Shake Up at SSMA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

OMG... this is outrageous! SSMA closed a room with significant HVAC problems, the ED doesn’t talk to certain parents enough and teacher turnover is lower than DC average.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, this letter needs to be significantly shorter and reeks of privilege. I know there are significant leadership and communication issues but as written, this isn't the stuff the dcpcsb cares about. Go testify at the monthly meeting instead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

OMG... this is outrageous! SSMA closed a room with significant HVAC problems, the ED doesn’t talk to certain parents enough and teacher turnover is lower than DC average.

I don't see how you can say teacher turnover is lower than average. They lost like half of their teachers last year. I agree that the focus on the Obama room is weird. There have been such substantial facility issues (no AC in the building, flooding, etc) so it's strange to focus on just the one thing. I'm sure you are in the very small handful of parents that Dr R treats with respect, so of course your eyeroll is warranted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, this letter needs to be significantly shorter and reeks of privilege. I know there are significant leadership and communication issues but as written, this isn't the stuff the dcpcsb cares about. Go testify at the monthly meeting instead

The letter is not addressed to the DCPSB. The letter is addressed to the SSMA Board and was presumably written to be submitted in advance of the meeting scheduled for this coming Saturday. So....exactly what you suggested.

[Anonymous]

The letter is addressed to the SSMA Board, not the Charter Board.

The letter is focused on issues that can easily be fixed, and is attempting to fix them. Yes, there are many other, even more important issues, but there is no existing framework to address them.

It’s amusing that the blowhard making noise about supporting the school is planning to move his kids to a new school next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

OMG... this is outrageous! SSMA closed a room with significant HVAC problems, the ED doesn’t talk to certain parents enough and teacher turnover is lower than DC average.

Do you have stats on DC average turnover? I'm genuinely curious. I am not sure where to search for something like that.

Last year SSMA had 10 classrooms. 5 of those lead guides did not return this year. 50% turnover does not seem normal...or if it is, shouldn't SSMA strive for something above average if it's attempting to become a Tier 1 school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

OMG... this is outrageous! SSMA closed a room with significant HVAC problems, the ED doesn’t talk to certain parents enough and teacher turnover is lower than DC average.

Do you have stats on DC average turnover? I'm genuinely curious. I am not sure where to search for something like that.

Last year SSMA had 10 classrooms. 5 of those lead guides did not return this year. 50% turnover does not seem normal...or if it is, shouldn't SSMA strive for something above average if it's attempting to become a Tier 1 school?

Charter schools have to report teacher turnover as part of their annual reports. There is a lag, however, so 17-18 won't be posted yet. I've never seen an average produced, but you can look up a few comparative schools and see for yourself how SSMA compares. https://www.dcpcsb.org/report/evaluating/charter-school-annual-reports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

OMG... this is outrageous! SSMA closed a room with significant HVAC problems, the ED doesn’t talk to certain parents enough and teacher turnover is lower than DC average.

Do you have stats on DC average turnover? I'm genuinely curious. I am not sure where to search for something like that.

Last year SSMA had 10 classrooms. 5 of those lead guides did not return this year. 50% turnover does not seem normal...or if it is, shouldn't SSMA strive for something above average if it's attempting to become a Tier 1 school?

Charter schools have to report teacher turnover as part of their annual reports. There is a lag, however, so 17-18 won't be posted yet. I've never seen an average produced, but you can look up a few comparative schools and see for yourself how SSMA compares. https://www.dcpcsb.org/report/evaluating/charter-school-annual-reports

Thank you! That is legitimately helpful as I didn't realize that was a standard metric. Obviously a year behind since these are all 16-17. Just did a really quick check of schools that are either comparable (Lee and LAMB) or also in the neighborhood or nearby (Stokes, ITS, Creative Minds):

SSMA - 97.5% (this is literally what is printed in the annual report, although I don't think it can be accurate)
Lee - 17%
LAMB - 18%
ITS - 17.6%
Stokes - 15%
Creative Minds - 28%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

OMG... this is outrageous! SSMA closed a room with significant HVAC problems, the ED doesn’t talk to certain parents enough and teacher turnover is lower than DC average.

Do you have stats on DC average turnover? I'm genuinely curious. I am not sure where to search for something like that.

Last year SSMA had 10 classrooms. 5 of those lead guides did not return this year. 50% turnover does not seem normal...or if it is, shouldn't SSMA strive for something above average if it's attempting to become a Tier 1 school?

