Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Board is going to make these demands on Latin, it will also have to make similar demands for other charter schools wishing to expand, such as YY. Did MV have to meet these same standards? What about Basis?

I think schools have been given an impossible task of being asked to provide these kinds of services for at risk kids who have experienced trauma. These kids need extensive mental health services and other supporta which many schools, including Latin, are not equipped to provide. Plus, these interventions work best when kids are younger.

Some schools, such as Kipp, may get better test results but these schools are very rigid in their approach. And most kids from KIpp charters don't graduate from college so how meaningful are test scores?

Literally here's what Latin is being asked to do:

1) Think about admitting kids after 9th grade (they don't actually have to do it, just consider it).
2) Not apply sibling preference for siblings attending different campuses.
3) Update the discipline policy so suspensions are used for the most serious offenses (they can still suspend anyone who commits a serious offense)
4) Train faculty in trauma-informed practices
5) Provide bus or van stops in Wards 5 and 7 (they only need one stop in each ward to comply with this and they already have a system of buses)
6) Implement the plans the school has already developed.

How is this an "impossible task"?

+1. It isn't impossible. They also need to show progress quickly or this will be an ongoing issue for the school.

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 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. "

Anonymous wrote:If the Board is going to make these demands on Latin, it will also have to make similar demands for other charter schools wishing to expand, such as YY. Did MV have to meet these same standards? What about Basis?

I think schools have been given an impossible task of being asked to provide these kinds of services for at risk kids who have experienced trauma. These kids need extensive mental health services and other supporta which many schools, including Latin, are not equipped to provide. Plus, these interventions work best when kids are younger.

Some schools, such as Kipp, may get better test results but these schools are very rigid in their approach. And most kids from KIpp charters don't graduate from college so how meaningful are test scores?

Literally here's what Latin is being asked to do:

1) Think about admitting kids after 9th grade (they don't actually have to do it, just consider it).
2) Not apply sibling preference for siblings attending different campuses.
3) Update the discipline policy so suspensions are used for the most serious offenses (they can still suspend anyone who commits a serious offense)
4) Train faculty in trauma-informed practices
5) Provide bus or van stops in Wards 5 and 7 (they only need one stop in each ward to comply with this and they already have a system of buses)
6) Implement the plans the school has already developed.

How is this an "impossible task"?

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI - the testimony re at risk kids and the PMF — was presented by a Ten Square charter school consultant who was advocating that the PMF be changed.

The testimony re PMF and at-risk students. I can't find the chart she referenced, which included the BASIS data referenced by PP.

Alexandra Pardo from TenSquare Consulting re the at-risk student bias of the PMF.

"First, I want to recognize PCSBs staff and leadership ongoing willingness to revise the PMF focused on high standards for student outcomes. In recent years, PCSB has analyzed and recognized the increasingly problematic relationship between student at-risk status and school score on the PMF. Over ten years ago, when the PMF was first developed the sector was grossly different. The correlation between economically disadvantaged students and the PMF score was .13 – negligible.

To best illustrate the shift in economic concentration of students, I direct you to page 1 – here you can see moving across the horizontal axis the number of schools above the 50th percentile based on economic indicators measured at these times – in 2010 there were only 6 schools serving fewer than 50% economically disadvantaged students. Today there are 35 schools serving at-risk populations at the 50th percentile or below. As you see on page 2 – the correlation between economics and the PMF has risen from 2011 to 2018 from .13 to .42, a three-fold increase.

To demonstrate the impact of the at-risk bias, we re-ran the middle school PMF scores for only at-risk students in middle schools. In other words, what could PMF scores be for schools with low or high at-risk populations if only those students were factored? What you will see on page 3 is stark – some high performing schools have low at-risk populations. Schools with PMF scores in the 60s and 70s drop by 20 to 30 PMF points if only considering the outcomes of at-risk students.

We can only suspect where PMF sores would be if schools at the top of this list served at-risk population more aligned with sector or state averages. While this is not a perfect exercise, it demonstrates how sub-groups performances of students can be overlooked. While the proposals to the PMF are a step towards reducing this bias, and I support these shifts, this is not a solution. Members of the task force have suggested alternatives over the past two years – most recently an equity provision. Economics impacts student outcomes has been rooted in research and most recently adopted by even the College Board in the new SAT hardship metric. I urge the Board to be bold like the College Board. Recognize that the changes before you – while a start – are not a solution and are simply a marginal reduction to the growing bias. I ask that the Board commit to mechanisms that reduce this bias to below .20, a statistically weak relationship and develop a PMF 2.0 by spring of 2020. Without action, we will find ourselves here again next year moving decimals without resolving for the underlying bias."

Just FYI - the testimony re at risk kids and the PMF — was presented by a Ten Square charter school consultant who was advocating that the PMF be changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused, what do these developments mean?

Latin's board will approve the conditions and the new campus will open for SY 2020-2021 as planned, assuming the board can find at least a temporary location?

