Funding for Shepherd's Renovation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. We aren't at Shepherd but anyone can say it's not a fair process to penalize a school and apply a brand new calculation on a job that started before Grosso was even in office. The funds were already there. One can't give and then take away.

That makes no sense to me. If someone said "Well, we promised Ellington a $200 million renovation with gold-plated urinals 5 years ago, and we aren't allowed to change our minds, so I guess all the other crumbling schools will just have to wait," no one would accept that. Budgets always change based on current needs, and those needs are always changing. Having a data-driven tool at least helps minimize the weight of politics in all this.

The tool is okay in theory, it is the application that is lacking. Who decided the weighting? Do the schools at the top of the list get the funds? That's not the way the budget reads to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you advocate the most needy school getting funds first but only finish the job to renovate that school to a point where they'd not needy anymore (say 50% finished) and then they move to the end of the line? Then next school 50% done, etc etc? Or too bad for Shepherd for being started under the old system?

No, that's not what I'm saying - you're painting with too broad a brush. The spreadsheet tool isn't solely based on how much has been spent on renovations in recent years; that's just one piece of the puzzle. But yeah, if you've gotten 50% through your renovation plan (or 90% through as someone said Shepherd has gotten here), then maybe it's a little harder to get funding for the last few percentage parts of the renovation, if lots of other schools are crumbling and have greater need. So maybe that means schools will focus on renovating first the items they really need, and push luxuries like new kilns to the end of the project. That seems like a good idea, doesn't it?

I wasn't involved in this spreadsheet tool, or in DC government in any way, but I think it makes a lot of sense. Maybe it could be improved or adjusted, but it's a heck of a lot better than just the pure politics approach where only those schools with the most organized parents and most powerful political supporters get all the renovations.

Are you really going to say a school like Shepherd, which is rated as being in good facilities condition by most measures, is growing at a slow pace, and is only about 85% full, ... is more deserving than a school like Orr that's rated as poor in most facility measures, is 100% full, and is facing a 10% annual growth rate for the past 5 years?

[Anonymous]

The ways things should work is that the Council would direct DCPS/DGS to establish a ranking/prioritization system that takes into account the criteria.

The Council would have hearings and monitor that the outputs of the ranking adhere to the guidance they gave.

Having legislative staff draft this sort of thing makes no sense at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you advocate the most needy school getting funds first but only finish the job to renovate that school to a point where they'd not needy anymore (say 50% finished) and then they move to the end of the line? Then next school 50% done, etc etc? Or too bad for Shepherd for being started under the old system?

No, that's not what I'm saying - you're painting with too broad a brush. The spreadsheet tool isn't solely based on how much has been spent on renovations in recent years; that's just one piece of the puzzle. But yeah, if you've gotten 50% through your renovation plan (or 90% through as someone said Shepherd has gotten here), then maybe it's a little harder to get funding for the last few percentage parts of the renovation, if lots of other schools are crumbling and have greater need. So maybe that means schools will focus on renovating first the items they really need, and push luxuries like new kilns to the end of the project. That seems like a good idea, doesn't it?

I wasn't involved in this spreadsheet tool, or in DC government in any way, but I think it makes a lot of sense. Maybe it could be improved or adjusted, but it's a heck of a lot better than just the pure politics approach where only those schools with the most organized parents and most powerful political supporters get all the renovations.

Are you really going to say a school like Shepherd, which is rated as being in good facilities condition by most measures, is growing at a slow pace, and is only about 85% full, ... is more deserving than a school like Orr that's rated as poor in most facility measures, is 100% full, and is facing a 10% annual growth rate for the past 5 years?

Anything produced by a Council member who is fighting with the mayor is political.

The only thing that would be insulated from politics would be establishing something like the DOD did for base closures - and independent board that would decide on the projects and funding.

With this we're just substituting one brand of politics with another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is Oyster going to do with the $4M?

You should ask Oyster-Adams. I saw someone earlier posted that the money was for Adams, not Oyster, which makes sense because it's #27 on the list, has never been renovated, and received the worst possible "poor" score for the condition of its facilities. Would you rather your child was attending an unrenovated school with poor faciltiies but a $4 million promised budget for the future, or a school with good facilities that is 90% renovated in the past few years and no current budget for future renovation? I know which I'd pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. We aren't at Shepherd but anyone can say it's not a fair process to penalize a school and apply a brand new calculation on a job that started before Grosso was even in office. The funds were already there. One can't give and then take away.

