Accountability and Charter Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody’s talking about all schools, we’re talking about the system of oversight for charters in DC. Good ones are fine, with or without effective oversight. Bad ones are allowed to continue without consequence or accountability for years. Eventually families start fleeing and they enter the “charter death spiral” and the Board takes notice. It’s been happening for years.

This. Yes, the really egregiously poor performers are eventually closed. After being awful for years and years and getting extension after extension, slowly spiraling down and down. Closure won't bring those years back for the kids. And it won't change the fact that taxpayers paid for low performing schools because the charter board isn't willing to actually enforce its own standards.

If this is true, please compare to the failing DCPS neighborhood schools and how they are permitted to churn along horrible for years and years failing generations of students.

Easy. They have to do things charters do not, like take all IB kids year round. Together they provide a comprehensive system that provides a seat for all children at all times. Do some of them not function as well as they should? Sure. But unless charters are willing to share in that foundational responsibility, schools of right must continue to exist. DCPS does sometimes close schools (Washington Met and Shaed are a few examples), but it must be able to continue to provide a school of right to every student who wants a seat, within a reasonable commute. So it's not so easy to close. Not like a charter that can pull the plug and leave people in the lurch whenever it wants.

Friend, you are confused. What does DCPS schools being available for every inbound student have to do with charter accountability? And before the argument was the charter board leaving schools open too long, now the complaint is they close whenever they want? Go back and check your anti-charter talking points. Or else, narrow your complaints to the particular school you have a problem with.

The point is that DCPS must provide a seat for every child that wants a seat, within a certain distance from home. That means that DCPS cannot just shut down a school without a plan for where those children will go and how they will be served. It's a totally different thing from how charter schools can shut down at any time without making a plan, knowing that DCPS must step in and serve the kids. DCPS does intervene, replace principals, implement turnarounds and restructurings, and sometimes do closures. But it's a different type of process with different considerations.

NP here. Gotta agree with the person who called you out for confusing your anti-charter talking points. The original issue was failing schools not being closed. Now you are arguing that Charters get to choose who attends and don't have to take all comers (wrong, but I can't deal with all of your internal inconsistencies all at once). Failing schools usually have a higher population of at risk and special needs and below grade level learners. So you are arguing at the same time that Charters don't carry their weight with at risk, but also that those that do try and service that population should be shut down? Pick a lane!

I'd also argue you are gaslighting by pretending that maybe a few DCPS schools fail year after year. Actually, the same schools have failed for years and years. Forget ES, have you even seen the data for at grade level for the High Schools in DC?

You make yourself look silly by vomiting all the tired anti-charter stuff in one fell swoop without thinking about what is on the page. Stop embarrassing yourself.

What? You are embarrassing yourself with your poor reading comprehension. I never said charters get to close who they serve (though some have found ways). But it is a fact that charters do not have to take new students mid-year if they do not want to, and that they do not serve students by right of address all year long.
Those are challenges the charter schools have opted out of.

Charters that successfully serve at-risk students, the truly needy and not a cherry-picked group of the less-needy at risk students, should be judged against other demographically similar schools. And charters with poor results should be shut down regardless of their demographics (looking at you, SSMA). I am no fan of DCPS either, and it does operate many failing schools. But it is naive to say "shut it down" without a real plan for where those students will go and how their needs will be met. That attitude is a luxury charter schools have because DCPS has to pick up the pieces when a charter shuts down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody’s talking about all schools, we’re talking about the system of oversight for charters in DC. Good ones are fine, with or without effective oversight. Bad ones are allowed to continue without consequence or accountability for years. Eventually families start fleeing and they enter the “charter death spiral” and the Board takes notice. It’s been happening for years.

This. Yes, the really egregiously poor performers are eventually closed. After being awful for years and years and getting extension after extension, slowly spiraling down and down. Closure won't bring those years back for the kids. And it won't change the fact that taxpayers paid for low performing schools because the charter board isn't willing to actually enforce its own standards.

