better than nothing.

Maybe, but what about people who actually need childcare? DL for a preschool requires an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Demographic trends tell an interesting story about both schools. We’ll see what the picture looks like in August. I am optimistic about renewal and will continue to support the school. My children are thriving and very happy.

Same here. I am the pp who commented about having two kids at SSMA who are happy at the school, have fantastic teachers, and consistently thrive in Montessori. As an example my oldest kids academic level is two grades above his current level (not bragging but shedding light into performance). I do not feel threatened by the attendance policy and see it as a normal thing and agree with other posters regarding the school’s interest to check in on students who miss several classes. As a parent I am too concern about children who may have been missing class whether it is because their parents can’t support virtual education or they have a less than ideal home environment (parent neglect etc).

I do not consider my self a school booster and rarely comment on these threads, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that the school’s virtual education was far more better than one of the Dcps well regarded schools (won’t name the school), and that is my point of comparison when saying that I was impressed by their ability to quickly pulling together the DL program. The scores may not be the best, but the school’s communication continues to improve, the guides and admin staff do genuinely care about the students. For the upcoming school year the school have asked parents feedback to make a decision on the schedule based on CDC/DC guidance. For me a school is more than standardized tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Demographic trends tell an interesting story about both schools. We’ll see what the picture looks like in August. I am optimistic about renewal and will continue to support the school. My children are thriving and very happy.

Same here. I am the pp who commented about having two kids at SSMA who are happy at the school, have fantastic teachers, and consistently thrive in Montessori. As an example my oldest kids academic level is two grades above his current level (not bragging but shedding light into performance). I do not feel threatened by the attendance policy and see it as a normal thing and agree with other posters regarding the school’s interest to check in on students who miss several classes. As a parent I am too concern about children who may have been missing class whether it is because their parents can’t support virtual education or they have a less than ideal home environment (parent neglect etc).

I do not consider my self a school booster and rarely comment on these threads, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that the school’s virtual education was far more better than one of the Dcps well regarded schools (won’t name the school), and that is my point of comparison when saying that I was impressed by their ability to quickly pulling together the DL program. The scores may not be the best, but the school’s communication continues to improve, the guides and admin staff do genuinely care about the students. For the upcoming school year the school have asked parents feedback to make a decision on the schedule based on CDC/DC guidance. For me a school is more than standardized tests.

Why do you think re-enrollment is so low? Bad PARCC scores and bad re-enrollment together indicate a real problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Demographic trends tell an interesting story about both schools. We’ll see what the picture looks like in August. I am optimistic about renewal and will continue to support the school. My children are thriving and very happy.

Same here. I am the pp who commented about having two kids at SSMA who are happy at the school, have fantastic teachers, and consistently thrive in Montessori. As an example my oldest kids academic level is two grades above his current level (not bragging but shedding light into performance). I do not feel threatened by the attendance policy and see it as a normal thing and agree with other posters regarding the school’s interest to check in on students who miss several classes. As a parent I am too concern about children who may have been missing class whether it is because their parents can’t support virtual education or they have a less than ideal home environment (parent neglect etc).

I do not consider my self a school booster and rarely comment on these threads, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that the school’s virtual education was far more better than one of the Dcps well regarded schools (won’t name the school), and that is my point of comparison when saying that I was impressed by their ability to quickly pulling together the DL program. The scores may not be the best, but the school’s communication continues to improve, the guides and admin staff do genuinely care about the students. For the upcoming school year the school have asked parents feedback to make a decision on the schedule based on CDC/DC guidance. For me a school is more than standardized tests.

I'm glad your family is having a good experience. Can you speak to 1) Why re-enrollment is so much lower than the other public/charter montessori schools in the city? 2) Why teacher and staff turnover is so much higher than the other montessori schools in the city?

[Anonymous]

Wow based on this thread Im about to give up my spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow based on this thread Im about to give up my spot.

Not a bad idea. Your neighborhood school is probably not as bad as you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow based on this thread Im about to give up my spot.

Not a bad idea. Your neighborhood school is probably not as bad as you think it is.

What is your school? I would choose SSMA over Browne and Walker-Jones. But all other IB schools in the area are better than SSMA unless you are just hellbent on Montessori.