Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

They don't necessarily need more money. Perhaps they could get out and go visit some peer institutions and learn how others are getting better results with the same populations. BASIS, Deal, DCI and Hardy are all doing better with those subgroups.

Maybe the charter board should beg DCI and BASIS to expand into ward 7? Latin is not a Basis or a KIPP. Its a one of school without a national organization and resources behind it. If the good citizens of DC dont want it to expand, it shouldn't. The good children of ward 7 can read Latin on buildings, but not in school.

Not according to the analysis presented at the charter board meeting. If considering the performance of at-risk students, BASIS would have earned 32 on the PMF (Tier 3 - low performing). So while Latin is also low at 39 for at-risk performance, they are doing somewhat better than BASIS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

They don't necessarily need more money. Perhaps they could get out and go visit some peer institutions and learn how others are getting better results with the same populations. BASIS, Deal, DCI and Hardy are all doing better with those subgroups.

Maybe the charter board should beg DCI and BASIS to expand into ward 7? Latin is not a Basis or a KIPP. Its a one of school without a national organization and resources behind it. If the good citizens of DC dont want it to expand, it shouldn't. The good children of ward 7 can read Latin on buildings, but not in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The impossible task is closing a wide achievement gap and increasing academic performance of at risk students who enter the school in 5th grade. That is a task few schools do well. Even Kipp, whose students do well on assessments, don't graduate from college in high numbers. So even if Latin adjusts the discipline policy, adds bus lines, provides more counselors and helps teachers understand how trauma impacts learning, scores won't increase much. The kids might benefit from being in a supportive school with great teachers. They may become less anxious and happier but their test scores won't improve much.

Let's say you're right. Wouldn't it still be good to help kids' scores improve a little? Perhaps so that they have as much growth as similarly situated students at other charters and DCPS schools?

Anonymous wrote:Set aside the at-risk kids for a moment.

Why are significant numbers of working and middle class black kids at Latin below grade level at Latin?

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Anonymous wrote:The impossible task is closing a wide achievement gap and increasing academic performance of at risk students who enter the school in 5th grade. That is a task few schools do well. Even Kipp, whose students do well on assessments, don't graduate from college in high numbers. So even if Latin adjusts the discipline policy, adds bus lines, provides more counselors and helps teachers understand how trauma impacts learning, scores won't increase much. The kids might benefit from being in a supportive school with great teachers. They may become less anxious and happier but their test scores won't improve much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

They don't necessarily need more money. Perhaps they could get out and go visit some peer institutions and learn how others are getting better results with the same populations. BASIS, Deal, DCI and Hardy are all doing better with those subgroups.

Maybe the charter board should beg DCI and BASIS to expand into ward 7? Latin is not a Basis or a KIPP. Its a one of school without a national organization and resources behind it. If the good citizens of DC dont want it to expand, it shouldn't. The good children of ward 7 can read Latin on buildings, but not in school.

No one begged Latin to do anything. They said they wanted to expand out of a sense of 'moral obligation.'

Latin invited this scrutiny. And it seems totally fair for the PCSB to ask the Administration why, if they aren't doing well with the underserved kids in their school now, should we trust you will do any better in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

They don't necessarily need more money. Perhaps they could get out and go visit some peer institutions and learn how others are getting better results with the same populations. BASIS, Deal, DCI and Hardy are all doing better with those subgroups.

Maybe the charter board should beg DCI and BASIS to expand into ward 7? Latin is not a Basis or a KIPP. Its a one of school without a national organization and resources behind it. If the good citizens of DC dont want it to expand, it shouldn't. The good children of ward 7 can read Latin on buildings, but not in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

They don't necessarily need more money. Perhaps they could get out and go visit some peer institutions and learn how others are getting better results with the same populations. BASIS, Deal, DCI and Hardy are all doing better with those subgroups.

Anonymous wrote:Sure ask them to work harder. Let's give them supplies and money to do that. Very few schools in America, much less districts or states have "closed" the achievement gap. Take a look at Wilson/Deal. BY plopping right into Ward 7 my best guess is that WL was trying to expand access to its speciality offering and be more responsive to that community. I'm guessing they would even learn and grow by being IN that community. But let's take a step back..a school wants to expand simply to be more equitable, and get screamed at for not being equitable enough. So bo Socrates for the Ward 7 kids. Everyone would prefer to be right than do right. #nogooddeadgoesunpunished #noplatoforyou! #onlyinDC #publiceducationisanightmare

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes lets close latin, one of the most popular schools for black white and everything else students in the city. Let's ignore their classics program (which parents of all colors want), their college placements and their astounding scholarships. Let's close it !

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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."