- D.C. Charter Board considers merger of Septima Clark with Achievement Prep [Septima Clark PCS and Achievement Prep PCS mentioned]
- Tougher D.C. anti-truancy bill assailed by Gray officials
- D.C. mayor's office opposes David Catania's truancy bill
D.C. Charter Board considers merger of Septima Clark with Achievement Prep [Septima Clark PCS and Achievement Prep PCS mentioned]
The Examiner
By Mark Lerner
February 13, 2013
Word comes that the boards of directors of Septima Clark PCS and Achievement Prep PCS have decided to merge the two schools together. It is an extremely interesting move.
Septima Clark was the first, and is the only, all boys public school in the nation’s capital. The charter currently serves 229 students in grades pre-K3 through 6. It has also in its seven years of existence been characterized by extremely low academic proficiency rates. In 2012, the school scored 34.5 percent proficiency in math and 33.3 percent in reading. However, last year’s DC CASS scores revealed that the school was among all charters first in academic improvement and number three when grouped with all D.C. schools. The Office of the State Superintendent of Education designated Septima Clark as a Reward School in 2012 for the progress it had made. On the PCSB’s PMF Septima Clark is a low Tier 2 school. Last year it was graded in Tier 3.
During the 2011 to 2012 school year Septima Clark met only one of three accountability plan targets for student program and student achievement.
The school is located in Ward 8 but is without a permanent facility. It has moved three times due to the facility issue. The current lease is ending and another location has not been identified.
Achievement Prep is also located in Ward 8. It currently serves 315 students in grades 4 to 8. Achievement Prep is a Tier 1 school with a math proficiency rate in 2012 of 86.0 percent and a reading proficiency rate for the same year of 67.9 percent. The charter is one of the highest academically performing schools in D.C. The supporting documentation for the merger points out that over the last four years each grade of Achievement Prep has recorded proficiency rates more than double-digit over the city’s average.
One issue to consider regarding this plan is that the grades served by Achievement Prep do not currently align perfectly with those served by Septima Clark. Achievement Prep plans to expand its grades to include Kindergarten to 3rd in the 2014 to 2015 school year. This means, however, there will be nowhere for Septima Clark’s rising PK4 to go. This equates to 40 children. In addition, Achievement Prep will only accept the 6th grade class of Septima Clark into 7th grade if the pupils test adequately to be admitted to that grade. Students who fail to pass the exam or do not take the test will be offered space in the 6th grade. 11 pupils are impacted in this instance.
Another issue to consider is whether the proposed merger fits the needs of the Septima Clark’s families. Please remember that just recently a task force headed by PCSB Chairman Brian Jones decided correctly that there should not be a neighborhood preference when it comes to charters. One of the major justifications for this conclusion was that it would force families to send their kids to schools with missions inconsistent with their desires. It appears hypocritical to now go ahead and transfer those who have consciously chosen a single gender learning environment to one that includes both boys and girls.
One last point I would like to make comes in the area of disclosure. Septima Clark engaged the services of Ten Square Consulting to assist with its strategic plan. Ten Square is owned by Josh Kern who is a member of the Achievement Prep board of directors. Don’t get me wrong, I am not implying at all that that there is a conflict of interest. I’m just saying that in the spirit of transparency I think this information should have been made a part of the supporting documentation.
The PCSB is holding a public hearing on the merger Tuesday, February 19th at the ARC from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. It should be a fascinating evening.
The Washington Post
By Emma Brown
February 12, 2013
Gray administration officials on Tuesday assailed a proposed D.C. Council bill that would require prosecuting parents of chronically truant children, calling it expensive, unneeded and an overreach of legislative power.
District students, parents and child advocates also implored the council to reconsider the bill, describing it as an overly harsh approach to a complex problem.
But D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) pushed back during a five-hour public hearing, saying that the measure is a fair way to address rampant truancy. He portrayed it as the second prong of an effort that began with a 2012 law that requires schools to identify why individual students are chronically absent and help get them to class.
“After we have done everything in our power to make sure the child is in school, there have to be consequences [for the parents], because the consequences for the child not being in school are lifelong,” said Catania, chief sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Education Committee. “We are in the midst of a truancy epidemic, and the systems that we have in place today are not working.”
