Caryn Ernst Testimony – DME Performance Oversight Hearing – February 13 2018

I have been a member of the Deputy Mayor for Education’s Cross Sector Collaboration Task Force for the last two years and am testifying on the efficacy of the proposals currently being considered.

There are many recommendations from the Task Force being pushed out for public comment at the same time and only one meeting for the Task Force to consider that feedback and make changes before passing them on to the Mayor. The policy issues being considered are extremely complex and have the potential for serious unintended consequences. It will be primarily up to the Council to ensure any policies that advance are thoroughly considered, which is why I’m here today.

It’s important for Council to know that there were critical issues that should have been discussed by the Task Force but were not, because they were taken off the table from the outset. As a result, the recommendations will not only fall short of their stated goals, but in some cases may actually do more harm than good.

My assessment, which is shared by many education advocates from around the city, is that these recommendations are not going to improve education for the vast majority of students, particularly the 44% of our students considered at-risk, and could actually exacerbate the current problems created by our divided system.

The Task Force focused on three important goals during our two-years together:

1. Promoting enrollment stability

2. Improving education for at-risk students

3. Coordinating the opening, closing and siting of schools

In my brief comments today, I will focus on just a few of the higher level policy issues that were not discussed, which should therefore be thoroughly considered by Council.

I. Promoting Enrollment Stability

The policy that the Task Force focused on to address mid-year mobility was the creation of a centralized system for managing mid-year transfers.

I support creating a centralized system; however, the system as proposed is not designed to promote enrollment stability, and could actually facilitate greater mid-year mobility, particularly for at-risk students.

The central flaw in the policy is allowing schools to maintain waitlists throughout the year, a topic that was taken off the table for discussion. Maintaining waitlists ensures that:

1. Higher risk students will continue to have the least choice in school placement, and

2. That you will create a cascade of voluntary mobility throughout the school year.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. This impact was actually documented by the City of Denver, which had a similar policy, but then eliminated waitlists for exactly the reasons stated.

By allowing schools to maintain waitlists throughout the year, you ensure that the highest demand schools will fill open slots from their waitlists, rather than taking the higher risk students who need to leave their current school for reasons such as housing instability or expulsion. Those higher risk students can then only be placed at schools with no waitlist. Also, by allowing schools to pull from waitlists throughout the school year you create a cascade of voluntary mobility – when one school invites a student off of their waitlist to take advantage of a transfer opportunity, that transfer creates an open slot at the student’s current school, which will then be filled by someone invited from their waitlist, and so on, and so on.

If the centralized system is implemented, it must be measured against the goal of reducing mid-year mobility, particularly for at-risk students. If mobility of at-risk students does not decline, waitlists should be eliminated for all schools after October.

II. Improving Education for At-Risk Students

The recommendations being advanced by the Task Force for at-risk students are largely focused on redistributing a small percent of students between schools, rather than on identifying strategies to improve education for all at-risk students.

For example, the recommended policy to provide a preference in the lottery for at-risk students was shown to only benefit 600 students in a mock lottery. There are 40,000 at-risk students in our school system, yet the Task Force spent months discussing a policy that would benefit 600 of them.

Meanwhile, very little time was spent identifying and analyzing ways to replicate educational approaches that have actually proven successful in improving achievement of at-risk students in DC. We have a handful of excellent examples in both DCPS and Charter sector, including schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty. Repeated requests from Task Force members to analyze these success stories and discuss replication strategies were disregarded by the Deputy Mayor.

With 44% of our public school students at-risk of school failure, creating policies that shuffle them between schools is not a solution.

III. Opening, Closing and Siting Schools

The Task Force recommendation to compile data from both sectors into one city-wide analysis is fine, but there was no broader agreement on policies that will guide the use of that data, and no agreement on changes to the separate governing structures that could actually facilitate coordinated planning and decision-making.

Critical issues, such as how to measure and manage excess capacity in order to align school growth with student population growth, were completely taken off the table for discussion.

Currently there are over 21,000 excess public school seats – roughly half in each sector – yet the Public Charter School Board stated explicitly that it would not manage its development of new schools to align with student growth, but would instead continue to build new schools as long as there are students in the District scoring below basic on the PARCC exam.

We are spending limited tax dollars to not only maintain 23% excess capacity, but to continue to expand that capacity further beyond population growth. By necessity, this results in reduced enrollment and budget in existing schools regardless of their quality, undermining the success of both charter and DCPS schools.