That makes no sense to me. If someone said "Well, we promised Ellington a $200 million renovation with gold-plated urinals 5 years ago, and we aren't allowed to change our minds, so I guess all the other crumbling schools will just have to wait," no one would accept that. Budgets always change based on current needs, and those needs are always changing. Having a data-driven tool at least helps minimize the weight of politics in all this.

If they were going to lop 10% off of every school renovation budget, no one would have grounds to complain.

Grosso and his staff chose one school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... If so, I think you should check the DCPS audited enrollment data at the links below. It shows Shepherd with enrollment of 331 in 2011, and 330 in 2016, which fits exactly with the 3 rating.
http://osse.dc.gov/enrollment
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/Enrollment%20Audit%20Examination%20Report%202011_2012%20%282%29%5B1%5D.pdf
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/SY%202015-16%20School-by-School%20Enrollment%20Audit%20Data%20%28Updated%29.pdf

PP here. Yes! That's what I was referring to--enrollment growth of a '3.' I was told recently that enrollment currently stands at 350+ (although I can't immediately verify this). Now, that doesn't fit with the data you've provided via the OSSE links above, but I wonder if that 2016 official estimate is off for some reason.

I agree that a data-driven approach is preferable, but I just want more information on how the data points were chosen, how weights were assigned to the various categories, etc. I don't need to see the entire blow-by-blow methodology, but it would be nice to see at least an overview of the process. Also, as a PP mentioned, any tool that penalizes a school and moves it further down the list for already having a renovation underway is not a good tool, IMO.

On your first point, I can't speak to what you heard about current estimated enrollment being 350+, or about PP's expectation that enrollment next year will be higher. I'd guess that DCPS and the Council used audited enrollment numbers rather than estimated enrollments to prevent schools from gaming the system for extra funds. If next year's audited enrollment numbers are higher, then presumably Shepherd might move up in the rankings and get a bigger piece of the funding pie in the future.

I'm glad we agree on the data driven approach. I feel like the spreadsheet - while admittedly complex - gives a pretty thorough overview of how the ranking process was conducted.

On your point about how an ongoing renovation affects school rankings, I can see both sides of that issue. On one hand, if you're at Shepherd, I can understand you're frustrated that you might get only 90% of the renovation someone promised you several years ago. On the other hand, if you're at another school that's never had a renovation at all and is rated as being in poor condition, you'd be pretty pissed to hear that you're not getting money because it's all flowing to some long-ago promised renovation (which itself was perhaps part of a political backscratching deal!) at a school in a wealthy part of Ward 4 that's already got facilities rated as "good." The short answer is that there's never enough money to do everything people want, so there needs to be a system to allocate it fairly.

This part of the argument misses the mark. Shepherd is only about 1/3 in-boundary, and children attend from all 8 wards. It is also 34% FARMS. Nineteen percent of its students are considered "at-risk" by DCPS (students who are in foster care or homeless, or who are receiving welfare benefits or food stamps). Although Grosso seems to want to suggest otherwise with his comments about those with the "loudest voices" getting funding, the Shepherd Elementary community is not as uniformly wealthy or politically powerful as implied.

[Anonymous]

I was just reading some of the news articles about this fight, and I saw several saying that before Grosso presented the Education Committee's spreadsheet for determining which schools were most in need of renovation dollars, Bowser and DME Jennifer Niles had their own model for determining fairly which schools should get first dibs. I could not find Bowser's tool anywhere online though, to see what criteria she used. Does anyone have a link? It would be interesting to compare the two tools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is Oyster going to do with the $4M?

You should ask Oyster-Adams. I saw someone earlier posted that the money was for Adams, not Oyster, which makes sense because it's #27 on the list, has never been renovated, and received the worst possible "poor" score for the condition of its facilities. Would you rather your child was attending an unrenovated school with poor faciltiies but a $4 million promised budget for the future, or a school with good facilities that is 90% renovated in the past few years and no current budget for future renovation? I know which I'd pick.

I would actually not characterize Shepherd as 90% renovated--we're not talking final coats of paint, etc. Whatever the percentage, what's left are really important bits. Not to get too much in the weeds, but the kitchen (fire hazard for students with mobility issues) and cafeteria (not ADA-compliant) were pushed back in the multi-phase renovation schedule to accommodate other parts that, it turned out, needed to be completed earlier in the timeline (plumbing and electrical). But, they are still important parts of the overall renovation, and the decision to push them back should not be interpreted as meaning they're less of a priority than what's been completed thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... On your point about how an ongoing renovation affects school rankings, I can see both sides of that issue. On one hand, if you're at Shepherd, I can understand you're frustrated that you might get only 90% of the renovation someone promised you several years ago. On the other hand, if you're at another school that's never had a renovation at all and is rated as being in poor condition, you'd be pretty pissed to hear that you're not getting money because it's all flowing to some long-ago promised renovation (which itself was perhaps part of a political backscratching deal!) at a school in a wealthy part of Ward 4 that's already got facilities rated as "good." The short answer is that there's never enough money to do everything people want, so there needs to be a system to allocate it fairly.

