Anonymous
03/20/2018 22:12
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
In my experience the Charter Board waives it’s own expansion criteria when it feels like it, and also does not do much to validate school claims of engagement (eg nothing) so I am not sure changing their “rules” will make any difference in how they operate in n practice.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 13:15
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Anonymous wrote:These changes, as proposed, will significantly limit charter opportunities to expand and will also disadvantage those charters that accept students at all grade levels - if LAMB can basically stop accepting kids at PK4, they have a lot more control of the PARCC scores of their cohort of 3rd graders than does a school that accepts students in 4th or 6th or 8th grade. It seems like bad policy to reward schools that only accept kids in early childhood grades.
One of the driving forces around charter school expansion is available real estate - lots of schools apply to expand based on real estate costs or because the location that becomes available to them can hold more/fewer schools than they planned to serve (see: Mundo Verde, Creative Minds). I'm sure there are creative solutions to address this (maybe more co-locating charters and/or charters with DCPS schools with available space?), but it won't be easy.
This change seems to address the problem you raise. Currently a school must have a location secured when it applies for an enrollment ceiling increase. Under the new policy they could get the ECI, and then go find one.
" Schools may apply for and receive an enrollment ceiling increase prior to securing a facility. ECIs are now timebound and the school must secure a facility and begin enrolling students within 24 months of the Board’s vote."
Anonymous
03/20/2018 13:03
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
It seems like kind of a mix of loosening amd tightening the rules.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 13:02
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Note: the proposal is to not allow expansion of a school that hasn't been open for at least 3 years.
Current policy is that a school must be open for 4.
Current policy is that a school must be open for 4.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 13:00
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
My mistake - Two Rivers has been Tier 1 for several years, although they are usually close to the bubble/cutoff. Same for Stokes.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 12:59
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Anonymous wrote:Is this a way of hamstringing MV from expanding?
I dont think it would take effect in time.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 12:53
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Is this a way of hamstringing MV from expanding?
Anonymous
03/20/2018 12:51
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
The PCSB's proposed changes. If a school cannot expand unless it is Tier 1 and has been in operation for at least 4 years, that has real estate implications. At the very least, it means that schools may try to write their initial charter application with higher enrollment targets so that they won't need to go back and apply for an expansion in the future, which I think is a worse outcome.
And comparing PARCC test scores with similar cohorts citywide advantages those schools that have the most control over their cohorts - ie, those that only admit at lower grade levels.
I think the PCSB's proposed rules would not have allowed Two Rivers to expand to a second campus (I believe they were Tier 2 at the time, but I may be recalling that incorrectly) - when by all accounts, that expansion has been extremely successful in replicating their model and serving students well.
And comparing PARCC test scores with similar cohorts citywide advantages those schools that have the most control over their cohorts - ie, those that only admit at lower grade levels.
I think the PCSB's proposed rules would not have allowed Two Rivers to expand to a second campus (I believe they were Tier 2 at the time, but I may be recalling that incorrectly) - when by all accounts, that expansion has been extremely successful in replicating their model and serving students well.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 12:40
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Anonymous wrote:These changes, as proposed, will significantly limit charter opportunities to expand and will also disadvantage those charters that accept students at all grade levels - if LAMB can basically stop accepting kids at PK4, they have a lot more control of the PARCC scores of their cohort of 3rd graders than does a school that accepts students in 4th or 6th or 8th grade. It seems like bad policy to reward schools that only accept kids in early childhood grades.
One of the driving forces around charter school expansion is available real estate - lots of schools apply to expand based on real estate costs or because the location that becomes available to them can hold more/fewer schools than they planned to serve (see: Mundo Verde, Creative Minds). I'm sure there are creative solutions to address this (maybe more co-locating charters and/or charters with DCPS schools with available space?), but it won't be easy.
The PCSB's proposed changes -- or the ones by the PPs on this thread?
Anonymous
03/20/2018 12:38
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
These changes, as proposed, will significantly limit charter opportunities to expand and will also disadvantage those charters that accept students at all grade levels - if LAMB can basically stop accepting kids at PK4, they have a lot more control of the PARCC scores of their cohort of 3rd graders than does a school that accepts students in 4th or 6th or 8th grade. It seems like bad policy to reward schools that only accept kids in early childhood grades.
One of the driving forces around charter school expansion is available real estate - lots of schools apply to expand based on real estate costs or because the location that becomes available to them can hold more/fewer schools than they planned to serve (see: Mundo Verde, Creative Minds). I'm sure there are creative solutions to address this (maybe more co-locating charters and/or charters with DCPS schools with available space?), but it won't be easy.
