Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools dont need to be all things to all people, esp charters. Latin is good at being a classics based program, close connected community and pretty high college placement across all demographics with lots of scholarships and grants. Personally I think its hokey for Latin to replicate in an underserved neighborhood, rather than a central location - but I imagine with more seats there will continue to be kids in low SES neighborhood for whom the description above could be of interest?

Uh, the very reason for charters in DC is to try innovative approaches to reach underserved children, and to improve outcomes.

Is it really true that Latin is good at it, if so many of its AA studentd are scoring well below grade level?

lol to accurately test you have to compare entry and exit levels. I would suspect the majority of the AA students are below grade level when they enter the school. That goes for the other extreme too. I would suspect most white students are above grade level when they enter

Latin, like most other schools should not be penalized or rewarded for test scores that simply reflect the demographics of the student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the testing point, we have kids who are very good test takers and we are among the "gentrifier" minority in our EOTP DCPS (though not just white). I think there is actually some benefit to diversifying the system to have our kids (who don't freak out about tests, because they rock them - I don't know, they're like Jeopardy fans too, so . . . yeah) take the PARCC, etc., because the systems judge the schools so strongly based on the test scores. It's a way to show "this school can produce great test takers/good students" too, so dive in, the water's warm.

You produced the good testtaker, not the school. When people analyze the data they will see that reflected. That's the fallacy of the whole thing. The achievement gap happens at home.
Schools should just focus on meeting the students they have each year with engagement, challenge and support and doing the best they have with the time they have. Is there SEL, inquiry based learning, opportunities for students to excel in different areas, support and feedback? Are students known? Support training and resources for teachers? Adequate and collegial planning? Good leadership? I would say Latin checks most of these wickets and that's why they are a popular school city-wide. Instead of trying to be something they're not, just replicate to offer more of the same kinds of seats.

As you say, this is exactly what Latin does. And I'm not sure test scores accurately reflect the impact a school can have on many different types of kids.

And if it is a private school, that's a fine measure and test scores wouldn't matter a bit.

Except it is a public charter school. And it has agreed to meet a set of benchmarks negotiated with the PCSB. Those include academic achievement and growth scores, graduation rates and so forth for students. Latin knows full well how it will be measured and is responsible for meeting those targets. It has met its targets because its overall averages are high.

WL isn't at risk of being closed and it shouldn't be. But that doesn't mean that the PCSB shouldn't raise questions when an otherwise high performing school has a significant portion of its black students (many of whom are not at-risk) not performing well. And it certainly doesn't mean that school should be allowed to replicate until it figures out how to do better by those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools dont need to be all things to all people, esp charters. Latin is good at being a classics based program, close connected community and pretty high college placement across all demographics with lots of scholarships and grants. Personally I think its hokey for Latin to replicate in an underserved neighborhood, rather than a central location - but I imagine with more seats there will continue to be kids in low SES neighborhood for whom the description above could be of interest?

Uh, the very reason for charters in DC is to try innovative approaches to reach underserved children, and to improve outcomes.

Is it really true that Latin is good at it, if so many of its AA studentd are scoring well below grade level?

lol to accurately test you have to compare entry and exit levels. I would suspect the majority of the AA students are below grade level when they enter the school. That goes for the other extreme too. I would suspect most white students are above grade level when they enter

Latin, like most other schools should not be penalized or rewarded for test scores that simply reflect the demographics of the student body.

The way that is measured is by looking at the median growth percentile -- how much progress are students making from year to year, regardless of whether they are proficient/advanced.

Latin's MS growth scores overall are no better than the city-wide average; Latin's black students have the worst growth scores of any racial or ethnic group in the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the testing point, we have kids who are very good test takers and we are among the "gentrifier" minority in our EOTP DCPS (though not just white). I think there is actually some benefit to diversifying the system to have our kids (who don't freak out about tests, because they rock them - I don't know, they're like Jeopardy fans too, so . . . yeah) take the PARCC, etc., because the systems judge the schools so strongly based on the test scores. It's a way to show "this school can produce great test takers/good students" too, so dive in, the water's warm.