These broader policy and governance issues must be dealt with for cross sector collaboration to be meaningful and for there to be significant improvements to education in the District and any real progress in closing the achievement gap for our 40,000 at-risk students.


Testimony of Mark Simon – DME and PCSB Performance Oversight Hearing – February 13 2018

Chairman Grosso and Members of the DC Council Committee on Education, My name is Mark Simon, longtime DCPS parent and public education advocate, and now an education policy associate at the Economic Policy Institute.

The DME’s Cross Sector Task Force represents one of her major responsibilities and hopes. It had big problems to address: Inefficiency duplication and lack of communication between two sectors and 67 LEAs; Schools not communicating about whether strategies are working. In fact, they treat what they’re doing with students as proprietary information and other schools as competitors. Schools locate wherever they choose or can find buildings, not where they’re needed. Both sectors maintain underutilized schools.

And there are intractable problems in both sectors, like teacher turnover, and disruptive mid-year departure or entry of students… I could go on. We all hoped the DME would address the rules of the game that you, the Council, and the Mayor have the power to write for both sectors. That’s why we have a DME and Mayoral Control.

The Task Force’s preliminary recommendations are underwhelming. They took two years and its astounding what they didn’t address. They took off the table most of the big issues and only addressed the narrow range of what representatives of the charter sector and DCPS allowed for discussion.

I wish there had been more members of the public on the Task Force. It just didn’t have the expertise or the will to grapple with what needed their attention.

Four crises they needed to take up and develop proposals to address:

1. Mid-year transfers of students and the instability it causes.

2. Inefficient and duplicative locating of charter schools about which parents have little say.

3. The teacher turnover crisis in both DCPS and charter schools — we can’t keep our teachers.

4. The lack of credibility and need for transparency on school data.

What’s the problem with the approach taken by the Task force on each of these crisis issues?

1. On student Mobility: Students moving out of one school and into another mid-year is disruptive – a problem covered in the press. Instead of trying to lessen it the task force seems to have come up with a plan to facilitate more midyear transfers of students. This could only have been proposed by a group of people representing the business side of charters, not students’ or teachers’ interests.

2. On Siting of Schools: The PCSB continues to maintain that granting charters has nothing to do with where they locate. This is insane. The PCSB could say that granting a charter is a two-step process, that the location must be acceptable to citywide planners otherwise the preliminary charter will not be granted. This just wasn’t taken up as a problem by the Task Force.

3. On Data Transparency: The Graduation Rate scandal that has befallen DCPS could easily have included the charter sector. Both sets of schools try to game the narrow set of data used to evaluate schools: graduation rates, attendance, and PARCC scores. Parents want different information about schools – about the quality of the teaching and learning climate – but it’s not available. Evidently the Task Force doesn’t see this as a problem. If it had concern, as members of the Council do about more spin and marketing than truth about our schools, it could have considered the need for greater transparency and independent research, but that wasn’t the concern.

4. On Teacher Turnover: Everyone in DC charters and DCPS knows the fact that they can’t hang onto teachers is a huge problem. It makes students cynical about why they should show up if teachers don’t stick around and its expensive to train teachers and then have them walk out the door. Why is DC such an outlier in this regard. It was never discussed by this task force.


Valerie Jablow Testimony – DME and PCSB Performance Oversight Hearing – February 13 2018

My name is Valerie Jablow. As a DCPS parent and Ward 6 taxpayer, I want to ask you some questions, as you are charged with oversight of our education agencies.

Last week[1], council members spoke with the DCPS chancellor about pressure on teachers to pass students and attendance policies not being followed. I appreciate the scrutiny.

1. But does the relative lack of scrutiny of our charter high schools mean that what happened at Ballou hasn’t happened there? We know from the OSSE report on all our high schools[2] that there has been no oversight of charter schools’ adherence to attendance policies; how those policies (or any attendance) affects credits earned; public reporting of charter school graduation requirements; and charter credit recovery. This means that what happened at Ballou could very well have happened at our charter high schools.

2. Our city has embraced test scores and graduation rates as barometers of learning, teacher performance, and adults’ financial rewards. We know that resulted in immense teacher pressure at DCPS.[3] How is it possible that our charter schools are immune to those same pressures, given that the charter board has reported that its average promotion rate for SY16-17 was 97%?[4]?

