16:00, my point exactly. Many talk about this so-called plan but this perpetual "promise" of give me time to turn-it around is getting old. Let's see, we've had Vance, Ackerman, Janey and Rhee all probably had a 5-plan that has been interrupted. So, if we could gather all of the unused years it would be about the year 2025 before we could actually say TIME IS UP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shutting down a high school with 350 students who are not performing at an acceptable level does not solve the problem. It is not like Jeannie can all blink them away, they will go to the next available high school. Then what is the next "plan" do we just give another 5 year plan to say that by 2017 that DCPS will be on the right track for recovery.

five years into reform, DC has the same batch of failing schools. Turning them into charters isn't going to change anything except that private companies will profit from them.

Not true. Charter schools in DC (like the vast majority of charter schools) are non-profits. Even KIPP is managed through a non-profit in DC.

As long as charter schools are doing a better job, then let's concentrate on closing the DCPS schools and replacing them with something that works better.

Anonymous wrote:Shutting down a high school with 350 students who are not performing at an acceptable level does not solve the problem. It is not like Jeannie can all blink them away, they will go to the next available high school. Then what is the next "plan" do we just give another 5 year plan to say that by 2017 that DCPS will be on the right track for recovery.

five years into reform, DC has the same batch of failing schools. Turning them into charters isn't going to change anything except that private companies will profit from them.

Shutting down a high school with 350 students who are not performing at an acceptable level does not solve the problem. It is not like Jeannie can all blink them away, they will go to the next available high school. Then what is the next "plan" do we just give another 5 year plan to say that by 2017 that DCPS will be on the right track for recovery.

Anonymous wrote:Another bias of the report is that the tiers are defined not as a certain level of perfomance needed, but as the top 25% of schools (quartile). So the bottom 25% of schools will by definition of the methodology be tier 4. So, the method were applied to only Ward 2 & 3 schools, there would be 25% in tier 4. I think the way the schools end up ranked is probably about right. But the problem comes if the analysis is rerun in 5 or 10 years. There still will be 25% tier 4 schools. They may be better performing (many of the current tier 4 have Dc-case scores on a downward trend), but we can't all be "above average".

If all the schools are performing at acceptable ranges in 5-10 years, maybe we won't even do such an analysis. I personally believe that we should shut down the bottom 50% right now, as they are horrible. Understandably, that would put too much pressure on the other schools, and improvement would be difficult. So, hopefully, by shutting down the bottom 1/4, we can concentrate on those that are only mostly failing. Either way, this analysis is being used now, not necessarily later, so we don't have to worry about whether it would be appropriate later.

That's a really good point. No matter what, 25% of the schools would be recommended for closure and/or take over by a Charter.

Another bias of the report is that the tiers are defined not as a certain level of perfomance needed, but as the top 25% of schools (quartile). So the bottom 25% of schools will by definition of the methodology be tier 4. So, the method were applied to only Ward 2 & 3 schools, there would be 25% in tier 4. I think the way the schools end up ranked is probably about right. But the problem comes if the analysis is rerun in 5 or 10 years. There still will be 25% tier 4 schools. They may be better performing (many of the current tier 4 have Dc-case scores on a downward trend), but we can't all be "above average".

The trend approach means that tier 1 captured more charter schools than it would have if only looking at current actual performance. App C shows with undefined errors what the regressions are. The highest slope would be the upward green, then upward yellow, then sideways yellow. The only charter that got to tier 1 in elementary with a sideways staight yellow was Cap City Elementary. Many DCPS JKLMM schools are Tier 1 based on current performance, with small positive improvement. It's not a bad method, it just creates a certain bias, like all methods do.

the report assigns "tiers" based only on test scores. They looked at two aspects of test (and only DC-CAS) scores: current and trend. To get the trend, a separate regression was done on 5 yrs if available and 3 yrs if that was all they had, for math and reading. The regression was used to predict the DC-Cas scores in 2016, assuming 5 yrs of growth, (or in some cases decline if the regression was negative). One annoying thing is the results are referred to as if they are real data points from real students, rather than predicted via regression.

I don't know what other factors IFF looked at, but they also took into account recent capital improvements/costs.

I understand that they want to hold onto schools in good repair, but I wish they wouldn't tie the administration to the building--that is, if School A is Tier 4 in a great building and School B is Tier 3 in a terrible building, why not just move School B's administration into School A's building & work on bringing it up to par? It seems they'd have us close School B instead, which is a great way to demoralize parents who may have been working like dogs to improve their child's school.

Lured back to DC. Hit the send button too early.

On another note do you think the schools that were mentioned were gorwarned of briefed. I just found it hard to hear that principals were shocked at the news. If this is true no wonder Chancellor Henderson is unavailable until January 30/31.

Did the IFF just rely on enrollment and test score data. Did they do site visits and observe a day or week of learning? Also, I am reluctant to give Wilson credit but if they are deemed a success then why can't DCPS reproduce their product in the other failing comprehensive schools. To give it to a charter school is such a cop-out and pretty much let me know that it is all about the mighty dollar.

Hypothetically, once Spingarn is closed that property would be primed real estate for the Redskin's training camp, when they are

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Really. Check out the map. Clusters that have Tier 1 charter middle schools in them ( there are 36 of these ) are not considered needy because there are high quality seats there.

This points to something in the IFF report that utterly confounds me. The authors seem to view the presence of a good charter school in one's neighborhood as being equivalent to having a good neighborhood school. And the report proposes encouraging high-performing charters to set up shop in underserved areas. But that good charter could have a waitlist of 100+ students--so of what use is it to kids in the cluster where it's located?

Did I just not understand what the report was saying? Or did I understand correctly, but do others not see this as a problem?

The report cross-tabs the location of charters with the distance people travel to schools. Thus, several factors go into the report's recommendations.

Anonymous wrote:No. Really. Check out the map. Clusters that have Tier 1 charter middle schools in them ( there are 36 of these ) are not considered needy because there are high quality seats there.

This points to something in the IFF report that utterly confounds me. The authors seem to view the presence of a good charter school in one's neighborhood as being equivalent to having a good neighborhood school. And the report proposes encouraging high-performing charters to set up shop in underserved areas. But that good charter could have a waitlist of 100+ students--so of what use is it to kids in the cluster where it's located?

Did I just not understand what the report was saying? Or did I understand correctly, but do others not see this as a problem?

No. Really. Check out the map. Clusters that have Tier 1 charter middle schools in them ( there are 36 of these ) are not considered needy because there are high quality seats there.