Decoding Dyslexia DC–Feb 2 hearing

Chairman Mendelson & The DC City Council
Want to Know:

Are DCPS & Charter Schools
Doing Right by Struggling Readers?

TESTIFY @
DC Council Special Education Hearing, **February 2, 2022**, 11AM
**Chairman Mendelson & The DC City Council**
**Want to Know:**

*Is your child falling further & further behind?*
*Was your child denied special education services because they were not 2 years behind?*
*Have you been trying to get your child evaluated for special education with no success?*
*Did you have to pay for your child’s evaluation?*
*Did the school refuse to put the word dyslexia in your child’s IEP?Did you have to pay for intensive reading instruction, because the school did not provide it?*
*What do struggling readers in elementary, middle & high need now?*
*Are your child’s reading struggles impacting their mental health?*
*Is your child struggling to write?*
*Is your child struggling in math?*
*Did you learn to read as an adult?*
*Were you an adult when you finally learned you were dyslexic?*

***Numbers Matter!***
The More of Us That Speak Up,
The More They Will Listen.

**Register Here: Testify Online @ the Hearing** http://chairmanmendelson.com/testify/
*Registration Deadline: Monday, January 31, 2022 @ 5:00 PM*
**Submit Written Testimony by Email to cow@dcouncil.us**
*Must be submitted by Wednesday, February 16, 2022, @ 5:00 PM*
**Testify by Voicemail to phone no: (202) 430-6948***Must be submitted by Wednesday, February 16, 2022, @ 5:00 PM*

Old Hardy Update: April 7, 2019

Old Hardy Update, April 7, 2019

New estimate projects enrollment in Wilson Feeder schools will rise even more than previously predicted: by 2000 in 5 years, over 3000 in 10 years.

In my last newsletter, I wrote about the new report prepared by DCPS, in cooperation with the Ward 3/Wilson Feeder Education Network, showing that most schools in the feeder pattern were already at capacity and most were projected to grow much more over the next 5 and 10 years. Overall, the student population in the feeder school population was expected to grow by some 2000 students by 2027-28, a number that can’t be met without additional school buildings AND creative planning and programming.

But now the growth estimate is even higher! According to a revised report from the Deputy Mayor’s office, called the Master Facilities Plan, there are now 1587 additional students projected to be enrolled in feeder pattern schools by 2022-23 and 3185 by 2027-28.

Not to sound alarmist or anything, but with an average size of 600 kids per school, that’s 5 schoolsfull of kids! And, keep in mind, most of the existing schools have already maxed out their physical footprint with trailers and/or additions. There is physically no room for them to expand, not to mention, many already have enrollments higher than many would regard as desirable (e.g. elementary schools with over 700students) . (See charts beginning on Appendix page A-24 in the Master Facilities Plan for school by school enrollment projections.)

But Mayor continues support for giving up the area’s only unused public school building via a 50-year lease

Under the best of circumstances, this enrollment surge, which has been underway for over a decade, is going to require creativity—for example, maybe DCPS needs to be in the business, as charter schools are, of leasing space, possibly in one of the many new developments or a private school that’s selling; maybe we can set up early childhood centers, possibly in partnership with existing nursery schools; maybe some students would choose to leave the ward for desired programs not too far away.
We need to be creative. But, even with all our creativity, we need every available building. In Ward 3, there is just one unused DCPS school building: The Old Hardy building. It was leased away a number of years ago on a series of short-term leases, when area schools didn’t need the space. Its current lease, for 5 years ending in 2023, is with the Lab School, a very well-regarded school, offering needed services (for students with learning disabilities) to a number of DC, Maryland, and Virginia families.
Giving away the Old Hardy School for 50 years is monstrously irresponsible

Lab has two campuses; the Old Hardy campus is its lower school, and currently houses roughly 65 students, with most residents of Maryland and Virginia. Lab is a well regarded school providing important services. It should be able, easily, with nearly five years of advance notice, to find an alternative space for its 65 students.  It doesn’t face restrictions, as DC schools do, about where it can locate; in fact, it could locate in DC, Maryland or Virginia.
As I wrote in my last newsletter, the Mayor has proposed to give up any DCPS right to the Old Hardy School for 50 years, via a long-term lease to the Lab School. As I also inferred in the last newsletter, this is madness.  Only with the new enrollment projection, it’s even crazier. We really, really need that school to be a DCPS elementary school!
Take a look at the attached map (courtesy of Nick Keenan, former president of the Palisades Community Association), which shows each elementary school in the Wilson feeder pattern as a circle along with the increased number of students projected to enroll at that school by school year 2027/28. Based on the revised Master Facilities Plan, keep in mind that about half of that growth will happen within 5 years! It would be monstrously irresponsible to give the Old Hardy School away for 50 years!

As of my last newsletter, the Mayor was asking the Council to accept the lease on an emergency basis, without even a public hearing.  Thanks to the hard work of the Keep Old Hardy Public Coalition (see their website, KOHP.org) and the strong advocacy of Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh (who wrote a strong letter to her council colleagues), it appears that there are not enough votes on the Council to pass this as an emergency, without a hearing.  That means it will come up at some point for a vote, preceded by a Council hearing, when the public can make its case. We don’t yet know when that hearing or vote will be. (And, in fact, any single Councilmember could force an emergency vote on it at any time, though that seems unlikely.)

For a reminder of some key facts from last newsletter, see bullets at the bottom of this newsletter taken from the DCPS/W3-Wilson Feeder EdNet report:

As of last school year, 10 out of 15 Wilson feeder schools were already at or above 100% utilization (p4)–even though full utilization is defined as 95% capacity, since, by that point, all kinds of scheduling options are precluded. (p13)
All but two schools in the feeder pattern have grown over the last five years—with “double digit growth across the elementary schools and 18% growth at Deal Middle School.” The only schools that didn’t grow were two schools that were in swing space (which typically lowers enrollment) (p5)
“Many buildings are already built to their maximum footprint and do not have space to expand on-site.” (p5)
By 2025, the high end forecast has Deal’s enrollment increasing some 50% to 2253 (from last year’s 1507), many elementary schools increasing by 20-25% or more, and Hardy up by nearly 20%.

