Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the SBOE report only goes through the 2016-2017 school year. The 27.8% number is only for the 2017-2018 school year. I wonder if it's better to use multi-year averages when looking at the attrition rate since singular events could cause large changes in the averages with the relatively small population sizes. If you add the 2018 numbers to the average it does increase to 19.25%. I'll be curious to see the numbers for the 2018-19 school year though as the staff seem to have legitimate complaints about the below-average pay and changes to benefits.

The SBOE report notes that there could be data comparability issues between charters and DCPS. DCPS's numbers depending on which set you use include librarians and other staff who are union eligible but not strictly speaking classroom teachers.

Mundo Verde's 2016-17 annual report said they had 68 teachers and the attrition rate was 14.7%. https://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/2016-2017%20Annual%20Report%28TR4Q%29%28MundoVerdeBilingPCS%29.pdf

The 17-18 report said there were 66 teachers and a 27.8% attrition rate.

That is a big jump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has the worst teachers in the country, the goal should be to have more accountability over them not the teachers having leverage over families. I would also recommend pta and parents hold the school administration and the teachers accountable, they have both failed the country.

In no universe would teachers in a union have leverage over families. That doesn't even make sense.

In a charter school, the parent organization has ZERO oversight or role w/r/t the Administration. It is not like DCPS which at least has a veneer of accountability and transparency through the LSAT. Only 2 of a charter school's Board of Directors must be parents, and those parents are handpicked by the Board/Administration -- not elected by the parents to represent them.

Anonymous wrote:Oh boo hoo. I am in a union at my job. Teachers at all the highest performing DCPS schools are in the union. It is fine. And the hypocrisy of naming a school after Cesar Chavez and then opposing a union is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the beginning of the end to charters which are the only possible pah to DCPS being marginally acceptable.

Charters are not ‘acceptable’ because they pay teachers crappy salaries and don’t allow them to discuss things like classroom size limits with the school administration.

If a school can’t pay its staff a livable wage it is not a viable model and should be closed.

Oh please... You want to know why 1/2 the students in this town go to charters?

Here is why. The majority of DCPS schools WOTP are poor performing. DCPS is dysfunctional. DCPS principals have only 1 year contracts and high turnover in leadership which is much worst than individual teachers. Just look at the fiasco at JO Wilson now. The city can’t even hire a competent chancellor, and this new one is already off to a bad start. DCPS refuses to meet all students academic need especially those above grade level. I could go on and on.

So until you make DCPS schools acceptable by acknowledging and meeting the needs of all students, get rid of the dysfunctional system with favoritism and backstabbing over competency, establish stable leaderships at the school, and when DCPS actually listens to parents, there will always be plenty of charters acceptable to lots of families.

Charters are far from perfect but many are far better options than many DCPS schools to many families. You may not agree but 50% of the families in this town do.



+1 so true....

If there were no charters, then the majority of MC and UMC families EOTP (with exception maybe of a few CH schools) would move to the burbs past K/1st grade. We all know it. The city especially knows it too and there would be loss of revenue, property taxes, etc... Hence why no resistance to new charters opening. Charters are what is keeping MC families in the city.