One of the driving forces around charter school expansion is available real estate - lots of schools apply to expand based on real estate costs or because the location that becomes available to them can hold more/fewer schools than they planned to serve (see: Mundo Verde, Creative Minds). I'm sure there are creative solutions to address this (maybe more co-locating charters and/or charters with DCPS schools with available space?), but it won't be easy.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 12:07
Subject: Re:Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Anonymous wrote:Seems like one of the criteria should be that the school has already reached its full configuration (i.e., if a pk-5 school, then be offering all of those grades). If the school only has to be in existence for three years, it could easily be adding a grade for a while. Adding a grade is hard enough without additionally increasing your enrollment ceiling at the same time. Also - if school is not at full configuration, it seems hard to know if the school is really doing a good job educating.
Also - I don't like that a school has to be meeting the city average. I think we can all agree that the current city average is not what we want for our kids. I think the school should be testing at 50% (maybe even 60%) and be in the top quarter of schools in terms of MGP.
Then very few schools will be able to expand.
Charters with PARCC of 50+ on at least one of math/ELA:
BASIS
DC Prep--Edgewood
DCI
Friendship Chamberlain
ITS
Yu Ying
Charters with PARCC over 60:
KIPP Heights, LEAD, Promise, Spring
Latin
I think many people on here feel like their kids are better off at charters than their IB schools even if they don't meet that threshold, and most DCUM posters would prefer for there to be more spots at charters other than those I listed.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 11:58
Subject: Re:Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Anonymous wrote:Seems like one of the criteria should be that the school has already reached its full configuration (i.e., if a pk-5 school, then be offering all of those grades). If the school only has to be in existence for three years, it could easily be adding a grade for a while. Adding a grade is hard enough without additionally increasing your enrollment ceiling at the same time. Also - if school is not at full configuration, it seems hard to know if the school is really doing a good job educating.
Also - I don't like that a school has to be meeting the city average. I think we can all agree that the current city average is not what we want for our kids. I think the school should be testing at 50% (maybe even 60%) and be in the top quarter of schools in terms of MGP.
I like that minorities and at-risk kids will have to AT LEAST meet the city-wide scores or PMF. It shouldn't be enough to do well with gentrifiying kids.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 11:54
Subject: Re:Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
Seems like one of the criteria should be that the school has already reached its full configuration (i.e., if a pk-5 school, then be offering all of those grades). If the school only has to be in existence for three years, it could easily be adding a grade for a while. Adding a grade is hard enough without additionally increasing your enrollment ceiling at the same time. Also - if school is not at full configuration, it seems hard to know if the school is really doing a good job educating.
Also - I don't like that a school has to be meeting the city average. I think we can all agree that the current city average is not what we want for our kids. I think the school should be testing at 50% (maybe even 60%) and be in the top quarter of schools in terms of MGP.
Also - I don't like that a school has to be meeting the city average. I think we can all agree that the current city average is not what we want for our kids. I think the school should be testing at 50% (maybe even 60%) and be in the top quarter of schools in terms of MGP.
Anonymous
03/20/2018 11:42
Subject: Draft revision of DCPCSB policy for enrollment ceiling increases
DCPCSB is updating the criteria they would use when considering whether to grant a school's request to expand.
Lots of changes -- e.g. school must be Tier 1; evidence of broader community engagement and responses required; must have been in operation 3 years (was 4); student retention rate must be 85% or higher.
Most significant (IMO): For PK-12 schools, historically underperforming subgroups must perform at or above the city average on the state assessment for that subgroup OR have a median growth percentile score at or above the city average for that subgroup. For campuses ending in grade 3 or below, a score of at least 50 on the K-3 Growth Assessment is required.
Here's the proposed changes https://www.livebinders.com/play/play/2345734?tabid=f0dc1a46-f46b-4b25-9965-107458c3773b
I think they are taking public comment on this now but the website isn't clear. Was anyone at last night's meeting who can confirm?
Lots of changes -- e.g. school must be Tier 1; evidence of broader community engagement and responses required; must have been in operation 3 years (was 4); student retention rate must be 85% or higher.
Most significant (IMO): For PK-12 schools, historically underperforming subgroups must perform at or above the city average on the state assessment for that subgroup OR have a median growth percentile score at or above the city average for that subgroup. For campuses ending in grade 3 or below, a score of at least 50 on the K-3 Growth Assessment is required.
Here's the proposed changes https://www.livebinders.com/play/play/2345734?tabid=f0dc1a46-f46b-4b25-9965-107458c3773b
I think they are taking public comment on this now but the website isn't clear. Was anyone at last night's meeting who can confirm?