Additionally, a study by the DC Auditor projects that Wilson’s enrollment will rise to over 2300 students by the mid-2020’s. That’s 700 students over the school’s capacity—a number larger than the size of most DC high schools.

No One Solution Solves the Problem

New schools in the feeder pattern. There are short-term and smaller scale solutions that can help. But any viable solution to thousands of new students entering an already overcrowded system must include new buildings, whether purchased, leased, or constructed.
Reopening the Old Hardy School, now leased by a private school.
“The Old Hardy School—the only DCPS building in the boundaries of the feeder pattern not currently in use by DCPS—could be reopened and modernized. The location is ideal as it sits adjacent to the Hardy Recreation Center, providing ample space for play and outdoor recreation. It is also close to Stoddert and Key, two very overcrowded elementary schools.”
“Increased capacity in the Wilson feeder pattern must be coupled with strengthening and improving schools across the city.”
Improved DC options outside the ward, including language immersion and magnet programs could reduce the demand.

The size of the challenge suggests that it won’t be solved by a single solution: The DCPS report offers general solutions options, including additional capacity to be gained through leasing, purchasing, or constructing buildings; policy changes; and co-location of new school space, perhaps at a college. The report is also clear that “investing in the long-term strategy to improve DCPS school options outside of the Wilson High School feeder patter would help alleviate the growing demand.”
The Ward 3/Wilson Feeder School Education Network letter makes several concrete proposals, including:

In the words of the letter,

“Not using the Old Hardy School, when the city already owns the space, would be fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. And it would also be an insult to the rest of the city if precious resources that otherwise would not have been needed had to be used to acquire private space and construct additional buildings when many schools in other wards desperately need to be modernized or renovated.)

Ruth’s testimony on school budget and at-risk transparency, 6-26-19

Testimony of Ruth Wattenberg, June 26, 2016

Bills 23-0046 and 23-0239, on at-risk and school budget transparency

Thank you Councilmembers for holding this important hearing. My name is Ruth Wattenberg, I am the Ward 3 member of the DC State Board of Education.

Proper use and reporting of At Risk funds

First and foremost, I want to add my voice to others who are calling on the Council to assure that at-risk funds are used to supplement, not supplant, other funding and to create reporting categories and requirements to assure that. The reality of misuse of these funds is most recently and precisely shown in the new report from the DC Auditor. The misuse must stop and enforcement must begin.

It is also critical that the transparency we require of our DCPS schools, including the ability to FOIA, be required of our charters as well.

I also want to support the comments of Danica Petrocious in calling for immediate answers and long-term transparency about sexual assault in our schools.

The DCPS budgeting system is strewn with problems. I greatly appreciate that Chancellor Ferebee is committed to revising it, and I appreciate that the Council is looking at it as well. I will make a few additional points on budgeting–and on transparency.

First, on school discretion—

Schools—meaning, principals along with their Local School Advisory Teams–need greater discretion. There was a good reason for the Comprehensive Staffing Model—it helped to assure many years ago that curricular offerings at more and less affluent schools were comparable. The goal is still right. But, the approach has proven too rigid, denying schools the ability to move dollars around in ways that make sense for student learning.

–The lack of discretion is exacerbated by what seems to be a lack of coordination of priorities at the DCPS level. For example, a school might be told to staff a CTE program in a certain way, professional development in a certain way, sped in a certain way, and ELL in a certain way. It all makes sense, except that when all these mandates along with scarce funds hit the school, it requires the school to shortchange—meaning, overcrowd!—its core classes. That’s not helpful for students.

–Plus, really great ideas—both about what a given school’s kids really need and how to make the scarce dollars do double-duty–flow best from dynamic conversations at the school level. Right now, these ideas can’t get funded. Some greater discretion must be allowed.

–This isn’t black and white. I don’t think school discretion should be unlimited. But, neither should Central Office decision-making. Plus, the over-centralization of programming helps drive the unhealthy, excessive Central Office spending. I hope the Chancellor will shift this balance—and that the Council will insist on it and follow up.

Second, on Central Office spending:

That’s my next quick point: It’s now well known that our Central Office is excessively staffed relative to comparable districts. The budget reporting rules need to help us understand where these dollars are going. A new report from the State Board of Education’s Task Force on ESSA has made recommendations about line items that should be included. We will pass on that report.

Third, Program Evaluation: Whether it’s the LEAP professional development program, Impact, DCPS’s curriculum units, our pre-k program, how we teach early reading, or any of the dozens of initiatives that have been introduced over the years: There is no public evaluation of these efforts. They go on forever, absorbing millions and millions of dollars. They are all well-intentioned–and may be effective–but we don’t know. Moreover, programs aren’t born excellent. They growto excellence, as they learn from their experience—and benefit from feedback, from those who use the programs and from independent research. Are their ways to strengthen these programs? The Council should insist that key programs undergo periodic public evaluation. I hope such evaluations will be a focus of the new Research Practice Partnership. That also is a recommendation of our ESSA Task Force.

The use of “additional targeted research,” “to ensure equitable Outcomes” conducted by the new RPP as well as by smaller networks of schools, is another recommendation of the State Board of Education’s Task Force on ESSA, which has just released its report, and which I will pass on.

Fourth, differentiated funding for–and disaggregated reporting of–different At-Risk categories. We should consider increasedat-risk funding for those at-risk students with the most at-risk factors. What I mean: Roughly 45% of our DC public school students are at-risk—some 40,000 students. In any category this large, there’s a lot of diversity. It includes students whose families are on SNAP, meaning an income of no more than roughly $48,000 for a family of 4. But about half of our at-risk students are from homes where the income is significantly less; these students are homeless, in foster homes, or in families on TANF, meaning an annual income for a family of 4 of less than roughly $8,000. The students in the latter categories are likely to need much greater support. And, especially, if a given school has a high concentration of students in these latter categories, its need for greater resources will likely be much larger than schools whose at-risk population has fewer students in these categories.

