Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PCSB had a "Sector Planning Roundtable" at which these issues were discussed and the staff member at the end gives the bottom line, which is that the equivalent of 7 or 8 schools will need to close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UBr1Ih7dfw

Enrollment trends of individual schools can be viewed here: https://edscape.dc.gov/node/1730326

I do think there are some kids sitting out PK3 and PK4, mostly in Ward 3, because they didn't get into their IB or anything else they liked/found convenient. Those kids could potentially be brought into the system.

I'm concerned about Harmony because their plan to move into the Hope building is premised on recruiting more kids than they currently have. I was surprised the PCBS accepted it so uncritically but I guess letting schools make dumb choices and fail is their idea of autonomy and flexibility.

Any school that had conditions on its charter review (SSMA, Rocketship, KIPP, others), is on the Financial Monitoring List, has a bad review in the Financial Analysis Report, has consistent declines in enrollment (Roots, SSMA, CMI, others), is in trouble and bears watching. I hope that this process can play out in an orderly manner and that larger LEAs can smoothly consolidate with face-saving "mergers" that really have the effect of closing their lowest-performing sites.

The Harmony thing seems insane to me. They know the sector needs to shrink! What on earth were they thinking. It’s this unwillingness to make tough decisions that ultimately really harms children, and probably the whole sector (obviously they should care first and foremost about children, but even if it’s self interest all the way down, they should care).

Anonymous wrote:What happens to the charter school buildings and playgrounds/fields when they close?

Anonymous wrote:The PCSB had a "Sector Planning Roundtable" at which these issues were discussed and the staff member at the end gives the bottom line, which is that the equivalent of 7 or 8 schools will need to close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UBr1Ih7dfw

Enrollment trends of individual schools can be viewed here: https://edscape.dc.gov/node/1730326

I do think there are some kids sitting out PK3 and PK4, mostly in Ward 3, because they didn't get into their IB or anything else they liked/found convenient. Those kids could potentially be brought into the system.

I'm concerned about Harmony because their plan to move into the Hope building is premised on recruiting more kids than they currently have. I was surprised the PCBS accepted it so uncritically but I guess letting schools make dumb choices and fail is their idea of autonomy and flexibility.

Any school that had conditions on its charter review (SSMA, Rocketship, KIPP, others), is on the Financial Monitoring List, has a bad review in the Financial Analysis Report, has consistent declines in enrollment (Roots, SSMA, CMI, others), is in trouble and bears watching. I hope that this process can play out in an orderly manner and that larger LEAs can smoothly consolidate with face-saving "mergers" that really have the effect of closing their lowest-performing sites.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like they should close some of these charters over the next few years, particularly if the academics are also weak.

I’m not familiar with the review process for charters. Are there things that trigger a review (enrollment, test scores) or does it just happen on a schedule? What is considered in a review?

I know there was a school that collapsed at the last minute last year, but I thought that was NOT at the request of the review board. When was the last time a PCS was required to close because it failed its review?

Seems to me that the worst case scenario is a school closing either during the school year or after the lottery for the next year when they matched kids. You really want schools to announce they are closing prior to March so that people can lottery with that knowledge. Particularly with falling enrollments, the review board should be willing to force schools to close with plenty of notice for families rather than allowing them to fail with short notice.

Anonymous wrote:I would definitely separate DCPS from Charters in this conversation. It’s a completely different calculus and process. I’d be surprised if we see closures anytime soon in DCPS.

Charters in the other hand, it’s being very openly talked about in the sector that schools absolutely will close in the next few years over this, unless we suddenly see lots of 2yr olds moving to DC next fall. Unfortunately, DCPCSB, while clearly aware of this, seems completely unwilling to confront the reality in practice. Maybe that will start to shift with this most recent lottery data and some of the board turnover. Because what they really need is some thoughtful managed wind down, but instead what we get is Hope Tolsom and Eagle (and heartbreakingly children who were at Eagle and went to Hope after). Charters don’t really have sector planning (part of the point after all), but DCPCSB could be doing a lot more here.

I agree that individual schools can do some right sizing with their budgets and they obviously should. There are limitations though, because of facilities, which tends to be a significant largely fixed cost that they can’t always address. There was some report that went around a while ago about which charters are paying disproportionally high per pupil costs for their locations. The schools I’d be most worried about are the charters who sit at the intersection of declining enrollment and high per pupil facilities costs.

That said, I also agree the lottery numbers are a proxy early indicator for declining enrollment, they don’t necessarily mean declining enrollment. Looking at a given school’s history can provide more insight (eg how many seats do they usually offered how many do they usually fill round one, how many do they end up enrolling; what’s the trend line and where does this year fit). From that, I worry about SSMA but I don’t think they were on the list of expensive facilities. But I cannot find that report now. Maybe someone else can.

Anonymous wrote:Also, be aware that DCPS has other ways of filling seats. There are zero-to-three programs at certain elementary schools and I'm not sure if those kids need to lottery to have a PK3 spot in their same school. And there's also Early Stages which is how children with developmental needs can get a PK3 spot before they're of age. And all of the self-contained classrooms for special education have their own placement process. Charters can have self-contained classrooms too but I'm not sure how placement works. Anyway, the point is, what you see in the lottery data is only part of the PK3 enrollment picture. So yes, enrollment is down for the youngest kids and some adjustments will be made, but it's not necessarily a huge problem that a school didn't fill in the lottery.

Also, some DCPS schools are overcrowded so having less kids isn't a problem for them at all. Using the 2024 MFP, that includes Bancroft, Barnard, Brent, Brightwood, Garrison, Hearst, Oyster-Adams, and others. So a few less preschool and K kids might result in the enrollment being a better fit for the building size.