3. When will graduation rates, absences, and credits be similarly accounted for in each LEA, so we can have reliable, apples to apples data?

4. Has anyone explored connections between teacher attrition and pressures on teachers to pass students? Teacher attrition averages about 20% annually in DCPS.[5] Using reported attrition rates for SY16-17, I calculated that average teacher attrition in our charter schools was almost 26%, with a fifth of DC’s charter schools having teacher attrition rates greater than 60%.

5. If the mayor is in charge of our public schools, why hasn’t her deputy been called before you in the graduation accountability hearings to address the questions I just mentioned? Unlike Chancellor Wilson, both the mayor and her deputy have been overseeing our schools for years.

6. Among her duties, the deputy mayor oversees the cross-sector collaboration task force, which is currently promoting its recommendations[6]. At the same time, someone in our city government apparently offered DCPS’s Kenilworth Elementary to North Star charter school without a word to the public.[7] Who made that offer and what does it consist of? My requests to the deputy mayor about this have gone unanswered.

7. And what does collaboration mean if the public is excluded from decision making by public bodies? My ward—along with wards 1, 4, and 8—is being targeted by the charter board as a “green zone” for charter school development. I found this out only because a document created for new charter operators says so[8]—not because anyone in city government informed me.

8. And why make such promotional efforts when there are currently 21,000 empty seats at charter and DCPS schools?[9]

Thank you for sharing publicly whatever answers you may have or find to these questions.


[1] This was during the graduation accountability hearing, held by the council committee on education, February 8, 2018.

[2] This was the first of two reports issued in the wake of Ballou, dated January 16, 2018, and available here:

On page 2 of OSSE’s executive summary, we learn that “information related to graduation requirements at individual charter schools/LEAs is not consistently made publicly available in an accessible way” and “PCSB current policies and procedures do not currently include a review of student attendance data to determine if schools comply with their own attendance policies to the extent they impact earning credits” and “PCSB current policies and procedures do not currently include a review of school- or LEA-level policies related to credit recovery or other alternative opportunities to earn credit and compliance with these policies is not included the 12th grade transcript audit process.”

[3] This was fully outlined in the final Alvarez & Marsal report from January 30, 2018, available here:

[4] See the performance oversight responses to the council from the charter board here:

Information about promotion rates is in response to question Q12, on p. 19.

[5] Courtesy of Mary Levy, who has extrapolated teacher data from annual DCPS budgets for years running, we know that teacher attrition in DCPS averages about 20% a year, with the newest hires having higher rates of attrition and staff with good ratings leaving at higher rates from schools with the most impoverished students. (See and for more information.)

More recently, I collected from the annual reports of our charter schools the self-reported teacher attrition rates for each DC charter school, available here:

In SY16-17, for the 110 charter schools for which there is reported teacher attrition data, I counted that 37 charter schools had attrition rates of 20% or less (33.6% of the total); 21 schools had attrition rates between 20-29% (19% of the total); and 52 schools had attrition rates equal to or greater than 30% (47% of the total).

For that school year, I found that 23 charter schools had attrition rates of 60% or more (20.9% of the total), with 10 having teacher attrition rates at or above 80%. All of the latter were Friendship schools except for DC Bilingual; Shining Stars; and Washington Mathematics, Science, and Technology.

This breakdown is similar to what I recorded last year from the same source:

Um, Teacher Retention Is Not Just A DCPS Problem

[6] For more information, see here:

[7] On February 1, 2017, at a Ward 7 Education Council meeting, a representative from North Star College Preparatory Academy for Boys shared that their school had been offered the closed DCPS Kenilworth Elementary starting SY18-19. This was the first time anyone in the community had heard about this offer. Many in the community had hoped DCPS would reopen this school because they had lost many by-right schools to charters.

[8] See here:

This document is accessible, as far as I can see, ONLY from this web page for new charter operators:

For more information, see here:

Just Tell Me: Who Voted For This?

[9] The 21st Century School Fund analyzed empty public school seats across DC using recent enrollment numbers:


Join CHPSPO’s Strategic Planning – Feb 24

In an effort to be more effective in our work “to promote cooperation among the parent organizations of the public schools [in WARD 6] in order to improve the education received by all children attending our schools,” the Capitol Hill Public Schools Parent Organization (CHPSPO) is engaging the DC education community in a strategic planning process.