What is your prescription, precisely? More stringent oversight by the charter board? Schools closed more quickly and communities disrupted Willy nilly before they have a chance to improve on weaknesses? Or you want no schools
to close—more intense remediation efforts? Or you want tax payer money to go back to DCPS only, and the politically-tuned, dysfunctional, behemoth of non-education and graft knows as DCPS central office? Have you even heard the Chancellor speak? He’s a lightweight, political beast—not a serious educational leader. That’s what you want? Do tell…

I would say to intervene sooner rather than allowing the suckitude to go on until the 5/10/15 year review. Two bad years should mean the school has to provide an improvement plan Stop allowing so many extensions-- 5 years means 5, not 8. Not shrugging their shoulders and saying "flexibility!" to justify schools that really have nothing particularly special about them, are not innovating, and are barely squeaking by on renewal metrics. Stop allowing schools to expand or replicate unless they are among the highest performing schools-- no more wasting real estate on meh schools. Most of these flexibilities the PCSB already possesses but is opting not to exercise, and mediocrity is the result. I am no fan of the chancellor or of DCPS but I see no reason we can't have better charter schools than we currently do. And I see no reason for an established out of state operator such as Harmony to be allowed to have a nearly-failing school in DC for eight years. The parent company should bring it's good performance to DC like it does for other cities, or get out.

Charters are held to accountability standards. If they don't meet their goals, they are closed. If they are not financially viable, they are closed. Being closed is an obvious example of accountability in action. As to Harmony, please provide the facts. Harmony was deemed "failing" (Tier 3) in one year of its last review. The record shows that the PCSB meet with them twice that year on performance concerns and the threat of closure if there wasn't improvement. They steadily improved in all the years since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody’s talking about all schools, we’re talking about the system of oversight for charters in DC. Good ones are fine, with or without effective oversight. Bad ones are allowed to continue without consequence or accountability for years. Eventually families start fleeing and they enter the “charter death spiral” and the Board takes notice. It’s been happening for years.

This. Yes, the really egregiously poor performers are eventually closed. After being awful for years and years and getting extension after extension, slowly spiraling down and down. Closure won't bring those years back for the kids. And it won't change the fact that taxpayers paid for low performing schools because the charter board isn't willing to actually enforce its own standards.

If this is true, please compare to the failing DCPS neighborhood schools and how they are permitted to churn along horrible for years and years failing generations of students.

Easy. They have to do things charters do not, like take all IB kids year round. Together they provide a comprehensive system that provides a seat for all children at all times. Do some of them not function as well as they should? Sure. But unless charters are willing to share in that foundational responsibility, schools of right must continue to exist. DCPS does sometimes close schools (Washington Met and Shaed are a few examples), but it must be able to continue to provide a school of right to every student who wants a seat, within a reasonable commute. So it's not so easy to close. Not like a charter that can pull the plug and leave people in the lurch whenever it wants.

Friend, you are confused. What does DCPS schools being available for every inbound student have to do with charter accountability? And before the argument was the charter board leaving schools open too long, now the complaint is they close whenever they want? Go back and check your anti-charter talking points. Or else, narrow your complaints to the particular school you have a problem with.

The point is that DCPS must provide a seat for every child that wants a seat, within a certain distance from home. That means that DCPS cannot just shut down a school without a plan for where those children will go and how they will be served. It's a totally different thing from how charter schools can shut down at any time without making a plan, knowing that DCPS must step in and serve the kids. DCPS does intervene, replace principals, implement turnarounds and restructurings, and sometimes do closures. But it's a different type of process with different considerations.

NP here. Gotta agree with the person who called you out for confusing your anti-charter talking points. The original issue was failing schools not being closed. Now you are arguing that Charters get to choose who attends and don't have to take all comers (wrong, but I can't deal with all of your internal inconsistencies all at once). Failing schools usually have a higher population of at risk and special needs and below grade level learners. So you are arguing at the same time that Charters don't carry their weight with at risk, but also that those that do try and service that population should be shut down? Pick a lane!

I'd also argue you are gaslighting by pretending that maybe a few DCPS schools fail year after year. Actually, the same schools have failed for years and years. Forget ES, have you even seen the data for at grade level for the High Schools in DC?

You make yourself look silly by vomiting all the tired anti-charter stuff in one fell swoop without thinking about what is on the page. Stop embarrassing yourself.

What? You are embarrassing yourself with your poor reading comprehension. I never said charters get to close who they serve (though some have found ways). But it is a fact that charters do not have to take new students mid-year if they do not want to, and that they do not serve students by right of address all year long.
Those are challenges the charter schools have opted out of.