This part of the argument misses the mark. Shepherd is only about 1/3 in-boundary, and children attend from all 8 wards. It is also 34% FARMS. Nineteen percent of its students are considered "at-risk" by DCPS (students who are in foster care or homeless, or who are receiving welfare benefits or food stamps). Although Grosso seems to want to suggest otherwise with his comments about those with the "loudest voices" getting funding, the Shepherd Elementary community is not as uniformly wealthy or politically powerful as implied.

I'm sure someone knows better, but Shepherd Park and Colonial Village seem pretty wealthy and politically connected compared to other parts of Ward 4 like Brightwood, Manor Park, and Petworth.

Also, take a look at the other schools at the top of on the Education Committee's spreadsheet. Most of them at 70% or more at-risk. I get that Shepherd wants its money, but it's hard to deny other schools need it more. Shepherd's got it pretty good by comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... If so, I think you should check the DCPS audited enrollment data at the links below. It shows Shepherd with enrollment of 331 in 2011, and 330 in 2016, which fits exactly with the 3 rating.
http://osse.dc.gov/enrollment
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/Enrollment%20Audit%20Examination%20Report%202011_2012%20%282%29%5B1%5D.pdf
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/SY%202015-16%20School-by-School%20Enrollment%20Audit%20Data%20%28Updated%29.pdf

PP here. Yes! That's what I was referring to--enrollment growth of a '3.' I was told recently that enrollment currently stands at 350+ (although I can't immediately verify this). Now, that doesn't fit with the data you've provided via the OSSE links above, but I wonder if that 2016 official estimate is off for some reason.

I agree that a data-driven approach is preferable, but I just want more information on how the data points were chosen, how weights were assigned to the various categories, etc. I don't need to see the entire blow-by-blow methodology, but it would be nice to see at least an overview of the process. Also, as a PP mentioned, any tool that penalizes a school and moves it further down the list for already having a renovation underway is not a good tool, IMO.

On your first point, I can't speak to what you heard about current estimated enrollment being 350+, or about PP's expectation that enrollment next year will be higher. I'd guess that DCPS and the Council used audited enrollment numbers rather than estimated enrollments to prevent schools from gaming the system for extra funds. If next year's audited enrollment numbers are higher, then presumably Shepherd might move up in the rankings and get a bigger piece of the funding pie in the future.

I'm glad we agree on the data driven approach. I feel like the spreadsheet - while admittedly complex - gives a pretty thorough overview of how the ranking process was conducted.

On your point about how an ongoing renovation affects school rankings, I can see both sides of that issue. On one hand, if you're at Shepherd, I can understand you're frustrated that you might get only 90% of the renovation someone promised you several years ago. On the other hand, if you're at another school that's never had a renovation at all and is rated as being in poor condition, you'd be pretty pissed to hear that you're not getting money because it's all flowing to some long-ago promised renovation (which itself was perhaps part of a political backscratching deal!) at a school in a wealthy part of Ward 4 that's already got facilities rated as "good." The short answer is that there's never enough money to do everything people want, so there needs to be a system to allocate it fairly.

This part of the argument misses the mark. Shepherd is only about 1/3 in-boundary, and children attend from all 8 wards. It is also 34% FARMS. Nineteen percent of its students are considered "at-risk" by DCPS (students who are in foster care or homeless, or who are receiving welfare benefits or food stamps). Although Grosso seems to want to suggest otherwise with his comments about those with the "loudest voices" getting funding, the Shepherd Elementary community is not as uniformly wealthy or politically powerful as implied.

34% FARMS / 19% at-risk is pretty low for DC. If anything, schools with 80%+ FARMS / 50% at-risk would be higher priority in that regard. And Shepherd does have quite the lobbying power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... If so, I think you should check the DCPS audited enrollment data at the links below. It shows Shepherd with enrollment of 331 in 2011, and 330 in 2016, which fits exactly with the 3 rating.
http://osse.dc.gov/enrollment
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/Enrollment%20Audit%20Examination%20Report%202011_2012%20%282%29%5B1%5D.pdf
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/SY%202015-16%20School-by-School%20Enrollment%20Audit%20Data%20%28Updated%29.pdf

PP here. Yes! That's what I was referring to--enrollment growth of a '3.' I was told recently that enrollment currently stands at 350+ (although I can't immediately verify this). Now, that doesn't fit with the data you've provided via the OSSE links above, but I wonder if that 2016 official estimate is off for some reason.