All CHPSPO members, parents (family), principals, and engaged community members are invited to participate in this strategic planning (working) meeting where we hope to establish long-term and short-term priorities for our work supporting Ward 6 schools.

When: Saturday, February 24, 9 AM – 1 PM

Where: Northeast Library’s Conference Room Mezzanine – 330 7th Street NE

Register via Eventbrite:


CHPSP Meeting Notes– January 16, 2018

Brent Elementary School, January 16, 2018, 6:30 p.m. – 8 p.m.


Michelle Edwards, Executive Director of Learn It, Live It, Love It gave a great presentation. Her non-profit organization partners with DCPS Title I schools to bring structured, standards-aligned field trips experiences to students leveraging the museums and organizations in DC and the surrounding areas. She encourages schools and families to reach out to her if you are interested in learning more, contact Michelle at You can learn more about the organization at

Gene Pinkard, Chief, School Design and Continuous Improvement joined for a discussion about issues of interest to CHPSPO members. He started off with a brief introduction of his office. His office is new since June 2017 and is focused on the following:

  • Enrollment and Enrollment Growth
  • School Performance
  • Innovation and School Design

Their core question to address is: what is going to make DCPS a world-class district?

The discussion moved to questions from attendees:

Question: The Public Charter School Board analysis on charter programs, need and growth, encourages charter school applicants to consider opening Montessori, language immersion, and schools in Ward 6 (calling it a “green zone”). Yet DCPS has those schools already in Ward 6 –  why is DCPS not targeting or supporting that kind of growth? Is DCPS thinking about these kinds of things?

Answer: Chancellor Wilson has made it clear he is not a fan of wait lists; he wants to focus on the need for making the space bigger or replicate programs in other places. So, Gene’s office is thinking more about how we connect successful programs to schools or communities that want and need them. Some examples could be:

  • Bruce Jackson Miner Principal and LSAT want to talk about some additional programming and working to decide what is best for the students today and the future.
  • Looking at enrollment growth and facilities is a key aspect – and we need to have smart solutions to that – even potentially serving students with partners.
  • Think about the equity we create with our students. Opportunities to open high-quality experiences for students including perhaps more citywide programs. Families in DC value diversity and citywide schools may offer that option.

Question: Can you talk about the data you use on citywide programs? In DC, being a citywide school does not mean you are a diverse school necessarily.

Answer: The data we used was national data.

Question: Will you communicate short and long-term plans to address growth across school communities? People want to know what is ahead so they know whether they want to also stay and invest in a school instead of leaving for a charter.

Answer: We do need to improve communications, but we are working hard on this area and improving planning. We want to bring more schools into the portfolio so that there are more choices in DCPS; we want to increase capacity to capture demand now and in future; and we want to improve how we communicate about all of it. Need to do more to communicate about all of this

Question: Can you talk more about the role of DCPS in increasing enrollment as this is the first-year enrollment has gone down? And, we encourage more meetings like this one in order to address the gaps between parents and DCPS and to use more of a common language. CHPSPO is about investing in our school particularly neighborhood schools and less about choice; and we know that quality is not just test scores.

Answer. I want to make clear is that test scores are important but don’t define quality. Quality is outlined in the Excellent Schools Framework we are developing. It’s achievement, talent and leadership, culture and climate, equity and engagement.

OSSE has PARCC and test scores tackled in the conversation. We want to also look at formative data and whether a school feels right for my kids and my community. We want to capture what families feel when they are valued and feel safe and welcomed.

Choice and neighborhood schools are not a contradiction. Primary investment has to be in our neighborhood schools. The city is only going to function if its neighborhoods have strong quality schools. So, we are looking at strengthening feeder patterns, culture/climate and other aspects of quality.

Question: Will DCPS support a Challenger Center at Elliot Hine?

Answer: We have mixed thoughts on whether it works, and whether it’s what the community wants. But I want to talk more about it with you offline.

Question: We need to focus on retaining teachers and leadership. But some school leaders are not collaborative and problems with school leadership can fester for a long time. Teachers don’t have a way to give robust feedback on principal performance. There isn’t a safe way for teachers to bring feedback that is taken seriously. Principal evaluation is set up with an incentive to manipulate the system and to encourage fraudulent reporting of data. What is the plan for supporting transparent data, better systems for teachers to report concerns, and for teachers to be an integral part of principal evaluations.