Charters that successfully serve at-risk students, the truly needy and not a cherry-picked group of the less-needy at risk students, should be judged against other demographically similar schools. And charters with poor results should be shut down regardless of their demographics (looking at you, SSMA). I am no fan of DCPS either, and it does operate many failing schools. But it is naive to say "shut it down" without a real plan for where those students will go and how their needs will be met. That attitude is a luxury charter schools have because DCPS has to pick up the pieces when a charter shuts down.

??? Hang on. Go back and re-read what you wrote to see how confused you are by your anti-charter emetics. You complain that charters can just heartlessly shut down leaving vulnerable families in the lurch and then, in the same paragraph, call for a charter to be shut down ASAP. In logic, you are now null and void—or something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody’s talking about all schools, we’re talking about the system of oversight for charters in DC. Good ones are fine, with or without effective oversight. Bad ones are allowed to continue without consequence or accountability for years. Eventually families start fleeing and they enter the “charter death spiral” and the Board takes notice. It’s been happening for years.

This. Yes, the really egregiously poor performers are eventually closed. After being awful for years and years and getting extension after extension, slowly spiraling down and down. Closure won't bring those years back for the kids. And it won't change the fact that taxpayers paid for low performing schools because the charter board isn't willing to actually enforce its own standards.

What is your prescription, precisely? More stringent oversight by the charter board? Schools closed more quickly and communities disrupted Willy nilly before they have a chance to improve on weaknesses? Or you want no schools
to close—more intense remediation efforts? Or you want tax payer money to go back to DCPS only, and the politically-tuned, dysfunctional, behemoth of non-education and graft knows as DCPS central office? Have you even heard the Chancellor speak? He’s a lightweight, political beast—not a serious educational leader. That’s what you want? Do tell…

I would say to intervene sooner rather than allowing the suckitude to go on until the 5/10/15 year review. Two bad years should mean the school has to provide an improvement plan Stop allowing so many extensions-- 5 years means 5, not 8. Not shrugging their shoulders and saying "flexibility!" to justify schools that really have nothing particularly special about them, are not innovating, and are barely squeaking by on renewal metrics. Stop allowing schools to expand or replicate unless they are among the highest performing schools-- no more wasting real estate on meh schools. Most of these flexibilities the PCSB already possesses but is opting not to exercise, and mediocrity is the result. I am no fan of the chancellor or of DCPS but I see no reason we can't have better charter schools than we currently do. And I see no reason for an established out of state operator such as Harmony to be allowed to have a nearly-failing school in DC for eight years. The parent company should bring it's good performance to DC like it does for other cities, or get out.

Charters are held to accountability standards. If they don't meet their goals, they are closed. If they are not financially viable, they are closed. Being closed is an obvious example of accountability in action. As to Harmony, please provide the facts. Harmony was deemed "failing" (Tier 3) in one year of its last review. The record shows that the PCSB meet with them twice that year on performance concerns and the threat of closure if there wasn't improvement. They steadily improved in all the years since.

You have no idea how Harmony is actually performing during the pandemic, there is hardly any data. And the PCSB gave them a long extension when it should have just closed them. Sorry but 5 years is enough for an established school operator. Eight years is too long to fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody’s talking about all schools, we’re talking about the system of oversight for charters in DC. Good ones are fine, with or without effective oversight. Bad ones are allowed to continue without consequence or accountability for years. Eventually families start fleeing and they enter the “charter death spiral” and the Board takes notice. It’s been happening for years.

This. Yes, the really egregiously poor performers are eventually closed. After being awful for years and years and getting extension after extension, slowly spiraling down and down. Closure won't bring those years back for the kids. And it won't change the fact that taxpayers paid for low performing schools because the charter board isn't willing to actually enforce its own standards.

Yes and no. Poorly performing schools should be closed, but other schools are allowed to coast with less visibility into their poor practices as long as they have the test scores to prop them up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody’s talking about all schools, we’re talking about the system of oversight for charters in DC. Good ones are fine, with or without effective oversight. Bad ones are allowed to continue without consequence or accountability for years. Eventually families start fleeing and they enter the “charter death spiral” and the Board takes notice. It’s been happening for years.

