DC State Board of Education

SBOE on STAR Framework 11-17-21

SBOE Meeting November 17, 2021

Cathy Reilly

“When we inaccurately attribute differences in educational quality to school districts because of the students they serve rather than their effectiveness in serving those students, we shortchange both district and student,” Houston and Henig conclude.[1]

§ I strongly agree that bias is an issue. The current report card strongly favors schools serving students who arrive with a higher level of proficiency.

§ If we are going to call this a report card it should reflect what the school has control over.

§ I have heard in every setting that we do not want summative rating One rating (STARs – which is not required. I would strongly prefer the dashboard

§ I question the weight of the PARCC scores as a fair measure. Only one state currently uses it, growth is not computed with the same students. The percentages should be reduced substantially for proficiency and also for growth if DC continues to use percentages.

§ OSSE should have additional indicators and information. The Illinois school report cards have a lot of information in an easy to assess format. These indicators should include a measure for a well- rounded education, I have attached one. We should expand the school highlights section also.

§ The Illinois school report card also provides context and information on different measures. In particular I am concerned with the per pupil expenditures. This overall average number includes funds that are designated for particular students like smaller teacher/ student ratios for SPED and ELL. These funds are not available for all students. At the very least this should be explained if this figure is displayed.

§ I am concern about attendance and how it is measured and weighted given that we want students who are sick to stay home. This should not require a doctor’s note when a child has a sore throat or other indication of something contagious.

§ If the High School format continues to be used I strongly urge NAF and CTE participation to be added to the IB/AP participation rates.

§ Our schools are very different so I don’t think a simple comparison is fair or appropriate. It would be far better if the District is supporting choice to pose questions for consideration like distance from home, program that aligns with child’s interests. Urge families to visit or look at a school’s website, talk to parents from different schools.

§ Most important is that we don’t reduce schools or students to too few indicators. The full school experience is more important than any one indicator. Therefore academics, programs, environment- health and safety, and resources are all important to be fairly described.

[1] https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/7/9/21121014/can-growth-data-push-parents-to-more-integrated-schools-a-new-study-says-maybe

State Board Letter on Reopening DCPS

November 10, 2020

The Honorable Muriel Bowser

Mayor

Executive Office of the Mayor

1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mayor Bowser,

At the State Board of Education’s October 21 Public Meeting, we heard testimony from six invited guests with expertise relevant to successfully reopening schools and from 65 public witnesses— including parents, students, and teachers. For these public witnesses, this was their first chance since the announcement of the DC Public Schools (DCPS) reopening plan on October 5 to bring their views and facts to public officials. They raised a number of substantive concerns about both the process by which the reopening plan was developed and the details of the plan itself. Since then, DCPS parents through a petition, the Coalition for DC Public Schools and Communities (C4DC), the Senior High Alliance of Parents, Principals and Educators (SHAPPE), the Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU), and the city’s principals (via the Council of School Officers (CSO)), declared their lack of confidence in the plan and asked for a delay in order to revise the plan into something more workable.

We appreciate that DCPS has since announced such a delay. We ask you to please use this time to work directly with school leaders and teachers on overall planning—and to determine more accurately how many families would like to return in person or to take advantage of CARE classrooms in order to develop a plan that stakeholders find more viable.

Everyone is eager to find a way to bring back as many students as possible—and as soon as possible—prioritizing students most in need. We know that many students and their families are struggling with virtual learning and are losing ground academically. We know that for many students being back in the classroom is vital not just for academics, but for mental health and social reasons and that for many families, their very employment depends on students having a safe place to go during the day.

We also know that figuring out how to reopen schools in a pandemic is extremely complicated. It cannot be a one-size-fits-all plan. It must be based on the input, experience, knowledge, and needs of those closest to the situation: our parents and educators. But the Term 2 proposal did not reflect stakeholders’ input, with predictable results. The failure to include educational professionals and families in the planning did not result in just vague feelings of non-involvement. It meant that the plan did not adequately address various health and safety issues, which have been detailed elsewhere.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Further, it would have seriously disrupted education for students across the city, including in these ways:

· Due to the reshuffling of class rosters under the plan, as many as 40 percent of elementary students were to be assigned to new teachers, thus wasting this fall’s efforts to build relationships between and among students and teachers, with all having to start once again.[6]

· Due to the requirements of the plan, the size of virtual classes for elementary students would have increased, to a cap of 40 students, minimizing teachers’ ability to provide tailored lessons to meet the needs of students.[7]

· CARE classrooms for elementary students—in which students were to receive supervision but not instruction—were to be supervised by adults with no experience or training working with young children (including some as young as 3 years old).

· Due to the DCPS plan’s reliance on secondary school staff to supervise the CARE classrooms, secondary schools would have lost as many as 10–25 staff members per school.[8] Secondary schools would have had to close their newly developed Student Support Centers and abandon other initiatives developed this fall by schools trying to fill in the support gaps their students face during virtual learning.