Answer: Yes, everybody in the school community should have a voice in its success. I agree on the general concerns. But we do have some mechanisms – the INSIGHT survey is anonymized and goes to quality of leadership and instructional culture, student/parent surveys. Every school has areas for improvement.

My office checks and collects that data. Principals are half evaluated on outcome data. And they choose other areas they want to be evaluated on – but they can’t control the data.

But, there is more that we can do around principal development. We have a periodic leadership academy – but don’t yet have ongoing, robust support that helps principals become more successful on all aspects of leadership.

On family engagement, we recommend that principal engagement with the LSAT is the norm. That needs to be the expectation and how they are responding.

Comment: Concerns were raised that LSAT is implemented differently in every school and is not enough to garner authentic, robust engagement of families. Need support for principals on family engagement and communications across the board.

Question: Gene asked to the group: what would you like to see as the DCPS response to high demand of a limited number of sites in a geographic region?

Answer from Suzanne: I appreciate the work DCPS has to do in this area is hard. Conversations and communications with our community are key. We have talked about a strategic plan for Ward 6 with Claudia Lujan. The current DCPS strategic plan doesn’t get into details. I’d like to see decisions made on where and when we are going to open x school and expand y program and add program to school x. To do this in a way that will work, we should have citywide and neighborhood conversations.  For example, Historic Miner could be an early childhood center. We should generally have much more project-based learning – ask every school to do more. But we can’t just give our ideas, we need a broader conversation with a plan and a process.

Gene: Claudia, Michael and myself will embark on a portfolio retreat around the composition of the schools itself. We will look at options like a complimentary layer of citywide schools for the next 5-10 years with citywide conversations to ensure equity.  It’s also likely that we need to be more present in communities around what we are doing.

Idea from Erin Roth: Schools need to really market themselves and be slick about it in order to compete with charters that have high marketing budgets it seems. DCPS could help schools with simple communication and marketing tools and templates that would get across the basic mission and messaging statements for each school in a packaged way for parents.

Idea from Sara Carr: I would argue for a little more ad hoc action. Charters will be here in five years with five new Montessori schools. We need quick action and keep our schools and not give up buildings to charters. The long-term planning is needed, but we need action now too.

Caryn Ernst, CHPSPO Member, and Member of the Cross Sector Task Force

Over the course of two years, the Deputy Mayor of Education (DME) has allowed the Task Force to only focus on a small set of areas that would result in little or no push back from DCPS or charters. They are releasing soon a set of recommendations for public input and are releasing meeting dates for feedback.

Generally, they have proposed the following core issues which are generally the right issues:

  • Opening, closing and siting of schools
  • Serving at-risk students
  • Enrollment stability

But within each category the recommendations are very narrow and parents on the Task Force, including Caryn, have concerns the Task Force should recommend more:

Opening, closing and siting of schools

Issue: Charters are opening schools without citywide strategic plan and without community input. Areas with dozens of schools and other areas with dirth of schools. No coordination re: closing schools or siting of schools.

Recommendation: Have a citywide strategic plan on where schools are, where excess capacity is, how are programs spread throughout city, where are achievement levels different, etc. This is a good recommendation however there is no overarching criteria around that nor any requirement that charters abide by it. Charters have said that they will continue to open schools regardless of plan as long as there is one child not achieving at proficient. There has been no pressure put back on the charter board to stop opening schools without the plan. No agreement to put caps on the amount of charters or collaborative planning – they are allowed to open as many as they want whenever.

Issue: On school sitings parents have pushed for community involvement. Currently, charters simply notify an ANC commissioner within a month of the opening of a school and count that as community engagement. They believe that is sufficient.

Issue: The recommendations do not acknowledgement that neighborhood schools and charters are different and should be treated differently around closings. Neighborhood public schools should not be closed based on ESSA metrics/test scores. Yet DME is pushing very hard to replicate what Denver does – when a school scores below a certain level on the quality score, they are closed after 3 years of warning. Then there is a notice to open new schools. Denver however even acknowledges that schools in low-income communities get closed first and that creates churn and that is not good for those communities.