This. Yes, the really egregiously poor performers are eventually closed. After being awful for years and years and getting extension after extension, slowly spiraling down and down. Closure won't bring those years back for the kids. And it won't change the fact that taxpayers paid for low performing schools because the charter board isn't willing to actually enforce its own standards.

Yes and no. Poorly performing schools should be closed, but other schools are allowed to coast with less visibility into their poor practices as long as they have the test scores to prop them up.

This. So many schools coasting on higher-income demographics and spiraling downwards every so slowly. But will the PCSB do anything about it? Oh no. Flexibility! Flexibility is just so much more important than anything else!

[Anonymous]

I would move to MD or VA before sending my child to a DCPS school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would move to MD or VA before sending my child to a DCPS school.

This is extreme, but you have to be very, very careful when choosing a DCPS school for your kid. The dysfunction is deep and the people in charge are not super transparent or professional. There are a lot of politics being played and very often the actual students are the "stakeholders" considered least important. There are hero teachers and fine administrators scattered throughout the system, but they truly need to fight the system every step of the way to do their good work.

I challenge any DCPS employee who reads this to agree or disagree with what I've said here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a UMC charter parent, I'm starting to feel like our charter does NOT listen to UMC parents AT ALL but instead focuses on the majority of the student population...which is NOT UMC. I don't approve of the mitigation strategies our charter rolled out but I'm apparently in a minority, and viewed as the privileged white parent who finds fault with everything and anything.

Majority of parents seem just fine that kids are back and in-person. Parents aren't raising any concerns over the fact that lunch is inside or that desks are touching with no distancing whatsoever.

I'm currently trying to figure out how we can quickly move. We can't afford private. We can't afford to live WOTP. I'd homeschool - and my child would be fine with that - but DC NEEDs time with peers and socialization. Am I the only parent sick to their stomach right now?

We left EL Haynes 6 years ago for that same reason (obviously having nothing to do with Covid). To be fair, the school is very clear that its mission is to serve the (significant) majority of kids who come from difficult circumstances. They want to give kids a chance at good jobs/college who otherwise wouldn't have it, and there are only so many resources, so kids who are UMC are largely left to fend for themselves. I don't blame them for that, but neither does it make the school a great fit when kids start to get into upper elementary/middle school. If we'd been zoned for Deal, we'd have stuck it out through 5th grade, but we weren't, so we moved to MoCo. Very few similarly situated families stayed past middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a UMC charter parent, I'm starting to feel like our charter does NOT listen to UMC parents AT ALL but instead focuses on the majority of the student population...which is NOT UMC. I don't approve of the mitigation strategies our charter rolled out but I'm apparently in a minority, and viewed as the privileged white parent who finds fault with everything and anything.

Majority of parents seem just fine that kids are back and in-person. Parents aren't raising any concerns over the fact that lunch is inside or that desks are touching with no distancing whatsoever.

I'm currently trying to figure out how we can quickly move. We can't afford private. We can't afford to live WOTP. I'd homeschool - and my child would be fine with that - but DC NEEDs time with peers and socialization. Am I the only parent sick to their stomach right now?

We left EL Haynes 6 years ago for that same reason (obviously having nothing to do with Covid). To be fair, the school is very clear that its mission is to serve the (significant) majority of kids who come from difficult circumstances. They want to give kids a chance at good jobs/college who otherwise wouldn't have it, and there are only so many resources, so kids who are UMC are largely left to fend for themselves. I don't blame them for that, but neither does it make the school a great fit when kids start to get into upper elementary/middle school. If we'd been zoned for Deal, we'd have stuck it out through 5th grade, but we weren't, so we moved to MoCo. Very few similarly situated families stayed past middle school.

We had the same experience at a different charter. It was a wonderful fit for lower elementary, but clearly became not a good fit for upper elementary. I don't necessarily begrudge the school, but it was a bit of a surprise to have to start shopping for a new school sooner than expected. I would caution other UMC parents in a similar position to at least mentally prepare themselves for a move when/it the time comes that the school no longer meets your child's needs.

We were lucky to match to a WOTP DCPS in the lottery. The difference is night and day and my child is thriving in the new environment as she was starting to notice the problems with her previous school as well. She is so much more supported in the new school and it is having a tremendous impact.