More than 5,000 children missed more than a month of class last year in the District. In four of the city’s worst-performing high schools — where graduation rates are far below average — at least 40 percent of students missed a more than a month.
This school year, more than 2,500 District students have missed at least 11 days of class.
The numbers have sparked frustration among Catania and his council colleagues, including Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), who said absenteeism is a signal that a child is at risk of entering the criminal justice system.
“Truancy, in my view, is a fundamental issue that the government has to deal with,” Mendelson said.
Under current law, parents can be jailed for five days and fined $100 if their child misses two or more days of school in a month, but they rarely are. The bill would raise the bar for government intervention to 10 unexcused absences in a school year. Then, the Child and Family Services Agency would investigate cases involving children up through age 17. The agency now investigates truants 13 and younger.
That expansion of duties would come at a price — at least $4.4 million a year, CFSA Director Brenda Donald said.
The bill also would require the D.C. attorney general to prosecute parents whose children accumulate 20 unexcused absences in a school year. Parents could be sentenced to take parenting classes or complete community service at their child’s school, and if they fail to show up, they could be fined or jailed. Parents also could plead loss of control over a teenager, which would send the child to court authorities for supervision.
D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan called the proposal a “straitjacket” that would usurp his authority to decide when it’s appropriate to charge a parent.
“Taking children away from their homes or putting parents of truant children in jail should be, as they are now, rare and extreme measures of keeping children in the classroom,” Nathan said.
The executive branch already has the legal tools it needs to hold parents accountable for their children’s school attendance, Nathan added. He said his office has prosecuted parents in every truancy case the school system has referred to his office — a total of 116 cases in the past three years.
Catania said he would be willing to compromise on the measure’s mandatory-prosecution provision. He also signaled that public charter schools, currently “left to their own devices,” should be expected to abide by the same rules as traditional schools.
Charters’ expulsion policies would be subject to new scrutiny under the bill, which calls on the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to issue recommendations for eliminating expulsions except in extreme cases. Charter schools have expelled far more students than traditional schools in recent years.
The provision was inserted by bill co-author David Grosso (I-At Large), who said he also would like to scrutinize suspensions. Discipline that keeps children out of school, he said, is one of the “root causes of chronic truancy.”
The Washington Examiner
By Eric P. Newcomer
February 13, 2013
The District's attorney general voiced the Gray administration's opposition to a bill that would impose up to five days in jail for parents whose children habitually miss school.
During a public hearing Tuesday, Attorney General Irvin Nathan called the Attendance Accountability Amendment Act of 2013 "ill-considered and seriously flawed."
Nathan said the District's executive branch does not believe new legislation is necessary.
However, he did not dispute council members' bleak depictions of the city's truancy problem.
"The numbers are extraordinary, aren't they?" Councilwoman Mary Cheh asked Nathan in one exchange.
For example, at-large Councilman David Catania said that as of Monday, more than a quarter of public school students have acquired 11 unexcused absences so far this school year.
Although Nathan agreed that the city has a truancy problem, he said the proposed legislation would put a "straitjacket" on the administration.
Catania's proposal would expand existing law to all children between ages 5 and 17. The bill would require the attorney general to notify parents when a minor has 10 unexcused absences, and then when a student has 20 unexcused absences authorities could fine parents, impose community service or parenting classes. If absences repeat, parents could face jail time, unless they certify to the state that they are unable to make get their child go to school.
Brenda Donald, director of the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, testified that the bill could cost the city $4.4 million to implement. That figure drew some skepticism from some council members.
The attorney general's remarks came after hours of testimony from more than two dozen members of the public, the vast majority of whom criticized at least part of the proposal.
Even before Nathan and Donald spoke, some council members had already indicated their concerns about the bill during the proceedings.
Ward 8 Councilman Marion Barry stated his opposition to the bill, asking instead what the city would do to better hold teachers and school administrators responsible for school absences. Barry said jailing parents would not help.
"Who is going to take care of their kids while they're locked up?" he asked.
Mailing Archive: