Anonymous wrote:I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

Hello Rocketship staff person. Please explain why you think the communities need these schools given that they are performing lower than many nearby schools.

I hope Rocketship can pull through. It is a tough environment but the model is innovative and the students are capable. They could hire more experienced staff in ELA and Math for targeted academic interventions. I think they wil reach their goal of 35% at Legacy and Rise. The communities need those schools and with more time, I think there will be academic improvements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

I don't understand how the process works here -- there seems to be a startling lack of transparency and due process. The conditions call for Shining Stars doubling proficiency to reach a higher percentile or they will close. I don't have a problem with the rigor of the condition -- the school needs to do better obviously -- but putting the condition into the consent agenda with no public discussion? No public interrogation of the school that they can meet the conditions and their plans to do so? Not having these conditions examined publicly means that parents choosing this school (and the broader public) have little chance to consider if they want to be part of this.

Also, the PCSB can vote at one meeting that there will be continuance/renewal/probation etc with conditions and then set any conditions they want with a future consent agenda item? Consent agendas should be for routine, non-controversial, and procedural items. This is anything but that.

Yeah, I don't know the answers to your questions. Honestly the PCSB makes it up as they go along, which is how SSMA got a probation concept here in the first place.

EXACTLY. The 15-year renewal is supposed to be an up or down vote to renew the charter or not. In the past, PCSB has asserted that conditions are only possible during the 5-year charter reviews. It is maddening from a process perspective.

Basically they do whatever they think is best, and backfill whatever rationale seems to make the most sense.

I'll do a thread soon on all schools that have conditions. Because it might seem like a good idea to avoid closing now, but really it just sets up ticking time bombs for a lot of closures in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

I don't understand how the process works here -- there seems to be a startling lack of transparency and due process. The conditions call for Shining Stars doubling proficiency to reach a higher percentile or they will close. I don't have a problem with the rigor of the condition -- the school needs to do better obviously -- but putting the condition into the consent agenda with no public discussion? No public interrogation of the school that they can meet the conditions and their plans to do so? Not having these conditions examined publicly means that parents choosing this school (and the broader public) have little chance to consider if they want to be part of this.

Also, the PCSB can vote at one meeting that there will be continuance/renewal/probation etc with conditions and then set any conditions they want with a future consent agenda item? Consent agendas should be for routine, non-controversial, and procedural items. This is anything but that.

Yeah, I don't know the answers to your questions. Honestly the PCSB makes it up as they go along, which is how SSMA got a probation concept here in the first place.

EXACTLY. The 15-year renewal is supposed to be an up or down vote to renew the charter or not. In the past, PCSB has asserted that conditions are only possible during the 5-year charter reviews. It is maddening from a process perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

I don't understand how the process works here -- there seems to be a startling lack of transparency and due process. The conditions call for Shining Stars doubling proficiency to reach a higher percentile or they will close. I don't have a problem with the rigor of the condition -- the school needs to do better obviously -- but putting the condition into the consent agenda with no public discussion? No public interrogation of the school that they can meet the conditions and their plans to do so? Not having these conditions examined publicly means that parents choosing this school (and the broader public) have little chance to consider if they want to be part of this.

Also, the PCSB can vote at one meeting that there will be continuance/renewal/probation etc with conditions and then set any conditions they want with a future consent agenda item? Consent agendas should be for routine, non-controversial, and procedural items. This is anything but that.

Yeah, I don't know the answers to your questions. Honestly the PCSB makes it up as they go along, which is how SSMA got a probation concept here in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

I don't understand how the process works here -- there seems to be a startling lack of transparency and due process. The conditions call for Shining Stars doubling proficiency to reach a higher percentile or they will close. I don't have a problem with the rigor of the condition -- the school needs to do better obviously -- but putting the condition into the consent agenda with no public discussion? No public interrogation of the school that they can meet the conditions and their plans to do so? Not having these conditions examined publicly means that parents choosing this school (and the broader public) have little chance to consider if they want to be part of this.

Also, the PCSB can vote at one meeting that there will be continuance/renewal/probation etc with conditions and then set any conditions they want with a future consent agenda item? Consent agendas should be for routine, non-controversial, and procedural items. This is anything but that.

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

I don't recall hearing anything about the process or if an agreement is needed for that, but I might have missed it. The only way I can do these long hearings is to listen to them on chipmunk speed. It seems like SSMA has to agree to whatever is put in front of it, because their performance is so poor that PCSB would have the right to shut it down (I think-- hard to say in this crazy time of incomplete performance analysis).

Any insight on the SSMA additional provisions? Did the school agree to them?

Anonymous wrote:Question for super helpful poster who has been providing summaries.

The questions seem pointed. I've watched other meetings and don't recall this level of engagement and critique. Do you think this is a change from past practice?

Thank you! I don't think the questions are that different, compared to other low performing schools' reviews. The PCSB loves to talk tough, they just don't love to follow through. But they sure do love to blather on about how intentional they are, and how very tough and strong!