I agree that a data-driven approach is preferable, but I just want more information on how the data points were chosen, how weights were assigned to the various categories, etc. I don't need to see the entire blow-by-blow methodology, but it would be nice to see at least an overview of the process. Also, as a PP mentioned, any tool that penalizes a school and moves it further down the list for already having a renovation underway is not a good tool, IMO.

On your first point, I can't speak to what you heard about current estimated enrollment being 350+, or about PP's expectation that enrollment next year will be higher. I'd guess that DCPS and the Council used audited enrollment numbers rather than estimated enrollments to prevent schools from gaming the system for extra funds. If next year's audited enrollment numbers are higher, then presumably Shepherd might move up in the rankings and get a bigger piece of the funding pie in the future.

I'm glad we agree on the data driven approach. I feel like the spreadsheet - while admittedly complex - gives a pretty thorough overview of how the ranking process was conducted.

On your point about how an ongoing renovation affects school rankings, I can see both sides of that issue. On one hand, if you're at Shepherd, I can understand you're frustrated that you might get only 90% of the renovation someone promised you several years ago. On the other hand, if you're at another school that's never had a renovation at all and is rated as being in poor condition, you'd be pretty pissed to hear that you're not getting money because it's all flowing to some long-ago promised renovation (which itself was perhaps part of a political backscratching deal!) at a school in a wealthy part of Ward 4 that's already got facilities rated as "good." The short answer is that there's never enough money to do everything people want, so there needs to be a system to allocate it fairly.

This part of the argument misses the mark. Shepherd is only about 1/3 in-boundary, and children attend from all 8 wards. It is also 34% FARMS. Nineteen percent of its students are considered "at-risk" by DCPS (students who are in foster care or homeless, or who are receiving welfare benefits or food stamps). Although Grosso seems to want to suggest otherwise with his comments about those with the "loudest voices" getting funding, the Shepherd Elementary community is not as uniformly wealthy or politically powerful as implied.

34% FARMS / 19% at-risk is pretty low for DC. If anything, schools with 80%+ FARMS / 50% at-risk would be higher priority in that regard. And Shepherd does have quite the lobbying power.

Wait, so we are OK with non ADA complaint, crumbling, fire hazards, and rats in schools where the kids aren't uniformly poor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was just reading some of the news articles about this fight, and I saw several saying that before Grosso presented the Education Committee's spreadsheet for determining which schools were most in need of renovation dollars, Bowser and DME Jennifer Niles had their own model for determining fairly which schools should get first dibs. I could not find Bowser's tool anywhere online though, to see what criteria she used. Does anyone have a link? It would be interesting to compare the two tools.

The tool DCPS used is right on their website accessible here (on their modernization page, near the bottom under "Capital Improvement Plan Prioritization): https://sites.google.com/a/dc.gov/dcps-school-modernizations/home

The DCPS tool gives only 10% weight to the condition of the school building. Compare that to the Education Committee's evaluation tool, and it is hard to argue that Grosso is the one being political here, in my opinion.

The biggest problem with the Education Committee's rankings is that they had to rely on data from DCPS and DGS, much of which is flawed. It is my understanding that some of the committee's "adjustments" were in cases where the data was so flawed that it was ridiculous. For example, DCPS counts trailers as capacity so overcrowded schools often show a building utilization rate that can be as low as 80%. In other cases, DGS facilities assessments say the building is good, but there is an acknowledged, critical issue.

[Anonymous]

Can't cry too hard for Shepherd. Here is Orr Elementary ...

https://www.teachingforchange.org/orr-modernization
http://www.youngedprofessionals.org/yep-dc-recess-blog/has-the-dc-council-forgotten-orr-elementary-school
http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/service_content/attachments/RFP-for-Design-Build-Services-FY13-Phase-1-Classroom-Modernizations-as-issued-(00124585).PDF

Orr, with an almost entirely low-income African American student population, is among the last open floor plan schools in the District. Built in 1974, it has never been modernized. But students have had enough of the rodents, leaky ceilings, poor ventilation and lighting, and the constant disruptions to learning caused by the noise of open space classrooms.