You produced the good testtaker, not the school. When people analyze the data they will see that reflected. That's the fallacy of the whole thing. The achievement gap happens at home.
Schools should just focus on meeting the students they have each year with engagement, challenge and support and doing the best they have with the time they have. Is there SEL, inquiry based learning, opportunities for students to excel in different areas, support and feedback? Are students known? Support training and resources for teachers? Adequate and collegial planning? Good leadership? I would say Latin checks most of these wickets and that's why they are a popular school city-wide. Instead of trying to be something they're not, just replicate to offer more of the same kinds of seats.

As you say, this is exactly what Latin does. And I'm not sure test scores accurately reflect the impact a school can have on many different types of kids.

And if it is a private school, that's a fine measure and test scores wouldn't matter a bit.

Except it is a public charter school. And it has agreed to meet a set of benchmarks negotiated with the PCSB. Those include academic achievement and growth scores, graduation rates and so forth for students. Latin knows full well how it will be measured and is responsible for meeting those targets. It has met its targets because its overall averages are high.

WL isn't at risk of being closed and it shouldn't be. But that doesn't mean that the PCSB shouldn't raise questions when an otherwise high performing school has a significant portion of its black students (many of whom are not at-risk) not performing well. And it certainly doesn't mean that school should be allowed to replicate until it figures out how to do better by those kids.

Sure. Like EVERY other school in DC it should "work to close the achievement gap". Short of going full KIPP though--a model that exists and is a choice many make--it probably won't though. Because then it would be KIPP, not Latin. Meanwhile - there is far more demand than seats for what it does offer, so I would say it should replicate. Somewhere in town. And be a choice for parents who look at the test scores, look at the program, and want what's offered.
If they want to go into an under-served location and only serve the under-served (boy this verbage gets weird) then I agree with you, they need to look at changing what they do and be a hybrid-Latin/KIPP. But then they won't be Latin. They'll be a hybrid Latin/KIPP. So the kids there won't be getting the same program. Perhaps that's what they are regrouping to examine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the testing point, we have kids who are very good test takers and we are among the "gentrifier" minority in our EOTP DCPS (though not just white). I think there is actually some benefit to diversifying the system to have our kids (who don't freak out about tests, because they rock them - I don't know, they're like Jeopardy fans too, so . . . yeah) take the PARCC, etc., because the systems judge the schools so strongly based on the test scores. It's a way to show "this school can produce great test takers/good students" too, so dive in, the water's warm.

You produced the good testtaker, not the school. When people analyze the data they will see that reflected. That's the fallacy of the whole thing. The achievement gap happens at home.
Schools should just focus on meeting the students they have each year with engagement, challenge and support and doing the best they have with the time they have. Is there SEL, inquiry based learning, opportunities for students to excel in different areas, support and feedback? Are students known? Support training and resources for teachers? Adequate and collegial planning? Good leadership? I would say Latin checks most of these wickets and that's why they are a popular school city-wide. Instead of trying to be something they're not, just replicate to offer more of the same kinds of seats.

As you say, this is exactly what Latin does. And I'm not sure test scores accurately reflect the impact a school can have on many different types of kids.

And if it is a private school, that's a fine measure and test scores wouldn't matter a bit.

Except it is a public charter school. And it has agreed to meet a set of benchmarks negotiated with the PCSB. Those include academic achievement and growth scores, graduation rates and so forth for students. Latin knows full well how it will be measured and is responsible for meeting those targets. It has met its targets because its overall averages are high.

WL isn't at risk of being closed and it shouldn't be. But that doesn't mean that the PCSB shouldn't raise questions when an otherwise high performing school has a significant portion of its black students (many of whom are not at-risk) not performing well. And it certainly doesn't mean that school should be allowed to replicate until it figures out how to do better by those kids.

Sure. Like EVERY other school in DC it should "work to close the achievement gap". Short of going full KIPP though--a model that exists and is a choice many make--it probably won't though. Because then it would be KIPP, not Latin. Meanwhile - there is far more demand than seats for what it does offer, so I would say it should replicate. Somewhere in town. And be a choice for parents who look at the test scores, look at the program, and want what's offered.
If they want to go into an under-served location and only serve the under-served (boy this verbage gets weird) then I agree with you, they need to look at changing what they do and be a hybrid-Latin/KIPP. But then they won't be Latin. They'll be a hybrid Latin/KIPP. So the kids there won't be getting the same program. Perhaps that's what they are regrouping to examine.

