Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Aspire topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DC Prep board reviews PCSBAspire framework and narrows options for school-specific measures
Summary
DC Prep leaders briefed the board on the Public Charter School Board(PCSB) Aspire accountability system and initial school-specific measure options that would count for 10% of a schooloverall score; staff will narrow choices and return for board approval by April.
Hillary, DC PrepPCSdirector of data and enrollment, told the board the Public Charter School Board(PCSB) has finalized a new Aspire accountability system that replaces the pre-COVID PMF and is being phased in for public reporting. "School-specific performance measureswill contribute to 10% of our overall scores," she said, noting those 10 points are split into two 5% measures that the school network must select and keep stable for five years.
The Aspire framework divides school performance into four domains: school progress, school environment, school achievement and school-specific measures. Hillary said progress measures rely on CAEP statewide results and NWEA for younger grades, environment includes attendance and reenrollment, and achievement is driven by CAEP results. She described two growth measures Aspire uses: median growth percentile (relative growth versus the city) and growth-to-proficiency (how much each student improves toward a proficiency threshold).
Why it matters: the board and staff said the school-specific choices can reinforce DC PrepPCSmission priorities but also carry risk because the measures must be measurable, mission-aligned and held for five years. Hillary said the network should avoid adding heavy new reporting burdens and should choose metrics it can reliably measure over time.
Options under consideration include reweighting existing measures, choosing metrics from the networkcharter goals or the PCSBitem bank, or proposing a new metric. Early candidates the network is studying include the percentage of eighth graders enrolled in Algebra I or earning high-school credit, targeted CAEP achievement or growth for particular subgroups (for example, at-risk or special-education students), seat attendance/chronic absenteeism, and early-childhood indicators such as PPVT or TEMA scores.
Board members sought technical clarifications. Patrick asked how Aspire distinguishes "progress" from "achievement;" Hillary replied that achievement is the percentage of students scoring at the top CAEP cut points while progress uses median growth percentile and growth-to-proficiency calculations. In response to a question about assessments used for internal reporting, Hillary said ANET is not on the PCSBapproved list and would be difficult and unlikely to add as an official Aspire assessment.
On equity and subgroups, Hillary said Aspire calculates many measures by subgroup (special education, English learners, at-risk students and race categories) and weights them, enabling schools to show relative performance for historically underserved groups. She noted that for school-specific measures DC Prep can choose to propose an all-student measure or a subgroup-specific measure to highlight work with particular populations.
Next steps: Hillary said staff will narrow options internally in December, solicit input from principals and the executive team, and return to the board for approval of recommended school-specific measures by April. Laura told the board the governance timeline will include a February check-in after deeper internal analysis.
