Why is DCPS Cutting Ward 3 Schools’ Funding

[Anonymous]

The PP makes a good and accurate point. The extra funding is necessary and justified at schools who receive it. So please stop promoting the idea that ward 3 schools somehow have more resources. The per pupil spending is much lower than some. What ward 3 schools do have is large student bodies and there can be great economy of scale that results. As such, it’s possible to have some extra programs while also having overcrowded classrooms. This is due to the per pupil funding model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a better title of the thread would be “why is DCPS cutting any school’s funding”? Didn’t the council pass a bill that said they couldn’t?

Bc Bowser lies. Look back at threads during primary season. many of us were trying to tell you then.

Yeah if only the 300 people who still read this site (100 of whom are probably not eligible to vote in DC elections) had listened to you, Robert white would be mayor and our schools flush with cash!

Webster's defines triggered as:

NP. Not even close. You seem not to know what "triggered" means. Can you please go look and see what Websters says the definition of a childish response when made to look foolish? PPP wasn't triggered. You were p0wned.

Roped in another one. Giddy up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PP makes a good and accurate point. The extra funding is necessary and justified at schools who receive it. So please stop promoting the idea that ward 3 schools somehow have more resources. The per pupil spending is much lower than some. What ward 3 schools do have is large student bodies and there can be great economy of scale that results. As such, it’s possible to have some extra programs while also having overcrowded classrooms. This is due to the per pupil funding model.

You do understand why a title 1 school would receive more funding, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP makes a good and accurate point. The extra funding is necessary and justified at schools who receive it. So please stop promoting the idea that ward 3 schools somehow have more resources. The per pupil spending is much lower than some. What ward 3 schools do have is large student bodies and there can be great economy of scale that results. As such, it’s possible to have some extra programs while also having overcrowded classrooms. This is due to the per pupil funding model.

You do understand why a title 1 school would receive more funding, right?

That was the “necessary and justified” part of the PP’s post, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP makes a good and accurate point. The extra funding is necessary and justified at schools who receive it. So please stop promoting the idea that ward 3 schools somehow have more resources. The per pupil spending is much lower than some. What ward 3 schools do have is large student bodies and there can be great economy of scale that results. As such, it’s possible to have some extra programs while also having overcrowded classrooms. This is due to the per pupil funding model.

You do understand why a title 1 school would receive more funding, right?

I really don’t think that PP does understand…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Central Admin needs cuts, not the schools. It's a pathetic dereliction of duty and an affront to tax payers to cut the budgets of schools when they are already failing.

Ever since Barry, DC government has been a jobs program. There is no reason to expect that to change, unfortunately it doesn’t extend to people actually doing the work

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the mayor is exactly intimidated by the new Ward 3 councilman who was a lame duck on Day 1. Great job Ward 3 voters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP makes a good and accurate point. The extra funding is necessary and justified at schools who receive it. So please stop promoting the idea that ward 3 schools somehow have more resources. The per pupil spending is much lower than some. What ward 3 schools do have is large student bodies and there can be great economy of scale that results. As such, it’s possible to have some extra programs while also having overcrowded classrooms. This is due to the per pupil funding model.

You do understand why a title 1 school would receive more funding, right?

I do think the issue is budget stability in addition to overall budget. Even though T1 schools get more per pupil, they could still be destabilized by a big cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 is getting a whole new high school so waaaaaaaaah

Oh please. The "new" high school is an old elementary school in a bad location. They aren't doing major renovations; just adding a cafeteria, which previously didn't exist. The goal is to reduce the growth at already way-overcrowded J-R, which serves students from a bunch of wards.

So why are you acting like Ward 3 is getting showered with luxuriant gifts? The gift was to GDS -- Bowser did them a favor by buying their property. The gift is not to DCPS or public school families.

Well, I live in Ward 5 and our Title I is taking a cut despite a 10% enrollment increase. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for Ward 3.

Your Ward 5 school -- Burroughs ES -- is receiving $21,464 dollars per student next year. The per-student average for Ward 3 elementary schools is $12,238. So your school is still receiving $9,226 more per student which is equivalent to 75% higher spending. If Janney received the same funding per student as Burroughs, it would increase Janney's annual budget by $5.7 million which would enable it to hire over 50 more teachers So there is that...

Different Burroughs parent here. Forgive us if we’re feeling a little testy. We’ve been dealing with some infrastructure issues lately, so the timing of this announcement is really frustrating. It’s not like we have lobster and caviar Fridays with the extra $. But if Janney families think they are missing out and want to trek across town to Brookland…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 is getting a whole new high school so waaaaaaaaah

Oh please. The "new" high school is an old elementary school in a bad location. They aren't doing major renovations; just adding a cafeteria, which previously didn't exist. The goal is to reduce the growth at already way-overcrowded J-R, which serves students from a bunch of wards.

So why are you acting like Ward 3 is getting showered with luxuriant gifts? The gift was to GDS -- Bowser did them a favor by buying their property. The gift is not to DCPS or public school families.

Well, I live in Ward 5 and our Title I is taking a cut despite a 10% enrollment increase. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for Ward 3.

Your Ward 5 school -- Burroughs ES -- is receiving $21,464 dollars per student next year. The per-student average for Ward 3 elementary schools is $12,238. So your school is still receiving $9,226 more per student which is equivalent to 75% higher spending. If Janney received the same funding per student as Burroughs, it would increase Janney's annual budget by $5.7 million which would enable it to hire over 50 more teachers So there is that...

Different Burroughs parent here. Forgive us if we’re feeling a little testy. We’ve been dealing with some infrastructure issues lately, so the timing of this announcement is really frustrating. It’s not like we have lobster and caviar Fridays with the extra $. But if Janney families think they are missing out and want to trek across town to Brookland…

Oh FFS. Title I schools are supposed to have more funding! It's the law! And if Janney had the amount of SPeD and ELL and at-risk that Burroughs does, Janney would have more funding too. But Janney, poor Janney, misses out on the privilege of educating these kids and has to content itself with six-figure parent fundraising every year instead.

I have literally no idea why anyone would think per capita funding arguments are even slightly persuasive. If funding were equal per capita, that would violate federal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 is getting a whole new high school so waaaaaaaaah

Oh please. The "new" high school is an old elementary school in a bad location. They aren't doing major renovations; just adding a cafeteria, which previously didn't exist. The goal is to reduce the growth at already way-overcrowded J-R, which serves students from a bunch of wards.

So why are you acting like Ward 3 is getting showered with luxuriant gifts? The gift was to GDS -- Bowser did them a favor by buying their property. The gift is not to DCPS or public school families.

Well, I live in Ward 5 and our Title I is taking a cut despite a 10% enrollment increase. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for Ward 3.

Your Ward 5 school -- Burroughs ES -- is receiving $21,464 dollars per student next year. The per-student average for Ward 3 elementary schools is $12,238. So your school is still receiving $9,226 more per student which is equivalent to 75% higher spending. If Janney received the same funding per student as Burroughs, it would increase Janney's annual budget by $5.7 million which would enable it to hire over 50 more teachers So there is that...

Different Burroughs parent here. Forgive us if we’re feeling a little testy. We’ve been dealing with some infrastructure issues lately, so the timing of this announcement is really frustrating. It’s not like we have lobster and caviar Fridays with the extra $. But if Janney families think they are missing out and want to trek across town to Brookland…

Oh FFS. Title I schools are supposed to have more funding! It's the law! And if Janney had the amount of SPeD and ELL and at-risk that Burroughs does, Janney would have more funding too. But Janney, poor Janney, misses out on the privilege of educating these kids and has to content itself with six-figure parent fundraising every year instead.

I have literally no idea why anyone would think per capita funding arguments are even slightly persuasive. If funding were equal per capita, that would violate federal law.

Nobody Janney person complained that Burroughs should get more money. A Burroughs parent seemed to think that only Burroughs should get to complain about budget cuts.

Can we move back to the main issue, which is schools (many? most? all?) losing much-needed funds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 is getting a whole new high school so waaaaaaaaah

Oh please. The "new" high school is an old elementary school in a bad location. They aren't doing major renovations; just adding a cafeteria, which previously didn't exist. The goal is to reduce the growth at already way-overcrowded J-R, which serves students from a bunch of wards.

So why are you acting like Ward 3 is getting showered with luxuriant gifts? The gift was to GDS -- Bowser did them a favor by buying their property. The gift is not to DCPS or public school families.

Well, I live in Ward 5 and our Title I is taking a cut despite a 10% enrollment increase. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for Ward 3.

Your Ward 5 school -- Burroughs ES -- is receiving $21,464 dollars per student next year. The per-student average for Ward 3 elementary schools is $12,238. So your school is still receiving $9,226 more per student which is equivalent to 75% higher spending. If Janney received the same funding per student as Burroughs, it would increase Janney's annual budget by $5.7 million which would enable it to hire over 50 more teachers So there is that...

Different Burroughs parent here. Forgive us if we’re feeling a little testy. We’ve been dealing with some infrastructure issues lately, so the timing of this announcement is really frustrating. It’s not like we have lobster and caviar Fridays with the extra $. But if Janney families think they are missing out and want to trek across town to Brookland…

Oh FFS. Title I schools are supposed to have more funding! It's the law! And if Janney had the amount of SPeD and ELL and at-risk that Burroughs does, Janney would have more funding too. But Janney, poor Janney, misses out on the privilege of educating these kids and has to content itself with six-figure parent fundraising every year instead.

I have literally no idea why anyone would think per capita funding arguments are even slightly persuasive. If funding were equal per capita, that would violate federal law.

Nobody Janney person complained that Burroughs should get more money. A Burroughs parent seemed to think that only Burroughs should get to complain about budget cuts.

Can we move back to the main issue, which is schools (many? most? all?) losing much-needed funds?

Fixing my nonsensical first sentence:

No Janney person complained that Burroughs gets more money. A Burroughs parent seemed to think that only Burroughs should get to complain about budget cuts.

Can we move back to the main issue, which is schools (many? most? all?) losing much-needed funds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the mayor is exactly intimidated by the new Ward 3 councilman who was a lame duck on Day 1. Great job Ward 3 voters!

He won. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 is getting a whole new high school so waaaaaaaaah

Oh please. The "new" high school is an old elementary school in a bad location. They aren't doing major renovations; just adding a cafeteria, which previously didn't exist. The goal is to reduce the growth at already way-overcrowded J-R, which serves students from a bunch of wards.

So why are you acting like Ward 3 is getting showered with luxuriant gifts? The gift was to GDS -- Bowser did them a favor by buying their property. The gift is not to DCPS or public school families.

Well, I live in Ward 5 and our Title I is taking a cut despite a 10% enrollment increase. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for Ward 3.

Your Ward 5 school -- Burroughs ES -- is receiving $21,464 dollars per student next year. The per-student average for Ward 3 elementary schools is $12,238. So your school is still receiving $9,226 more per student which is equivalent to 75% higher spending. If Janney received the same funding per student as Burroughs, it would increase Janney's annual budget by $5.7 million which would enable it to hire over 50 more teachers So there is that...

Different Burroughs parent here. Forgive us if we’re feeling a little testy. We’ve been dealing with some infrastructure issues lately, so the timing of this announcement is really frustrating. It’s not like we have lobster and caviar Fridays with the extra $. But if Janney families think they are missing out and want to trek across town to Brookland…

Oh FFS. Title I schools are supposed to have more funding! It's the law! And if Janney had the amount of SPeD and ELL and at-risk that Burroughs does, Janney would have more funding too. But Janney, poor Janney, misses out on the privilege of educating these kids and has to content itself with six-figure parent fundraising every year instead.

I have literally no idea why anyone would think per capita funding arguments are even slightly persuasive. If funding were equal per capita, that would violate federal law.

Nobody Janney person complained that Burroughs should get more money. A Burroughs parent seemed to think that only Burroughs should get to complain about budget cuts.

Can we move back to the main issue, which is schools (many? most? all?) losing much-needed funds?

Fixing my nonsensical first sentence:

No Janney person complained that Burroughs gets more money. A Burroughs parent seemed to think that only Burroughs should get to complain about budget cuts.

Can we move back to the main issue, which is schools (many? most? all?) losing much-needed funds?

You can blame the OP of this thread who was bemoaning the lack of W3 resources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 is getting a whole new high school so waaaaaaaaah

Oh please. The "new" high school is an old elementary school in a bad location. They aren't doing major renovations; just adding a cafeteria, which previously didn't exist. The goal is to reduce the growth at already way-overcrowded J-R, which serves students from a bunch of wards.

So why are you acting like Ward 3 is getting showered with luxuriant gifts? The gift was to GDS -- Bowser did them a favor by buying their property. The gift is not to DCPS or public school families.

Well, I live in Ward 5 and our Title I is taking a cut despite a 10% enrollment increase. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for Ward 3.

Your Ward 5 school -- Burroughs ES -- is receiving $21,464 dollars per student next year. The per-student average for Ward 3 elementary schools is $12,238. So your school is still receiving $9,226 more per student which is equivalent to 75% higher spending. If Janney received the same funding per student as Burroughs, it would increase Janney's annual budget by $5.7 million which would enable it to hire over 50 more teachers So there is that...

I think OP thought only Ward 3 schools are having their budgets cut. Clearly, that is not the case.

Different Burroughs parent here. Forgive us if we’re feeling a little testy. We’ve been dealing with some infrastructure issues lately, so the timing of this announcement is really frustrating. It’s not like we have lobster and caviar Fridays with the extra $. But if Janney families think they are missing out and want to trek across town to Brookland…

Oh FFS. Title I schools are supposed to have more funding! It's the law! And if Janney had the amount of SPeD and ELL and at-risk that Burroughs does, Janney would have more funding too. But Janney, poor Janney, misses out on the privilege of educating these kids and has to content itself with six-figure parent fundraising every year instead.

I have literally no idea why anyone would think per capita funding arguments are even slightly persuasive. If funding were equal per capita, that would violate federal law.

Nobody Janney person complained that Burroughs should get more money. A Burroughs parent seemed to think that only Burroughs should get to complain about budget cuts.

Can we move back to the main issue, which is schools (many? most? all?) losing much-needed funds?

Fixing my nonsensical first sentence:

No Janney person complained that Burroughs gets more money. A Burroughs parent seemed to think that only Burroughs should get to complain about budget cuts.

Can we move back to the main issue, which is schools (many? most? all?) losing much-needed funds?

You can blame the OP of this thread who was bemoaning the lack of W3 resources