Latin’s can continue planning and preparing to open its new school, but the Administration must simultaneously start implementing these conditions. Like with MV (which had to reach an agreement with its community neighbors and secure accreditation before opening) there will be a date prior to the new school opening by which they need to present their progress to the PCSB to get the conditions lifted.

If they are smart they will provide proactive updates to PCSB members along the way.

Alternatively WL could say ‘never mind. We don’t want to replicate after all’ and the agreement from Monday night would be nullified.

Possibly. But past history shows the PCSB doesn't really monitor those conditions well. Schools have opened without satisfying the conditions set.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. Yes. Any charter wishing to expand should have answer for how its at-risk and students of color are performing as well as for disciplinary disparities. What seems to be happening is that there are new PCSB board members who are bringing this focus to the PCSB; these kinds of questions were applied to non-HRC operators before. Now they are demanding it of hte high performing schools with significant achievement gaps.

When MV replicated I don't think the achievement gap and discipline data was as stark as Latin's and MV hadn't been operating for more than 10 years. BASIS and YY haven't replicated, but should expect similar scrutiny.

2. If WL can't educate ALL STUDENTS, they should close. They are not a private school, and there is no reason on earth why a "classics" curriculum is only suitable for white students.

A school charter is a legally binding contract and schools agree to use the PMF criteria to determine if they are meeting their benchmarks. Latin is, but only if you look at the averages. Only DCPS gets to throw up its hands and say it's too hard, or at least continue to operate year after year without much improvement.

Latin can absolutely provide mental health services and supports to students who need them -- after all, there are very few at-risk kids in the school. They would have to adjust their budget and personnell -- and based on their replication request they are already doing this.

I am no defender of DCPS' performance, but seeing as Latin is doing badly with the same demographic, by that logic Latin should be closed. And Latin does not even take kids after 9th. Can you imagine what a sh*t-show it would be if Latin had to take by right enrollments and midyear arrivals like DCPS does?

Apparently someone has imagined what it would be like. During last night's PCSB meeting, testimony was given on how schools would perform on the PMF if viewed from the perspective of their at-risk kids. Part of the testimony: "Basis Middle PCS in 2018 had an at-risk student population of nine percent and a PMF score of 70.8 percent. However, if only at-risk students were included in the measurement its PMF score would drop to 31.8 percent." From Tier 1 to Tier 3. They also calculated how other charter schools would perform on the PMF if considering only their at-risk kids. Unfortunately, the PCSB hasn't released that document.

Interesting. FWIW the schools serving a high percentage of at-risk and/or students with disabilities have complained about the PMF for years, saying it is the wrong measure for that population.

Of course no one has offered anything better.

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused, what do these developments mean?

Latin's board will approve the conditions and the new campus will open for SY 2020-2021 as planned, assuming the board can find at least a temporary location?

Latin’s can continue planning and preparing to open its new school, but the Administration must simultaneously start implementing these conditions. Like with MV (which had to reach an agreement with its community neighbors and secure accreditation before opening) there will be a date prior to the new school opening by which they need to present their progress to the PCSB to get the conditions lifted.

If they are smart they will provide proactive updates to PCSB members along the way.

Alternatively WL could say ‘never mind. We don’t want to replicate after all’ and the agreement from Monday night would be nullified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. Yes. Any charter wishing to expand should have answer for how its at-risk and students of color are performing as well as for disciplinary disparities. What seems to be happening is that there are new PCSB board members who are bringing this focus to the PCSB; these kinds of questions were applied to non-HRC operators before. Now they are demanding it of hte high performing schools with significant achievement gaps.

When MV replicated I don't think the achievement gap and discipline data was as stark as Latin's and MV hadn't been operating for more than 10 years. BASIS and YY haven't replicated, but should expect similar scrutiny.

2. If WL can't educate ALL STUDENTS, they should close. They are not a private school, and there is no reason on earth why a "classics" curriculum is only suitable for white students.

A school charter is a legally binding contract and schools agree to use the PMF criteria to determine if they are meeting their benchmarks. Latin is, but only if you look at the averages. Only DCPS gets to throw up its hands and say it's too hard, or at least continue to operate year after year without much improvement.

Latin can absolutely provide mental health services and supports to students who need them -- after all, there are very few at-risk kids in the school. They would have to adjust their budget and personnell -- and based on their replication request they are already doing this.

I am no defender of DCPS' performance, but seeing as Latin is doing badly with the same demographic, by that logic Latin should be closed. And Latin does not even take kids after 9th. Can you imagine what a sh*t-show it would be if Latin had to take by right enrollments and midyear arrivals like DCPS does?

Apparently someone has imagined what it would be like. During last night's PCSB meeting, testimony was given on how schools would perform on the PMF if viewed from the perspective of their at-risk kids. Part of the testimony: "Basis Middle PCS in 2018 had an at-risk student population of nine percent and a PMF score of 70.8 percent. However, if only at-risk students were included in the measurement its PMF score would drop to 31.8 percent." From Tier 1 to Tier 3. They also calculated how other charter schools would perform on the PMF if considering only their at-risk kids. Unfortunately, the PCSB hasn't released that document.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Board is going to make these demands on Latin, it will also have to make similar demands for other charter schools wishing to expand, such as YY. Did MV have to meet these same standards? What about Basis?

