LSAT Minutes 12/14/2016
Teachers: Moore, Guaraldo, Turmail, O’Beirne, Mundell
Parents: Cramer, Russell, Gillespie, Laughlin (LSAT Chair) Perry (PTO President) Guest: Ruth Wattenberg
The meeting was called to order at 4:05pm.
It was discussed that the initial budget will be dropped from the City at the end of January.
The possibility was discussed of determining a “big ticket” item to draw donations from people that do not attend the Spring Auction. Possibilities discussed included Promethean boards which are starting to fail, the school garden and planning for future space additions.
It was discussed that Principal Bryant’s enrollment projection for next year currently assumed is 435 students. City had initially proposed 416. The current enrollment is hovering around 439 now.
The next steps for Fillmore were discussed. It was proposed to send a message to Brian Pick from the LSATs of the three remaining Fillmore schools to say thank you and emphasize that everyone is still talking and engaged. Principal Bryant is setting up a meeting with the principals of the three Fillmore schools and the Fillmore principal to discuss scheduling.
The idea of a space committee was discussed to investigate the possibility/need for additional space at Stoddert. It was advertised in the Chalkboard; it was discussed to potentially place an ad in a neighborhood newspaper to draw in community members who are not yet at Stoddert.
Upcoming LSAT meeting dates were discussed – proposed dates for the next two meetings are 1/25/2017 and 2/15/2017.
The floor was turned over to Ruth Wattenberg for a discussion about accountability.
She discussed the rating system by DCPS. Stoddert has a 92 rating currently. She explained that the rating was previously based almost entirely on the average student reading and math scores on proficiency tests, through the No Child Left Behind Act.
Now based on Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which gives individual states more latitude to determine how the rating will be calculated. OSSE has produced the first draft of the rating system, and the DC Board of Education has commented on it, and OSSE is currently revising. OSSE wants to submit in April; Board of Ed would need the final draft from OSSE by February for that to happen. Once the produced draft is available, Ward meetings will take place to discuss and review. If Board of Ed approves, will go to 30 days of public comment and then go to re-vote at the Board.
Proficiency scores heavily favor kids that start at a high proficiency level, as kids that start a year proficient are likely to end the year as proficient. OSSE’s proposal still involves heavy emphasis (80%) on
test scores (half proficiency, half progress). The remaining 20% would be based on attendance and retention. Board of Education feels that 80% is too high for the test score emphasis, and would prefer closer to 50%. What would make up the remaining 50%? Possibilities discussed include school climate survey data, chronic absenteeism, teacher turnover rate (average 34% turnover rate in high-poverty DC public schools), retention/re-enrollment, and breadth of curriculum.
The possible mechanics of administering a student survey were discussed. One possibility is to pair the survey with the PARCC tests for students.
Any additional rating system would need to have very little or no impact on the workload of teachers and/or administrators.
A second stage of the ESSA project is a school report card. It needs to be determined what will appear on the school report card, and it was discussed that this could be a medium for holding DCPS accountable (for space issues, staffing, etc.).
The problematic nature of using re-enrollment data (due to diplomatic absences, defections due to insufficient subsequent schools, etc.) was discussed. The possibility of adding science PARCC scores to the rating systems was discussed, along with the problem that there is no DCPS-mandated science curriculum (thus any rating based on that would favor schools with heavy parental involvement/contributions).
Test scores are no longer required to be included in teacher evaluations (at the state level).
It was discussed that the top-down approach at DCPS is incredibly unpopular, particularly the LEAP program.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 pm