Charter schools have to report teacher turnover as part of their annual reports. There is a lag, however, so 17-18 won't be posted yet. I've never seen an average produced, but you can look up a few comparative schools and see for yourself how SSMA compares. https://www.dcpcsb.org/report/evaluating/charter-school-annual-reports

Thank you! That is legitimately helpful as I didn't realize that was a standard metric. Obviously a year behind since these are all 16-17. Just did a really quick check of schools that are either comparable (Lee and LAMB) or also in the neighborhood or nearby (Stokes, ITS, Creative Minds):

SSMA - 97.5% (this is literally what is printed in the annual report, although I don't think it can be accurate)
Lee - 17%
LAMB - 18%
ITS - 17.6%
Stokes - 15%
Creative Minds - 28%

Keep in mind that there is an 'honor system' of sorts to all of this because only verifiable data outside of a school's control like test scores are 100% ironclad. For example, the PMI scoring uses attendance as one metric to score schools. And I know for a fact that SSMA's attendance figures in the PMI reports haven't accurately reflected the reality guides and admin at the schools saw on the ground in the last couple of years. No one is going to double check that because there are simply too many schools and verifying all the data is time-consuming. So the DCPCSB basically relies on schools to report accurate data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like parents are sending an open letter to the Dr. R and the Board about all the issues.

I would love to see it if someone is willing to post it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLU9b0unnAkPisk9zyY7nnHyWAAI4tNQZSGFNWQCmVsy0hIw/viewform

OMG... this is outrageous! SSMA closed a room with significant HVAC problems, the ED doesn’t talk to certain parents enough and teacher turnover is lower than DC average.

Do you have stats on DC average turnover? I'm genuinely curious. I am not sure where to search for something like that.

Last year SSMA had 10 classrooms. 5 of those lead guides did not return this year. 50% turnover does not seem normal...or if it is, shouldn't SSMA strive for something above average if it's attempting to become a Tier 1 school?

Charter schools have to report teacher turnover as part of their annual reports. There is a lag, however, so 17-18 won't be posted yet. I've never seen an average produced, but you can look up a few comparative schools and see for yourself how SSMA compares. https://www.dcpcsb.org/report/evaluating/charter-school-annual-reports

Thank you! That is legitimately helpful as I didn't realize that was a standard metric. Obviously a year behind since these are all 16-17. Just did a really quick check of schools that are either comparable (Lee and LAMB) or also in the neighborhood or nearby (Stokes, ITS, Creative Minds):

SSMA - 97.5% (this is literally what is printed in the annual report, although I don't think it can be accurate)
Lee - 17%
LAMB - 18%
ITS - 17.6%
Stokes - 15%
Creative Minds - 28%

Keep in mind that there is an 'honor system' of sorts to all of this because only verifiable data outside of a school's control like test scores are 100% ironclad. For example, the PMI scoring uses attendance as one metric to score schools. And I know for a fact that SSMA's attendance figures in the PMI reports haven't accurately reflected the reality guides and admin at the schools saw on the ground in the last couple of years. No one is going to double check that because there are simply too many schools and verifying all the data is time-consuming. So the DCPCSB basically relies on schools to report accurate data.

If parents (or anyone else) notices a significant discrepancy from what they observed, they can call the PCSB and the staff will investigate.

[Anonymous]

That letter seems way too formal. It's the kind of thing a snippy board could just respond to with similarly high-minded and meaningless language and call it a day.

I get that the parents may have to go this way at first, but at a certain point you have to get right to "do a better job of retaining your teachers so this isn't just fake Montessori, fix your busted facilities, and keep parents involved and informed about important stuff, or everyone is going to start ditching you."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That letter seems way too formal. It's the kind of thing a snippy board could just respond to with similarly high-minded and meaningless language and call it a day.

I get that the parents may have to go this way at first, but at a certain point you have to get right to "do a better job of retaining your teachers so this isn't just fake Montessori, fix your busted facilities, and keep parents involved and informed about important stuff, or everyone is going to start ditching you."

I feel that is implied!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That letter seems way too formal. It's the kind of thing a snippy board could just respond to with similarly high-minded and meaningless language and call it a day.

I get that the parents may have to go this way at first, but at a certain point you have to get right to "do a better job of retaining your teachers so this isn't just fake Montessori, fix your busted facilities, and keep parents involved and informed about important stuff, or everyone is going to start ditching you."

I think it's written in a formal way, because the Board has been previous critical of the "way" parents were voicing concerns. Parents tried that approach and were told they were rude, being inappropriate, and completely off base.

[Anonymous]

I think the letter is pretty good. It has some tangible requests. However, if the board already thinks poorly of parents, or if enough parents don't sign it, then it may be taken badly.