Serving At-Risk Students

Issue: Of the 10-15 recommendations that will be released for input, the vast majority are about promoting school choice. To improve options for at-risk kids, they recommend giving preference in the lottery if you are at-risk. DME data shows this policy would impact less than 1,000 at-risk students which means it’s not a solution. It doesn’t solve the problem of educating at-risk students better. We need to figure out which schools are beating the odds, look at those schools and what they are doing, and then replicate them. The DME refused to do that.

Enrollment Stability

Recommendations to centralize the mobility process are included to address the problems we have now that you can walk out and go to another school, and there is no data or funding transfer and it creates many issues. So, the recommendation is to centralize the mobility data and the parents on the Task Force support that recommendation. But it’s not enough. The recommendation doesn’t address enrollment stability. It helps smooth mobility and data collection, but doesn’t solve it.

Parents recommended (but were rejected) that after October, wait lists be eliminated and the decisions about mobility go to a centralized system so that movement can be distributed evenly. A centralized wait list would increase stability.

The recommendations from the Task Force also include instituting that the funding follows the student if they transfer.

The parents encouraged other parents and community members to attend the meetings and give feedback. (Confirm here, in case of changes –>

  • School Leader and Principal Focus Group
    • Wednesday, February 7, 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm at Capitol View Library (5001 Central Ave SE)
    • Register Here
  • Family and Advocacy Focus Groups
    • Friday, February 9, 9:30 am – 11:00 am at Mt. Pleasant Library (3160 16th St NW)
    • Tuesday, February 13, 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm at Capitol View Library (5001 Central Ave SE)
    • Register Here
  • Policy Expert Focus Group
    • Wednesday, February 14, 9:30 am – 11:00 am at Shaw Library (1630 7th St NW)
    • Register Here
  • Teacher and School Staff Focus Group
    • Wednesday, February 28, 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm at Benning (Dorothy I. Height) Library (3935 Benning Rd NE)
    • Register Here
  • Citywide Meetings
    • Tuesday, March 13, 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm (Location TBD)
    • Wednesday, March 21, 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm (Location TBD)


Upcoming Events

Cross Sector Collaboration Task Force

  • General Meeting: Tuesday, January 30, Education Counsel (101 Constitution Ave, NW, Suite 900)
  • Focus Groups: (see above)

JO Wilson’s 4th Annual DC Summer Camp Fair (

Thursday, January 25, 6 – 8pm, J.O. Wilson (660 K Street, NE)

CHPSPO Strategic Planning Meeting

Saturday, February 24, 9:30 am – 1 pm, Northeast Library (7th & Maryland Avenue, NE)


Next CHPSPO meeting is on Tuesday, February 20, 2018



National Park Service – Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Call for VOLUNTEERS

Great for HS students looking for volunteer hours…..

The Frederick Douglass National Historic Site is celebrating the Bicentennial of Frederick Douglass’ birth all year long, however, we plan to "kick-off" the event on Saturday, February 17th and Sunday, February 18th. In order to make these events a smashing success, we are looking for VOLUNTEERS!

You can come be apart of history if you decide to assist us on these special days for these special events. See attached the Volunteer Flyer and the Volunteer Interest Form. Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to contact the historic site at (202) 426-5961. All forms can be emailed to Volunteer Coordinator Delphine Gross at Delphine_Gross.

Please disseminate the flyer among your contacts.

Follow on the Web and Social Media!
Twitter: @BethuneNHS
Instagram: @bethunenhs
Twitter: @WoodsonNHS
Twitter: @FredDouglassNPS
Instagram: @frederickdouglassnps

Volunteer Interest Form (1).pdf

birthday volunteer flyer v2 (2).pdf


CHPSPO Meets Tuesday, January 16 @ Brent

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 8:32 PM, Suzanne Wells <> wrote:

Dear Capitol Hill Public Schools Parent Organization members,

CHPSPO will meet on Tuesday, January 16, from 6:30 – 8 pm at Brent Elementary (301 North Carolina Ave., SE). We will be joined by Michelle Edwards, Executive Director of Live It Learn It, a non-profit organization that partners with schools and cultural institutions to create experiential learning opportunities for students, Caryn Ernst who will be discussing the Cross-Sector Collaboration Task Force and the upcoming focus groups the Deputy Mayor for Education is holding, and Heather Schoell who serves on the Chancellor’s Parent Cabinet. We will also have an open discussion on the upcoming renovations, and budget issues.

Hope to see you on Tuesday.

Suzanne Wels

011618 CHPSPO Agenda.docx