Speaking about transparency: We should also report our test score data and school progress according to these categories. Specifically, the State Board of Education has asked OSSE to disaggregate its at-risk data in its reporting. That is, we shouldn’t just report how the whole diverse at-risk group is faring. We should report how different subgroups are doing—or, at least—and likely more realistically– separate out a category of those who are most at risk so that we know whether certain policies are potentially working with part of the AR group but not the other. In particular, it will help us better understand the effects of the most devastating poverty and the greatest concentrations of such poverty—and help us adapt our programming appropriately.

Thank you.

Thanks for revised Wilson Budget; School report cards! Nov 5, 2017

November 5, Newsletter from Ruth Wattenberg, Ward 3 Member, DC State Board of Education. Click to subscribe.

Please Circulate...

__________________________________________

Wilson budget: Thanks to Chancellor Wilson and DCPS for restoring the staff positions cut this spring!

Anybody who reads this newsletter knows that I have been extremely critical of DC Public Schools (DCPS) for its budgeting practices–and especially for the repeated, 3-years-in-a-row staff cuts at Wilson High School, totaling some 30 staff cuts over three years.
But now there’s good news! To their great credit, Chancellor Antwan Wilson and his staff worked with Wilson Principal Kim Martin and the Wilson LSAT (local school advisory team) to restore the positions that were lost last spring. Many, many thanks! (For details on the staffing restoration, see the letter below to Wilson parents from the school’s PTSO presidents.)
Kudos and thanks as well to the community that cares so much about Wilson. Many, many parents, students, and community members wrote, emailed, and called the Chancellor, the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and members of the City Council. Wilson’s PTSO and LSAT leaders testified before the Council and wrote letters and called throughout the summer. Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh was tireless in pressing the issue.

A very welcome beginning… but, just a beginning!

This is an important, very welcome start! That said, Wilson was understaffed when it opened in the fall–hiring to make up for the cuts is still underway–all the positions aren’t permanent, and Wilson is still down about 20 staff over three years, despite higher enrollment (1793 in spring 2015;1835 today.). But fingers crossed, I am hopeful that in this next budget cycle, Wilson’s overall staff situation will be addressed–and that the broader broken budget process, in which inaccurate budget projections lead to reduced budgets that never get remedied (for all schools, not just Wilson!), will be fixed. I’ll keep you posted.

DCPS Budget Hearing, November 14, 6-8PM, at Stuart Hobson Middle School

Speaking of the budget…. DCPS will hold its first Budget Hearing for the new fiscal year on Tuesday. If you are interested in testifying, register online no later than 3 pm, Friday, November 10. For questions/concerns, contact the DCPS School Funding Team: (202) 442-5112 or dcps.schoolfunding@dc.gov. I encourage you to attend!

Chancellor’s Community Forums.

DCPS has announced a series of Forums at which the Chancellor and his top leadership will discuss priorities with the community. For a full list of dates/times, click here. For Ward 3/Wilson Feeder schools, the forums are:

Monday, January 9, 6-7:30PM, Lafayette ES, 5701 Broad Branch Rd.
Monday, February 6, 8:45AM-10 am, Oyster-Adams, 2801 Calvert St.
***Monday, February 6, 6-7:30PM, Hardy MS, 1819 35^th St. NW

DC Council Ed Committee Roundtable on Special Education
Monday, November 20, 2017 – 10:00AM – Room 412

The topic: The state of special education services in DC’s traditional and public charter schools and OSSE’s implementation report on the “Enhanced Special Education Services Act of 2014. To testify, sign-up online or call the Committee at (202) 724-8061 by 5:00pm Thursday, November 16. 2017.

Apply: Student/Parent Advisory Committee, Office of the Student Advocate.

The Office of the Student Advocate, housed at the State Board of Education, is charged with supporting families in their efforts to navigate the complexities of the DC public education system, including developing resources and boosting parent engagement. To aid its efforts, the office is launching the Parent and Student Advisory Committee. For more information on the Advisory committee, click here. To apply, click here.

SPECIAL FOCUS:

School Report Cards:
What do you want to know about your school?

DC is developing a new “school report card,” as required by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This new report card will, for the first time, be common across traditional DC Public Schools (DCPS) and charter schools. It will allow parents to compare schools “apples to apples.” As importantly, it will give parents the info they need to have useful conversations about the strengths and needs of their children’s schools.
The process: The content of the report card will be proposed by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) and must get approved by the SBOE. To aid its work, the SBOE has convened a Task Force on ESSA that will offer recommendations on the Report Card as well as other issues. To solicit public views, the SBOE and OSSE are running focus groups, SBOE members are meeting with school communities, and residents are encouraged to complete an online survey. (For participation information, go to bottom.)

**What must the Report Card include?**

As many of you know, starting next fall, every DC public school will be evaluated based on a new rating system that will grade each school with 1-5 stars. The number of stars a school gets will be based mainly on whether students reach specific test score thresholds. The remainder is based mainly on attendance, re-enrollment rates, and English-learning progress among limited-English speakers. In high school, the rating will also be based on the percent of students who graduate and take advanced courses [Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB)]. In k-8 schools, a small amount will reflect how much students’ test scores increased relative to similar students.
The report card must also include such required information as per-student funding (provided by government sources); # of suspensions/expulsions; and the number of teachers who are inexperienced, on emergency credentials, uncertified in the subject they’re teaching.

**What should the Report include?**

What else would provide parents, educators, and policymakers the most useful, accurate view of our schools? What do you want to see on the report card? See below to take the survey and for information on focus groups that you can attend. Here are a few of my favorite ideas. They mainly reflect some of the most common requests that were expressed to the State Board of Education during the city’s debate about ESSA last spring.

1. Let’s highlight the “growth” made by a school’s students, so that a school’s progress isn’t masked by the heavily income-correlated STAR ratings. Almost every aspect of the STAR rating tells us more about the affluence of students’ families than what students have learned or school quality. In terms of test scores, consider this: Low-income students typically begin the school year multiple grades behind their more advantaged peers. Even if a school full of students with very low initial scores improve their average achievement by well over a full grade—let’s say a grade-and-a-half or even a huge two full years!—that school’s students are still unlikely to reach the test score thresholds that would earn the school a high STAR rating. This means that the STAR rating will almost certainly award the largest number of stars to the schools with the highest-income students and the smallest number to schools with the lowest-income students.
A poor rating for these schools, even though they may be effective, could and likely will lead families to avoid them, possibly leading to enrollment and budget drop-offs, causing great harm to effective schools and the students who attend them. But, if we highlight the growth students make, not just whether they meet a certain score threshold, we would reduce this unfortunate problem.

2. Let’s highlight the attention elementary schools give to social studies, science, and the arts.
The STAR rating holds schools accountable for an important, but very narrow, band of outcomes: mainly math and reading scores—sometimes to the disadvantage of other subjects and school goals. I have heard many, many complaints about this, especially at the elementary level, where protected time for social studies, science, and the arts isn’t typically provided. Research literature also speaks to the damage done by curriculum-narrowing. The report card is our chance to encourage our schools to focus on a broad rich curriculum. One idea: elementary schools should report how much time per week students spend on these subjects.

3. Report on the quality of a school’s culture or “feel.” Known in education jargon as “school climate,” it refers to such intangibles as whether students in a school feel safe, challenged, and nurtured; whether staff feel that they have the tools and support to be successful in educating their students; and whether parents feel welcome and respected. This important aspect of school quality goes largely unmeasured in the STAR rating. So let’s highlight it on the Report Card. Some states are using sophisticated, nationally- normed student/teacher/parent surveys to report on this aspect of school quality. OSSE is currently piloting such surveys. Also, especially high teacher turnover is often an indicator of an unhealthy school culture; the Report Card can report on that as well. (I called exceedingly high teacher turnover the “canary in the classroom” in this City Paper article.)

4. Health information: I hear a lot of interest from parents in having access to health information: For example, does the school have a full-time nurse? How much time is devoted to recess and physical education? Are the lunches nutritious?

5. Beyond school quality and effectiveness, schools have strengths, weaknesses, and offerings that may be of great interest to parents. Does it have a special curricular focus? What clubs/teams are available? Does it offer an after-school program? How much emphasis is put on test preparation Do students go on field trips?

What’s your view? Please take this survey. Plus, the State Board’s ESSA Task Force, State Board members, and OSSE are scheduling community feedback meetings around the city.
I’ll be leading a session hosted at Hardy Middle School on November 16 at 7pm. To register, click here. In addition, I’m meeting (or met with) with PTSO’s and/or LSAT’s at Janney, Wilson, and Eaton and would be very happy to schedule meetings at other schools as well. Let me know if you’d like to be part of such a discussion.
See here and here for a list of additional focus groups around the city.
And, as always, if you have thoughts on the above suggestions or anything else, please email me, ruth4schools@yahoo.com.

I’m off to visit the leaves in West Virginia! Happy Fall!!!!

Ruth Wattenberg,
ruth4schools@yahoo.com, @ruth4schools, ruth4schools.com

New accountability plan is adopted by the State Board of Education (April 2017)

April 2017 Update: New accountability plan is adopted by the State Board of Education
I’ve reported a number of times that the new federal law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, gave every state a chance to change how it evaluates its schools. The law replaces the old No Child Left Behind Act, which required states (including DC) to evaluate schools almost exclusively based on reading and math test scores and on the proportion of students who reached the score threshold deemed “proficient.”
After many months of discussion, testimony, and two drafts, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) brought its final accountability proposal to the State Board of Education (SBOE) for a vote at the end of March.
I voted against the proposal, along with my colleagues from wards 6 and 8, because I didn’t believe the plan moved far enough towards judging schools based on more than just reading and math scores. I also was disappointed that it didn’t move further towards crediting schools for their students’ progress, especially at the high school level, where schools will continue to get no credit for their students’ test score growth. This Washington Post article explains the issues surrounding the new proposal, and this Post op-ed explains the additional changes my colleagues and I had hoped for.
Without question though, the new policy is an improvement over the previous system. Moreover, I credit my colleagues on the State Board for encouraging OSSE to improve on its original January proposal and OSSE for incorporating some of these improvements. All involved are committed to further improving the process over time.
The State Board will be establishing a task force and a process for following up on some of the commitments made in the final proposal, including a way to measure high school “growth” and an indicator for “access and opportunities,” aimed at encouraging schools to provide students with a well-rounded education.
I look forward to working with my SBOE colleagues, OSSE, and the community to bring about the improvements we all still hope to see.

July 2017 HTML Newsletter

More steps still necessary, but…

Education Budget is increased;
New funds targeted for “restoring” staff and program cuts

The DC Council voted on May 30 to substantially raise the amount of money that will go to DC’s public schools this coming year. An additional required vote on the budget will be taken on June 16.
The original budget proposal submitted by the Mayor provided a per student increase (known as the UPSFF-the Uniform per student funding formula) of only 1.5%, much less than the cost increases that schools will confront—and much less than the 3% increase recommended by the Mayor’s own state education agency. The budget also put much less money into school renovation/modernization than previous budgets.
The result was staff and program cuts across the city, including ten staff cut at Wilson High School (for a total of 30 staff cut in 3 budget cycles), staff cut at other large high schools (especially Ballou, CHEC, and Eastern) and inadequate progress on needed renovations and modernizations across the city. See Washington Post and Northwest Current articles.
The Council budget will send an additional $11.5 million to DC public schools as well as $7.2 million to the city’s charter schools. The Council “expects the additional funds at DCPS to be used for restoring instructional staff and programs at schools (itals mine) and is requiring the Chancellor of DCPS, by September 1, 2017, to submit to the Council a report that outlines how the additional funding to DCPS will be used and a detailed analysis of the changes to the use of “At-Risk” funds.
This statement from the Council is critical because in past years, the Council has provided DCPS with additional funds to stave off staff cuts, and DCPS has instead allocated the funds to other projects. Likewise, funding appropriated by the Council to support at-risk students has been used by DCPS to cover general school costs.
Chancellor Antwan Wilson has stated publicly that the funds will go to schools, not the central office. That’s a good start. But, it’s important to understand: If schools are to hold on to staff members who have already been told that they’re cut, the schools must be given their revised budgets quickly. It will be important for the Chancellor, the Council, and the Mayor–as well as those of us who advocated for the increased funding–to make sure that schools are notified quickly about their revised budgets.

Thanks Due to Many

The exceedingly low budget proposed for education inspired great parent/citizen activism! The main group that pushed for both increased funding for all public schools (traditional DCPS and charters) and an assurance that DCPS funds would be used to restore program and staff cuts was the Coalition For DC Schools (C4DC), which led a petition and letter-writing effort. In addition, high-profile advocacy efforts calling for increased funding for all DC public schools were led by the Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and DC Education Coalition for Change (DECC). It was an amazing outpouring in favor of adequate funding for all of our public schools. Thanks to all!!!!
We also have many to thank on the DC Council. Chairman of the Education Committee David Grosso and committee members Anita Bonds, Charles Allen, Robert White, and Trayon White issued a committee report in favor of providing at least a 3% increase in the per student (UPSFF) funding. To make the increase possible, Councilmembers Mary Cheh (3) and Vincent Gray (7) (who respectively chair the committees on the Transportation and Environment; and Health) were able to identify funds from agency budgets overseen by their committees and make them available to the education committee. Chairman Phil Mendelson was then able to use the report and funds as the foundation for cobbling together the 3% increase as well as funds for other educational programs (including transportation costs for adult students, made possible by a transfer from Elissa Silverman’s Labor and Workforce Development committee).
Thanks to all of you who signed petitions and wrote your councilmembers, to all the city’s advocates who really revved up for this campaign, and to the City Council who made the increase a reality—and, who are insisting that the DCPS funds are used to restore instructional staff and programs.

Community Working Group launched by DCPS to address overcrowding issues

Many thanks to Chancellor Antwan Wilson, who in one of his earliest actions as our new Chancellor established a Community Working Group to discuss and make recommendations to address the overcrowding/space needs afflicting Wilson High School and the elementary/middle schools that feed it (largely, but not just located in Ward 3). Virtually every school that feeds into Wilson High School, as well as Wilson itself, is badly overcrowded, and projections indicate that enrollments will continue to go up, up, up.
The first meeting of the group (and a prior discussion sponsored by the Ward 3/Wilson Feeder Education network) focused mainly on ways to increase available space, both to relieve overcrowding and restore the ability of schools to offer seats to students who live out-of-bounds, as promised by the Report on Boundaries
Space could potentially be identified for, say, an early childhood center, which could relieve crowding at area elementaries. Participants identified possible new space at such sites as the Fannie Mae complex, which is being redeveloped, the Lower School that is being vacated by Georgetown Day School, and the old Hardy school. Let me know if you have other ideas!
Provide DCPS and the Working Group with your input here :
You can follow the committee’s work via the DCPS blog at https://dcpsplanning.wordpress.com.
The Working Group includes the principal and a parent representative from each school, plus Brian Doyle (chair of the Ward 3/Wilson Feeder school Education Network); a representative from Councilwoman Mary Cheh’s office; and me, as the Ward 3 representative to the State Board of Education. The plan calls for the group to meet monthly over the next 4-5 months to develop recommendations that will then be presented to the broader community for feedback.

Mayor’s below-inflation budget proposal is unsustainable for our schools

Sign the Petition/Email City Council
View this email in your browser

@ruth4schools ruth4schools.com ruth4schools@yahoo.com
Please Circulate

Mayor’s below-inflation budget proposal is unsustainable for our schools
Unless the City Council intervenes in a big way, our schools will be badly hurt by the Mayor’s proposed education budget. This will be the third straight year in which per student funding for public schools will decline in real terms.
Because of the way DC Public Schools (DCPS) allocates funds to schools, the most severe effects are felt by the largest schools, at all grade levels. At Wilson High School, the citywide high school located here in ward 3, eight staff will be cut, including two counselors. This is on top of 9 staff cut last year and 12 the year before: A total of 29 staff cut in three years.
These cuts will affect schools across the city. At the only somewhat smaller Columbia Heights Education Campus, 5 staff are being cut. At Eastern and Ballou, two other large high schools, schools are losing some combination of teachers, counselors, art programming, office and custodial staff.
This is a key time to tell members of the City Council that the proposed education budget must be raised and that new funds must get to the schools that are most affected.

Please do three things:
1.Please sign this petition, which will be submitted to the Council, calling for the full 3.5% increase and an assurance that added funds are allocated directly to schools, especially those that have been most damaged by the proposed cuts.
2. Please circulate this petition to your family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues.
3. Please email City Council members: Please talk about the specific issues facing your school, the citywide need, and the importance of a more transparent, sensible
DCPS process for allocating funds to individual schools.
pmendelson@dccouncil.us
abonds@dccouncil.us
dgrosso@dccouncil.us
esilverman@dccouncil.us e
rwhite@dccouncil.us
bnadeau@dccouncil.us
jevans@dccouncil.us
mcheh@dccouncil.us
btodd@dccouncil.us
kmcduffie@dccouncil.us
callen@dccouncil.us
vgray@dccouncil.us
twhite@dccouncil.us
(and I’d love if you’d bc me: ruth4schools@yahoo.com)

Thanks!
Copyright © 2017 Ruth4schools, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this because you have been active in education issues in Ward 3, follow these issues, or have asked to receive my emails.

Our mailing address is:
Ruth4schools
4129 Harrison St. NW
Washington, DC 20015

Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

Mayor’s proposed education budget decreases real dollars for city’s schools

April 23, 2017

Mayor’s proposed education budget decreases real dollars for city’s schools

City Working Group calls for 3.5% boost

Proposed 1.5% education increase below inflation; will lead to staff/program cuts

Alert: The City Council’s education committee will hold hearings on the DC Public Schools budget this Thursday, April 27, at 10AM and 5PM. To sign up, click here.

Reminder: PARCC testing begins this week. As anyone who reads this newsletter knows, I believe that our school system relies too heavily on PARCC scores for school accountability and am working to reduce it. But, PARCC provides important information on how our students are progressing; and, our schools and school staff are evaluated largely based on PARCC scores. For all these reasons, I hope you encourage your children to do their best on them. No stress, no hype, just doing their best to show what they know.

Mayor’s proposed education budget decreases real dollars for city’s schools

It’s budget season, and the education budget proposed by the Mayor is not good news for our schools. While the Mayor’s budget document calls its 1.5% education increase “historic,” the proposal actually means fewer real, inflation-adjusted dollars per student than last year’s budget—and that decrease means reductions in staff and other cuts at our schools.
It’s particularly bad news for the city’s largest high schools: Wilson, Ballou, Eastern, and CHEC (Columbia Heights Education Campus). Each of these schools appears to face particularly severe staff cuts because of the way D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) allocates funding to each school. For Wilson High School, the proposed budget, as allocated by DCPS, translates into cutting 8.8 staff positions. These cuts are on top of 9 positions cut last year and 12 positions the year before that. Read the Wilson High School Budget Primer he re.

Here are a few important facts:
1. Education costs increase when a) the actual costs of education (staff, supplies, etc.) increase due to inflation and b) when enrollment increases, requiring increased resources to meet the needs of a larger student body (more books, more teachers, etc.) In addition, costs can increase if new programs are added or existing programs are beefed up.
2. Since the 1999-2000 school year, the main unit for education budgeting has been “per student funding,” known as UPSFF, the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula. By tradition, the City has increased the UPSFF base each year, by roughly 2%, as a way of addressing increased costs due to inflation. You can see how the UPSFF has increased over the years in this letter from Council Member Vincent Gray.
3. After reviewing per student costs, a specially convened city Working Group called for a 3.5% increase in per student base funding. The Working Group was named by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE–DC’s state education agency) to review the current level of DC’s UPSFF. The Task Force was convened amid a variety of concerns, including that education funding had lost much ground to inflation and that for some time the UPSFF hasn’t fully reflected the cost of providing an adequate education. (See here for “Cost of Student Achievement,” a report on funding adequacy in DC, released in 2003.) Click here to read the report of the UPSFF working group, which determined that this year’s per pupil base needed to increase by 3.5%.
4. The Mayor’s proposed 1.5% increase is much lower than what was recommended.
5. The proposed 1.5% increase will not cover the costs of inflation. A parent on Oyster-Adams Bilingual School’s Local School Advisory Team, Emily Mechner–who usefully is also a Harvard-trained economist!–researched DC’s education budget when her children’s school faced staff cuts. She found that the proposed 1.5% increase in UPSFF will not even cover “DCPS’s own estimate of employment costs” and “represents a devastating 3% cut over last year’s levels.”
6. Inadequate funding of the UPSFF causes schools to cover the rising costs of their general, special, and English-language learner education programs with their “at-risk” funds, which are supposed to be reserved to cover the extra costs of providing a strong education to the most vulnerable students. For information on this, inadequate funding for school modernizations (which mainly affects schools in other wards), and other ways in which the proposed budget will leave schools underfunded, see this research conducted by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

Next step: the City Council
The proposed budget is now in the City Council’s court. It’s up to them to find the additional funds to bring the proposed budget up by the needed 3.5%, not the proposed 1.5%.
The Council’s Education Committee will hold its budget oversight hearings next week. The oversight hearing for DCPS will be on Thursday, April 27, with one hearing at 10AM and another at 5PM. Hearings are held at the City Council at the Wilson building. To sign up to testify, click here. You must sign up by COB Tuesday, April 25.
The Mayor’s proposed budget and the Council hearing are the first key steps in DC’s annual budget process. I will do my best to keep you posted as more information becomes available about the effects of the proposed budget and Council efforts to improve it.

Update: New accountability plan is adopted by the State Board of Education
I’ve reported a number of times that the new federal law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, gave every state a chance to change how it evaluates its schools. The law replaces the old No Child Left Behind Act, which required states (including DC) to evaluate schools almost exclusively based on reading and math test scores and on the proportion of students who reached the score threshold deemed “proficient.”
After many months of discussion, testimony, and two drafts, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) brought its final accountability proposal to the State Board of Education (SBOE) for a vote at the end of March.
I voted against the proposal, along with my colleagues from wards 6 and 8, because I didn’t believe the plan moved far enough towards judging schools based on more than just reading and math scores. I also was disappointed that it didn’t move further towards crediting schools for their students’ progress, especially at the high school level, where schools will continue to get no credit for their students’ test score growth. This Washington Post article explains the issues surrounding the new proposal, and this Post op-ed explains the additional changes my colleagues and I had hoped for.
Without question though, the new policy is an improvement over the previous system. Moreover, I credit my colleagues on the State Board for encouraging OSSE to improve on its original January proposal and OSSE for incorporating some of these improvements. All involved are committed to further improving the process over time.
The State Board will be establishing a task force and a process for following up on some of the commitments made in the final proposal, including a way to measure high school “growth” and an indicator for “access and opportunities,” aimed at encouraging schools to provide students with a well-rounded education.
I look forward to working with my SBOE colleagues, OSSE, and the community to bring about the improvements we all still hope to see.

Calling all District Students!

Would you like to serve as the student representative to the Dc State Board of Education or to join the Student Advisory Committee which advises the State Board of Education. Apply here. Applications are due May 30th. Click here for more information on the work of previous student reps, including video interviews with prior members.

Should DC rate its schools mainly on reading and math test scores? What the new fed’l law allows

Jan. 23, 2016 Newsletter

Should DC rate its schools mainly on reading and math test scores? What the new fed’l law allows

Also:
Ward 3-Wilson Feeder Education Network Meetings: State Superintendent Hanseul Kang and W3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh to speak at next two Ed Network meetings/ Updates on Fillmore, Old Hardy School/ New network for teachers across private/public/charter sectors
Email me at ruth4schools@yahoo.com. Follow me at @ruth4schools. Visit ruth4schools.com.
View this email in your browser

Happy Holidays and Happy Winter to all!
Over the next two months, the State Board of Education (SBOE) will be working with the Office of the State Superintendent (OSSE) to hammer out an agreement about a new accountability system for DC schools. The main portion of this newsletter is aimed at providing readers with some background, especially on current problems and our options under the new law.

How should we rate our schools?

School rating systems don’t teach kids or provide schools with needed resources. But they matter, a lot.
The way in which schools are rated can encourage–or impede–good school programs and practices. For many years, DC’s school rating system, with its virtually complete emphasis on reading and math test scores, has been largely dictated by the old No Child Left Behind law. Fortunately, the replacement law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), gives all states (including DC) the chance to revise this system.

The current system rates schools narrowly on reading/math test scores

The parents, educators and residents that I speak to around the city believe that academic achievement is the top priority and that reading and math are fundamental. But, they also believe schools must be much more: The emphasis on reading and math test scores is causing other parts of the curriculum (social studies, science, arts) to be squeezed out. Testing is taking too much time, and the hyper-focus on it is damaging school culture. School environment and culture matter too—very much. They want their schools to have lively and engaging classes, more writing, a concern with building citizenship and a taste for skeptical, critical thinking, as well as a school culture that is welcoming, nurturing, safe, orderly, and challenging.

New law gives states/DC more flexibility in judging school quality

Since No Child Left Behind went into effect in the early 2000’s, every state, including DC, was required to adopt a school evaluation system in which schools were rated and held accountable based on the proportion of students who reached the “Proficient” level on math and reading tests.
Bipartisan dissatisfaction with NCLB, including increasing dismay with over-testing, led Congress to replace NCLB with the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) at the end of 2015. The law gives states more latitude to determine how they will hold their schools accountable. Here are a few examples of the new law’s flexibility:

1. The new law allows states to rate schools on more than just reading and math test scores.
In the words of John King, Obama’s Secretary of Education,
“Done well and thoughtfully, assessments provide vital information… and identify the gaps that must be addressed to ensure equity. But in some places, an exclusive emphasis on the tested subjects drove a narrowing of what was taught and learned; worse, test prep and narrowly defined “time on task” sometimes came to replace a diversity of classes.”
“The good news here is that, with the passage of Every Student Succeeds Act… the opportunity to widen how we understand educational excellence is suddenly ripe.”

2. The new law requires states to include a non-test measure of school quality, for example of “school climate”
Test scores provide extremely important information about how much students know. But, whether they’re learning–and at what rate–depends on other factors, including what’s known as school “culture” or climate. A recent research review of many school climate studies indicates that schools with a positive climate “have the potential to narrow achievement gaps among students of different SES backgrounds and between students with stronger and weaker academic abilities.”
In cities like DC, struggling with terrible achievement gaps, putting some focus on school climate makes huge sense–and the law supports that direction. Plus, a climate measurement can signal schools that while achievement is paramount, a positive school culture promotes achievement–and is well worth investing in for its own sake.

3. The new law allows emphasis on student “growth” over “proficiency.”
Yup. It’s wonky. But, as former comedian Sen. Al Franken told Ed. Sec Designate Betsy DeVos during her confirmation hearing, it’s super important! The upside of DeVos’s befuddlement is the outpouring from researchers and writers on the meaning and importance of emphasizing growth when ranking schools.
Urban Institute researcher Matt Chingos wrote that whether a student reaches a proficiency threshold or not reflects not just what students learn a school “but also the knowledge they brought when they enrolled,” and that growth measures are helpful in “correcting for that by examining the progress students make while enrolled at a given school.”
Writing for The Root, educator Kelly Wickham Hurst explained that when a school suddenly enrolls many new students with extremely low reading levels (in Hurst’s example, previously home-schooled students), scores fall. “Schools get punished in the proficiency model, and that’s no accident,” she says, arguing that charters/private schools are helped when proficiency-based scores depict regular schools as failures.
Interestingly, though, the most scathing indictment of overusing proficiency scores comes from Matt Baum, on the website of T74, a strong advocate of school choice:
“The school could be doing a great job helping kids improve, but if they start out at a very low level, that might not show up on proficiency measures. Put simply, proficiency rewards schools for the students they take in, but not necessarily for how they teach students once they’re there.”

“[J]udging schools based on a measure that is largely outside of their control, as proficiency would do, can lead to a host of negative consequences.”
” Most simply, the wrong schools may receive accolades or sanctions. If a school with low proficiency but high growth gets closed down for allegedly poor performance, students are unlikely to benefit.”
“Since proficiency scores are highly correlated with poverty, using them to rate schools inevitably means that low-income schools will, by and large, get the worst scores. This may make such schools less desirable places to work, since they face stigma and accountability pressure, potentially driving away good teachers from the schools that need them most.
That’s what the law allows. Now it’s up to us.

Each state (including DC) must come up with its own system of evaluating schools. Under DC law, the initial proposal for how schools should be rated is developed and issued by OSSE. That proposal then stands for approval or rejection by the State Board of Education. OSSE issued an initial draft in October, which the SBOE strongly critiqued. It presented a more detailed proposal to the SBOE in January.
In both drafts, 80% of the rating is based on reading and math test scores, proficiency gets as much weight as growth (in high school, growth doesn’t count at all), and the only measurements of school environment included are attendance and re-enrollment.

Ward meetings, public comments: Coming in February.

OSSE will produce a new draft on January 31. The public will have 33 days to comment on it. In addition, OSSE and SBOE will host community meetings in every ward to give the public an opportunity to react and make suggestions. OSSE will then prepare a final draft, which is scheduled for an up or down vote by the State Board of Education.
Please come to these meetings and make your views known to the Superintendent and the State Board of Education. The dates for these meetings are being finalized. I will send out the dates when I learn them.

Calendar:
Ward3-Wilson Feeder School Education Network meetings

***Tues, Jan. 31
7pm
Georgetown Library.
with State Education Superintendent Hanseul Kang
Bring your questions about PARCC testing, how DC will assess schools under the new federal accountability law, DC-TAG, and other issues handled by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE).

**Wed, Feb 23,
6:45 PM
Tenley Library
with Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh.
The focus of the meeting will be to talk about the overcrowding and lack of space in the W3/Wilson Feeder schools and possible solutions.

Updates

Old Hardy School– As many of you know, there was a City Council vote to “surplus” the old Hardy school building on Foxhall Rd. Many of us have argued that it’s premature to surplus the building before making sure that there is a viable plan to provide needed space for the area’s overcrowded schools, now and into the future.
As it turns out, the Mayor won’t sign any legislation to move it forward until there is time for public input. Meanwhile, Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh will be meeting soon with the Ward 3-Wilson Feeder Education Network to discuss the area’s school capacity needs so they can be addressed as the Old Hardy issue moves forward.

Fillmore Arts Center– Once again, it was announced that the Fillmore Arts Center would be closed down. This action would have ended forever an innovative, first-class arts education program that DCPS has invested in and built up over the years. It would also have subjected students at a number of schools, including Key and Stoddert, to a much diminished arts program, given that their schools don’t have space for a dedicated art room.
Thanks to the mayor and DCPS for keeping it open. And, please, please, figure out how it can continue to serve the nearby schools that need it AND students around the city whose arts education would be greatly enhanced through its excellent programming. We know you’re working hard on it. Let’s not face this same threat next year.
Educators: Network with colleagues from other sectors. Teacher Jared Winston from Sheridan School, fresh from an invigorating professional discussion with other independent school teachers, is interested in creating a broader network, connecting teachers across the private, DCPS, and charter sectors. For more info and contact info, link here.

Our mailing address is:
Ruth4schools
4129 Harrison St. NW
Washington, DC 20015

Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

How much should test scores count in school ratings?

How Much on Test Scores? Tell the Board of Ed.
Contact me at ruth4schools@yahoo.com.
Follow me @ruth4schools. ruth4schools.com.
September 2, 2016

View this email in your browser

A Better Way to Rate Schools?
Testify before the State Board of Education
Nov 16, 5:30pm.
To Sign Up, email sboe@dc.gov

Currently, schools are rated almost entirely on reading and math test scores–and almost entirely on the proportion of students who are “proficient,” regardless of how much academic progress students in the school did or didn’t make.

This approach has led to many complaints: too much focus on tests and test prep; not enough attention to other subjects; pressure on schools to focus on teaching students who are close to the proficient cusp instead of kids who score substantially higher or lower; a disincentive for schools to enroll challenging students, whose test scores typically grow more slowly; and, not enough attention to the non-academic aspects of education, including providing a nurturing, safe, challenging, engaging environment.
Thanks to the new federal law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, passed last year, DC has the chance to greatly revise the basis on which we evaluate school quality. The Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) and the State Board of Education (SBOE) have been meeting with members of the community since the spring to hear ideas for fixing the current system. OSSE produced a “straw man” draft, meant to elicit comment. The SBOE responded with its concerns about what was and wasn’t in the draft.
The discussion now moves to a larger, public stage: the next SBOE meeting, Nov 16 at 5:30. While any member of the public can testify on any issue they want, the three main subjects up for discussion that night are:

The Weight of Test Scores: Our current system overwhelmingly emphasizes test results. We are hearing that this focus on testing has harmful effects on our schools. The OSSE discussion draft suggests a new total test weight of 80%; the SBOE response memo suggests it should be much lower. We need to hear from parents, students, educators, and organizations about how the current testing weight has affected their schools and what they think the new weight should be.
The Weight of Growth in Relation to Proficiency: Rather than holding schools accountable almost entirely for whether their students reach specific proficiency levels, ESSA offers DC the opportunity to credit schools for the progress students achieve each year, meaning that if students enter the year well below proficiency but make above average strides, the school will be credited for that growth–not penalized because the student hasn’t yet reached proficient. We need to hear from parents, students and organizations on what they believe the appropriate balance is between rating schools based on the proportion of students who meet proficiency thresholds and the actual academic progress the students have made. .
Open, Welcoming Spirit and Other Qualitative Indicators of Quality: In addition to test scores, the SBOE believes that part of a school’s rating should be based on such qualitative factors as whether all students, teachers and parents feel welcome in their schools and such factors as school discipline, attendance, bullying, parent engagement, teacher turnover, student reenrollment, etc. Data for ratings could be drawn from surveys of parents, teachers, and students and from existing data. We need to hear from parents, students and organizations on what factors we should be looking at when assessing our schools. Please consider testifying before the Board on these or related questions.
Wed. Nov. 16, 5:30 pm
441 4th St. NW (at Judiciary Square)

You must sign up by 5 pm, Tuesday Nov 15. Sign up by emailing sboe@dc.gov.

Please circulate this information to all interested schools, parents, educators, organizations,

Newsletter from W3 State Board of Ed member, Ruth Wattenberg
ruth4schools@yahoo.com. @ruth4schools. ruth4schools.comPLEASE CIRCULATE…