Demand isn't the sole criteria for replication. And there are other charter MS/HSs in DC with smaller achievement and growth gaps that are not named KIPP, including DCI and BASIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools dont need to be all things to all people, esp charters. Latin is good at being a classics based program, close connected community and pretty high college placement across all demographics with lots of scholarships and grants. Personally I think its hokey for Latin to replicate in an underserved neighborhood, rather than a central location - but I imagine with more seats there will continue to be kids in low SES neighborhood for whom the description above could be of interest?

Uh, the very reason for charters in DC is to try innovative approaches to reach underserved children, and to improve outcomes.

Is it really true that Latin is good at it, if so many of its AA studentd are scoring well below grade level?

lol to accurately test you have to compare entry and exit levels. I would suspect the majority of the AA students are below grade level when they enter the school. That goes for the other extreme too. I would suspect most white students are above grade level when they enter

Latin, like most other schools should not be penalized or rewarded for test scores that simply reflect the demographics of the student body.

The way that is measured is by looking at the median growth percentile -- how much progress are students making from year to year, regardless of whether they are proficient/advanced.

Latin's MS growth scores overall are no better than the city-wide average; Latin's black students have the worst growth scores of any racial or ethnic group in the school.

I agree with you that the growth scores seem like they would be telling. I wish they were broken out by grade and by score (i.e. I'm not so bothered if a 4 doesn't become a 5, but i expect almost all 1s & 2s to improve). I also didn't see the growth scores for HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the testing point, we have kids who are very good test takers and we are among the "gentrifier" minority in our EOTP DCPS (though not just white). I think there is actually some benefit to diversifying the system to have our kids (who don't freak out about tests, because they rock them - I don't know, they're like Jeopardy fans too, so . . . yeah) take the PARCC, etc., because the systems judge the schools so strongly based on the test scores. It's a way to show "this school can produce great test takers/good students" too, so dive in, the water's warm.

You produced the good testtaker, not the school. When people analyze the data they will see that reflected. That's the fallacy of the whole thing. The achievement gap happens at home.
Schools should just focus on meeting the students they have each year with engagement, challenge and support and doing the best they have with the time they have. Is there SEL, inquiry based learning, opportunities for students to excel in different areas, support and feedback? Are students known? Support training and resources for teachers? Adequate and collegial planning? Good leadership? I would say Latin checks most of these wickets and that's why they are a popular school city-wide. Instead of trying to be something they're not, just replicate to offer more of the same kinds of seats.

As you say, this is exactly what Latin does. And I'm not sure test scores accurately reflect the impact a school can have on many different types of kids.

And if it is a private school, that's a fine measure and test scores wouldn't matter a bit.

Except it is a public charter school. And it has agreed to meet a set of benchmarks negotiated with the PCSB. Those include academic achievement and growth scores, graduation rates and so forth for students. Latin knows full well how it will be measured and is responsible for meeting those targets. It has met its targets because its overall averages are high.

WL isn't at risk of being closed and it shouldn't be. But that doesn't mean that the PCSB shouldn't raise questions when an otherwise high performing school has a significant portion of its black students (many of whom are not at-risk) not performing well. And it certainly doesn't mean that school should be allowed to replicate until it figures out how to do better by those kids.

Sure. Like EVERY other school in DC it should "work to close the achievement gap". Short of going full KIPP though--a model that exists and is a choice many make--it probably won't though. Because then it would be KIPP, not Latin. Meanwhile - there is far more demand than seats for what it does offer, so I would say it should replicate. Somewhere in town. And be a choice for parents who look at the test scores, look at the program, and want what's offered.
If they want to go into an under-served location and only serve the under-served (boy this verbage gets weird) then I agree with you, they need to look at changing what they do and be a hybrid-Latin/KIPP. But then they won't be Latin. They'll be a hybrid Latin/KIPP. So the kids there won't be getting the same program. Perhaps that's what they are regrouping to examine.

Demand isn't the sole criteria for replication. And there are other charter MS/HSs in DC with smaller achievement and growth gaps that are not named KIPP, including DCI and BASIS.