· Disrupting the fledgling school-based reopening projects (e.g., Tyler Elementary, Horace Mann Elementary) initially solicited by DCPS and launched thanks to the efforts of staff and families to meet the needs of their school communities.

For the sake of our students, that process cannot be repeated. We urge you to begin now to develop a well-conceived plan for a Term 3 reopening—possibly with some students coming back even earlier. This time, the staff of each school, in consultation with the broader school community, must be given the space to design a reopening plan that works for its community. Parents must be engaged during the formation of a reopening plan, not just informed of a plan once it has been created.

We ask you, first of all, to frontload the overall planning process by putting in place a planning framework that would enable, empower, and jumpstart local school communities (likely via their Local School Advisory Teams) to identify the specific needs and priorities of their students and families—including which students are in greatest need of in-person learning—and how to address them effectively, making use of the school community’s unique resources. The framework should build on the successful, small-scale school reopening plans noted above. The planning framework should also establish minimum standards for consistency across schools, including the goal of bringing back as many students who prefer in-person classes as possible, while prioritizing those students most in need of in-person learning. Based on their needs and resources, schools—especially those with a higher number of students designated at-risk—may need additional funds to support such initiatives as outdoor education, tutoring, strengthened virtual learning, etc.

As part of the Term 3 reopening plan, we further urge you to:

· Reach an agreement on health and safety issues with employee unions and put in place, as is now beginning to happen, the PPE, HVAC, and other health and safety commitments that have been promised. Insofar as they are in place, families and staff will have much greater confidence in an in-person plan.

· Strengthen distance learning, so that those families who choose to continue to learn virtually will not have their students’ education disrupted and, if due to health conditions all students have to return to distance learning, a strong virtual education will be in place.

· Find ever-stronger, more effective ways to meet the needs of students with disabilities and the requirements of their IEPs.

· Work with after-school programs, other youth-serving non-profits, and currently underutilized community institutions such as museums and parks that can host and/or staff the equivalent of CARE classrooms such that CARE students are adequately supervised by staff prepared to work with young children—and the staffing does not undermine the staffing and quality of other schools.

Attached is a summary of October 21 meeting and the archived video of our full meeting can be found on our YouTube page (DCSBOE), both are full of extremely impassioned, first-hand observations about key issues that deserve attention.

Signed,

Ruth Wattenberg, President and Ward 3 Representative

Markus Batchelor, Vice President and Ward 8 Representative

Emily Gasoi, Ward 1 Representative

Jack Jacobson, Ward 2 Representative

Frazier O’Leary, Ward 4 Representative

Zachary Parker, Ward 5 Representative

Jessica Sutter, Ward 6, Representative

Karen Williams, Ward 7 Representative

Alexander O’Sullivan, Student Representative

Shayla Dell, Student Representative

[1] Coalition for DC Schools and Communities (2020, October 27). C4DC Final Statement on DCPS Reopening.

[2] Senior High Alliance of Parents, Principals and Educators (2020, October 30). Re-Open Schools during COVID.

[3] Washington Teachers’ Union (2020, October 5). Washington DC Teachers Union Releases Statement on Mayor Bowser’s Plan to Reopen Schools to In-person Learning.

[4] Washington Teachers’ Union (2020, October 15) Washington Teachers’ Union Proposed School Inspection Checklist

[5] Council of School Officers (2020, October). Open Letter to Mayor Bowser, Deputy Mayor Kihn and Chancellor Ferebee from the CSO Member Principals.

[6] Levy, Mary (2020, October 29). Twitter.

[7] Stein, Perry (2020, October 22). D.C. mayor points to learning loss in urging schools to reopen as city and union fail to reach agreement. Washington Post

[8] Stein, Perry (2020, October 28). Principals critical of D.C. school system’s plan to reopen elementary schools. Washington Post.

The State Board of Education voted on and passed the OSSE submission of the accountability plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act. As noted below in the talking points, we had hoped to see broader measures than attendance, re-enrollment, grad rates and academic performance at the high school level. Members who voted against the plan in hopes to have it further amended were Ruth Wattenberg of ward 3, Joe Wheedon of Ward 6 and Marcus Batchelor of Ward 8. Members who voted in favor of the plan supported by the Mayor and OSSE were Laura Wilson Phelan of Ward 1, Jack Jacobson of Ward 2, Lannette Woodruff of Ward 4, Mark Jones of Ward 5, Karen Williams of Ward 7 and Ashley Carter.

You can find their testimonies here: https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeetingOrder.aspx?S=9000&MID=2357

Office of the State Superintendent for Education

View OSSE's 3 year strategic plan here: http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/OSSE_Strategic_Plan.pdf

From UCLA Center on Mental Health in Schools