I think Rocketship in particular comes in for criticism because they have a large and deep-pocketed parent company and are an experienced operator, so to perform so terribly really is cause for disdain. In a way that it wouldn't be for some new school opened by rookie parents.

Question for super helpful poster who has been providing summaries.

The questions seem pointed. I've watched other meetings and don't recall this level of engagement and critique. Do you think this is a change from past practice?

https://dcpcsb.org/school-expansion-policy

Here is the School Expansion Policy for public comment.

An authorizer should be a highly functional organization that upholds excellence. Unfortunately, the PCSB has become as much in need of "turnaround" as the schools they are propping up. It's a race to the bottom led by the authorizer. The authorizer will be responsible for each of these schools as they continue to slowly see declines in enrollment, financial challenges, and staffing instability. Take Rocketship - you set conditions for SY27-28 - that is two more school years for a downward trajectory with no oversight. The PCSB this year has truly shown that the bar is set at 0 - zero accountability; zero expectations, and zero action.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more distressing it is how much time and money goes into propping up and trying to fix poorly-performing charters. Just think how much in public funds and PCSB staff time was spent on Eagle. And what did the city get for it?

Wildflower: Will Henderson, my fave. Below target KFIs and nearly missed payroll. Wildflower presentation: Board made mid-year leadership change bc need financial acumen and ops skill set, not just Montessori background. Enrollment is growing. Got Medicaid provider approval and school lunch program which helps financially. Very focused on recruitment. Need stronger scenario planning w staff. Lots of SPED staff needed. Construction was expensive and water and fire watch problems-$300K! Marino: how will you meet all future $ obligations? Crisis over but still tight. A: problems closing a loan... Staffing kinda lumpy and classes not filling. Missed enrollment contingency, yet SPED enrollment up so $ from that. 3 nonresident kids. Has EdOps. Stanley Beatty: You are severely financially challenged and you took a big loss in FY25, how? A: we opened Blue site without much staff, had 14 students rather than 20 but couldn't cut staff. HVAC costs, other construction costs. Hope will not recur. Enrollment and retention focus. Stanley Beatty questions Will: How confident are we that these FCAP metrics will work? A: Reasonable over time, look several years ahead, consider unforseen circumstances. Stanley Beatty very unhappy with the finances. Yan asks Will: microschool so vulnerable to unexpected expenses. What is engagement going forward? Will: monthly is normal but wildflower meets 2x a month and various financial pressure tests. FCAP approved.

Expansion Policy: Needed bc policy is outdated, and too narrow. Need to better fit decline in population and deliberate sector planning. 3 types of expansion: ceiling increase/grades served/replication. Clear evaluation standards to evaluate leadership capacity. Goes w reorg policy and charter application guidelines. Comment until April 26 roundtable and hearing. Then vote May 18.

Will: no real update but Statesmen is off the FML. There is a FAR blog post online. Future FARs will be published earlier.

Finis. Stop passing along failing schools and you won't have meetings that go until midnight!!!

No guru please! I'll think of some sort of nickname eventually. I'm just a parent who believes the PCSB should apply its own standards and stop passing along schools that are clearly failing just because they've had a slight uptick, and stop prolonging co collapse to avoid being the bad guy. Students deserve better, and closure of failing schools was always part of the deal.

Picking up slightly before I left off-- Sandman pretty critical of Rocketship board. The actual motion is that Rocketship must do a charter amendment setting a minimum ASPIRE score of 35% for SY 27-28 and SY 28-29 for Rise and Legacy. If either scores below 35% in either year, that campus must close at the end of the school year and the enrollment ceiling comes down accordingly. No more campuses and and the enrollment ceiling is capped at 1950 (current level). It's hard to say with ASPIRE being new, what the prospects are.

Thurgood Marshall: Covid bad, trying to do better w SPED, TNTP. Marino: Math proficiency very low, unlike ELA growth. A: kids come in behind, 9th graders coming in at 6th grade level, looked at curriculum and coaching, math growth is happening. Interesting discussion of why ELA is doing better than math. Cohort data shows exceeding national cohort metrics. Loss of certain experienced teachers and new teachers coming in. I'm impressed by the presenter here. Stanley Beatty: Glad to hear you are making changes bc your math scores are very bad! FY22 and 23, you had bad cash flow, then improved, how? A: Enrollment rebuild. Williams: kids coming in behind, how to judge growth? A: have natural feeders nearby/siblings. Track college persistence. Alums as teachers. Adamoh-Faniyan: graduation rates below district average, why? A: they come in behind and we can't pretend otherwise. Our population is more econ disadvantaged and SWD than before. Lots of collegegoing prep and career prep. Q: what most proud of? A: TNTP data and people being happy w the school. Sandman: How robust is board oversight of academics? A: 5X/year plus committees. Vote is unanimous w no conditions. I feel okay about this, but still, the math scores are so bad!