I think schools have been given an impossible task of being asked to provide these kinds of services for at risk kids who have experienced trauma. These kids need extensive mental health services and other supporta which many schools, including Latin, are not equipped to provide. Plus, these interventions work best when kids are younger.

Some schools, such as Kipp, may get better test results but these schools are very rigid in their approach. And most kids from KIpp charters don't graduate from college so how meaningful are test scores?

1. Yes. Any charter wishing to expand should have answer for how its at-risk and students of color are performing as well as for disciplinary disparities. What seems to be happening is that there are new PCSB board members who are bringing this focus to the PCSB; these kinds of questions were applied to non-HRC operators before. Now they are demanding it of hte high performing schools with significant achievement gaps.

When MV replicated I don't think the achievement gap and discipline data was as stark as Latin's and MV hadn't been operating for more than 10 years. BASIS and YY haven't replicated, but should expect similar scrutiny.

2. If WL can't educate ALL STUDENTS, they should close. They are not a private school, and there is no reason on earth why a "classics" curriculum is only suitable for white students.

A school charter is a legally binding contract and schools agree to use the PMF criteria to determine if they are meeting their benchmarks. Latin is, but only if you look at the averages. Only DCPS gets to throw up its hands and say it's too hard, or at least continue to operate year after year without much improvement.

Latin can absolutely provide mental health services and supports to students who need them -- after all, there are very few at-risk kids in the school. They would have to adjust their budget and personnell -- and based on their replication request they are already doing this.

I am no defender of DCPS' performance, but seeing as Latin is doing badly with the same demographic, by that logic Latin should be closed. And Latin does not even take kids after 9th. Can you imagine what a sh*t-show it would be if Latin had to take by right enrollments and midyear arrivals like DCPS does?

Anonymous wrote:If the Board is going to make these demands on Latin, it will also have to make similar demands for other charter schools wishing to expand, such as YY. Did MV have to meet these same standards? What about Basis?

I think schools have been given an impossible task of being asked to provide these kinds of services for at risk kids who have experienced trauma. These kids need extensive mental health services and other supporta which many schools, including Latin, are not equipped to provide. Plus, these interventions work best when kids are younger.

Some schools, such as Kipp, may get better test results but these schools are very rigid in their approach. And most kids from KIpp charters don't graduate from college so how meaningful are test scores?

1. Yes. Any charter wishing to expand should have answer for how its at-risk and students of color are performing as well as for disciplinary disparities. What seems to be happening is that there are new PCSB board members who are bringing this focus to the PCSB; these kinds of questions were applied to non-HRC operators before. Now they are demanding it of hte high performing schools with significant achievement gaps.

When MV replicated I don't think the achievement gap and discipline data was as stark as Latin's and MV hadn't been operating for more than 10 years. BASIS and YY haven't replicated, but should expect similar scrutiny.

2. If WL can't educate ALL STUDENTS, they should close. They are not a private school, and there is no reason on earth why a "classics" curriculum is only suitable for white students.

A school charter is a legally binding contract and schools agree to use the PMF criteria to determine if they are meeting their benchmarks. Latin is, but only if you look at the averages. Only DCPS gets to throw up its hands and say it's too hard, or at least continue to operate year after year without much improvement.

Latin can absolutely provide mental health services and supports to students who need them -- after all, there are very few at-risk kids in the school. They would have to adjust their budget and personnell -- and based on their replication request they are already doing this.

If the Board is going to make these demands on Latin, it will also have to make similar demands for other charter schools wishing to expand, such as YY. Did MV have to meet these same standards? What about Basis?

I think schools have been given an impossible task of being asked to provide these kinds of services for at risk kids who have experienced trauma. These kids need extensive mental health services and other supporta which many schools, including Latin, are not equipped to provide. Plus, these interventions work best when kids are younger.

Some schools, such as Kipp, may get better test results but these schools are very rigid in their approach. And most kids from KIpp charters don't graduate from college so how meaningful are test scores?

I'm confused, what do these developments mean?

Latin's board will approve the conditions and the new campus will open for SY 2020-2021 as planned, assuming the board can find at least a temporary location?

If Latin didn’t agree to these conditions they would have withdrawn the request prior to the vote. They weren’t developed in a vacuum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

which of these specifically do you think are too much to ask of them? as a lottery school, they are going to get some at-risk kids, and right now those kids aren't being well served. I don't see anything wrong with doing things to help at-risk kids be better served, and none of it will take away from non-at-risk kids, some of whom might also benefit from improved RTI, trauma-informed staff, and buses from Ward 5 and 7.

I 100 % agree that Latin should back slowly away from the charter boards demand. Let the charter board found a ward 5 and 7 classics school for at risk students. Latin should carry on as it were at their one campus, and if fewer children get served than demand, that's on the board.

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.