I dont think you have any idea how far the demand outstrips the seats. I think that's fine criteria. Another whole point of charters was parents voting for their feet, but of course someone else knows what's best for them and their kids...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools dont need to be all things to all people, esp charters. Latin is good at being a classics based program, close connected community and pretty high college placement across all demographics with lots of scholarships and grants. Personally I think its hokey for Latin to replicate in an underserved neighborhood, rather than a central location - but I imagine with more seats there will continue to be kids in low SES neighborhood for whom the description above could be of interest?

Uh, the very reason for charters in DC is to try innovative approaches to reach underserved children, and to improve outcomes.

Is it really true that Latin is good at it, if so many of its AA studentd are scoring well below grade level?

lol to accurately test you have to compare entry and exit levels. I would suspect the majority of the AA students are below grade level when they enter the school. That goes for the other extreme too. I would suspect most white students are above grade level when they enter

Latin, like most other schools should not be penalized or rewarded for test scores that simply reflect the demographics of the student body.

The way that is measured is by looking at the median growth percentile -- how much progress are students making from year to year, regardless of whether they are proficient/advanced.

Latin's MS growth scores overall are no better than the city-wide average; Latin's black students have the worst growth scores of any racial or ethnic group in the school.

I agree with you that the growth scores seem like they would be telling. I wish they were broken out by grade and by score (i.e. I'm not so bothered if a 4 doesn't become a 5, but i expect almost all 1s & 2s to improve). I also didn't see the growth scores for HS.

There are no growth scores for HS because PARCC is only administered once in 10th for ELA. The HS report card - and PMF - is most heavily weighted toward the college career readiness score + graduation rate, although the 10th-grade PARCC proficiency scores, attendance, and the other stuff are included too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools dont need to be all things to all people, esp charters. Latin is good at being a classics based program, close connected community and pretty high college placement across all demographics with lots of scholarships and grants. Personally I think its hokey for Latin to replicate in an underserved neighborhood, rather than a central location - but I imagine with more seats there will continue to be kids in low SES neighborhood for whom the description above could be of interest?

Uh, the very reason for charters in DC is to try innovative approaches to reach underserved children, and to improve outcomes.

Is it really true that Latin is good at it, if so many of its AA studentd are scoring well below grade level?

lol to accurately test you have to compare entry and exit levels. I would suspect the majority of the AA students are below grade level when they enter the school. That goes for the other extreme too. I would suspect most white students are above grade level when they enter

Latin, like most other schools should not be penalized or rewarded for test scores that simply reflect the demographics of the student body.

The way that is measured is by looking at the median growth percentile -- how much progress are students making from year to year, regardless of whether they are proficient/advanced.

Latin's MS growth scores overall are no better than the city-wide average; Latin's black students have the worst growth scores of any racial or ethnic group in the school.

I agree with you that the growth scores seem like they would be telling. I wish they were broken out by grade and by score (i.e. I'm not so bothered if a 4 doesn't become a 5, but i expect almost all 1s & 2s to improve). I also didn't see the growth scores for HS.

There are no growth scores for HS because PARCC is only administered once in 10th for ELA. The HS report card - and PMF - is most heavily weighted toward the college career readiness score + graduation rate, although the 10th-grade PARCC proficiency scores, attendance, and the other stuff are included too.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

[Anonymous]

Latin replication vote is on the agenda for the July 15 PSCB meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Latin replication vote is on the agenda for the July 15 PSCB meeting.

Looks like they recommend approve with conditions:
https://www.livebinders.com/b/2570454

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin replication vote is on the agenda for the July 15 PSCB meeting.

Looks like they recommend approve with conditions:
https://www.livebinders.com/b/2570454

What are the conditions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin replication vote is on the agenda for the July 15 PSCB meeting.

Looks like they recommend approve with conditions:
https://www.livebinders.com/b/2570454

What are the conditions?

They appear to address equity issues:

1) The school will actively consider admitting students in grades 10, 11, and 12,
engaging its faculty, board, parents, and students in the decision. The school
will report the results of this decision to DC PCSB by March 1, 2020.
2) The school will not permit its sibling preference to be used across its two
campuses. This change will be memorialized in the school’s charter
agreement as follows:
If the school chooses to adopt a sibling preference, such
preference shall not apply to siblings attending different
campuses of the school.
3) The school will update its student discipline policy, reserving out-of-school
suspensions for only the most serious situations. An updated draft of the
policy, which will include these modifications, will be voted on by the school’s
board at its August 2019 meeting to go into effect for the 2019-20 school year.
4) The school will ensure that each faculty member whose job responsibilities
include interfacing with students at least 25% of the time will participate in
comprehensive training in trauma-informed practices during the 2019-20
school year.
5) The school will add stops or provide separate vans/buses for students living in
Wards 5 and 7 whose families request such service, provided there are a
minimum of five such students. No fee will be charged to families whose
children qualify for free or reduced-price meals.
6) The school will implement the plans outlined in its letter to DC PCSB from
June 7, 2019, found at Attachment C, including:
a. Targeted recruitment of lower-income students,
b. Redesign and test at-risk support strategies,
c. Strengthen the RTI (Response to Intervention) Model,
d. Hire an At-Risk program manager, and
e. Expand the reach of restorative discipline and trauma-informed
initiatives.
7) The school will be eligible for charter renewal in school year 2020-21. If the
school’s charter is renewed, it will need to negotiate a new charter agreement
with DC PCSB. Provided the charter is renewed, should the DC PCSB Board
determine, at the time of the renewal decision, that the school has failed to
make satisfactory progress in addressing disproportionality in the use of
exclusionary discipline, the number of at-risk students served, and/or the
3
performance of historically underperforming subgroups, the new charter
agreement shall contain a mission-specific goal or goals to hold the school
accountable in the remaining areas of concern.
8) Finally, due to an oversight, the location of the school’s existing campus at
5200 Second Street NW is not currently listed in the school’s charter
agreement. Therefore, the charter amendment will include this corrected
location.

[Anonymous]

Are the Ward 5 & 7 busses to the current campus or to the yet imagined new campus? Do the have a location?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin replication vote is on the agenda for the July 15 PSCB meeting.

Looks like they recommend approve with conditions:
https://www.livebinders.com/b/2570454

What are the conditions?

They appear to address equity issues:

1) The school will actively consider admitting students in grades 10, 11, and 12,
engaging its faculty, board, parents, and students in the decision. The school
will report the results of this decision to DC PCSB by March 1, 2020.
2) The school will not permit its sibling preference to be used across its two
campuses. This change will be memorialized in the school’s charter
agreement as follows:
If the school chooses to adopt a sibling preference, such
preference shall not apply to siblings attending different
campuses of the school.
3) The school will update its student discipline policy, reserving out-of-school
suspensions for only the most serious situations. An updated draft of the
policy, which will include these modifications, will be voted on by the school’s
board at its August 2019 meeting to go into effect for the 2019-20 school year.
4) The school will ensure that each faculty member whose job responsibilities
include interfacing with students at least 25% of the time will participate in
comprehensive training in trauma-informed practices during the 2019-20
school year.
5) The school will add stops or provide separate vans/buses for students living in
Wards 5 and 7 whose families request such service, provided there are a
minimum of five such students. No fee will be charged to families whose
children qualify for free or reduced-price meals.
6) The school will implement the plans outlined in its letter to DC PCSB from
June 7, 2019, found at Attachment C, including:
a. Targeted recruitment of lower-income students,
b. Redesign and test at-risk support strategies,
c. Strengthen the RTI (Response to Intervention) Model,
d. Hire an At-Risk program manager, and
e. Expand the reach of restorative discipline and trauma-informed
initiatives.
7) The school will be eligible for charter renewal in school year 2020-21. If the
school’s charter is renewed, it will need to negotiate a new charter agreement
with DC PCSB. Provided the charter is renewed, should the DC PCSB Board
determine, at the time of the renewal decision, that the school has failed to
make satisfactory progress in addressing disproportionality in the use of
exclusionary discipline, the number of at-risk students served, and/or the
3
performance of historically underperforming subgroups, the new charter
agreement shall contain a mission-specific goal or goals to hold the school
accountable in the remaining areas of concern.
8) Finally, due to an oversight, the location of the school’s existing campus at
5200 Second Street NW is not currently listed in the school’s charter
agreement. Therefore, the charter amendment will include this corrected
location.

I work at a school that serves primarily at-risk kids. The school was founded to do so and it's a part of its mission. I believe we need options for at-risk kids. That said, I think it's ridiculous that the charter board is tasking Latin with these conditions. We need lots of school options and Latin is very much in demand with parents for what it does well. Charters should focus on what they do well and not try to be all things to everyone.