It is one of only two schools in the entire DCPS system that has not undergone any phase of modernization since its construction in 1974. As a result, a plethora of issues have plagued Orr for some time now, from building heating and cooling issues, to poor air quality, to pests such as cockroaches and mice. On April 27, a group of Orr students went to testify before the D.C. Council about the issues they face on a daily basis in their learning environment. Orr Elementary School is located in Ward 8 next to the Anacostia River. Its student population is 97% black, 2% Latino and 1% Asian. All students receive free breakfast and lunch.

Conditions at Orr are reprehensible. Parts of the ceiling are crumbling, the building receives poor natural light due to its triangular shape, the ventilation system is outdated, toilets don’t work, and cockroaches and mice roam the halls. This past winter, the heat in the building was so low that on several days, classes relocated because the temperature in their usual rooms was 50 degrees or lower.

HVAC system was generally observed to be in poor condition. Nearly all equipment is at or past
the end of its useful service life. Diffusers throughout the building are extremely dirty and
should be replaced. Toilet exhaust was rarely observed to be adequate, and in some cases,
was non-existent.

Plumbing system was generally observed to be in poor condition. The building is missing
sprinklers, with the exception of a single sprinkler head in the trash room.

It's an older building and has the original electrical system. In general the electrical
equipment, raceways, wiring, some fixtures, power outlets, fire protection, public address
system, security system, telephone wiring, technology devices and life safety
equipment/devices are in poor condition

There is a ground water entry problem at several locations in the boiler room which is located below
grade. The water appears to be entering through the joints between the floor slab and
foundation wall at the north, east and south walls. The water is entering at such quantities
and such a period of time that the concrete has eroded and washed away exposing the
coarse aggregate.

The roof is generally in good condition with the exception that there is a persistent active leak reported to occur in the Library (space no. 71)
during heavy rain periods.

No fire protection A/V Strobes. All systems were generally observed not to be in compliance
with ADA regulations, with the exception of some water coolers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... If so, I think you should check the DCPS audited enrollment data at the links below. It shows Shepherd with enrollment of 331 in 2011, and 330 in 2016, which fits exactly with the 3 rating.
http://osse.dc.gov/enrollment
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/Enrollment%20Audit%20Examination%20Report%202011_2012%20%282%29%5B1%5D.pdf
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/SY%202015-16%20School-by-School%20Enrollment%20Audit%20Data%20%28Updated%29.pdf

PP here. Yes! That's what I was referring to--enrollment growth of a '3.' I was told recently that enrollment currently stands at 350+ (although I can't immediately verify this). Now, that doesn't fit with the data you've provided via the OSSE links above, but I wonder if that 2016 official estimate is off for some reason.

I agree that a data-driven approach is preferable, but I just want more information on how the data points were chosen, how weights were assigned to the various categories, etc. I don't need to see the entire blow-by-blow methodology, but it would be nice to see at least an overview of the process. Also, as a PP mentioned, any tool that penalizes a school and moves it further down the list for already having a renovation underway is not a good tool, IMO.

On your first point, I can't speak to what you heard about current estimated enrollment being 350+, or about PP's expectation that enrollment next year will be higher. I'd guess that DCPS and the Council used audited enrollment numbers rather than estimated enrollments to prevent schools from gaming the system for extra funds. If next year's audited enrollment numbers are higher, then presumably Shepherd might move up in the rankings and get a bigger piece of the funding pie in the future.

I'm glad we agree on the data driven approach. I feel like the spreadsheet - while admittedly complex - gives a pretty thorough overview of how the ranking process was conducted.

On your point about how an ongoing renovation affects school rankings, I can see both sides of that issue. On one hand, if you're at Shepherd, I can understand you're frustrated that you might get only 90% of the renovation someone promised you several years ago. On the other hand, if you're at another school that's never had a renovation at all and is rated as being in poor condition, you'd be pretty pissed to hear that you're not getting money because it's all flowing to some long-ago promised renovation (which itself was perhaps part of a political backscratching deal!) at a school in a wealthy part of Ward 4 that's already got facilities rated as "good." The short answer is that there's never enough money to do everything people want, so there needs to be a system to allocate it fairly.

This part of the argument misses the mark. Shepherd is only about 1/3 in-boundary, and children attend from all 8 wards. It is also 34% FARMS. Nineteen percent of its students are considered "at-risk" by DCPS (students who are in foster care or homeless, or who are receiving welfare benefits or food stamps). Although Grosso seems to want to suggest otherwise with his comments about those with the "loudest voices" getting funding, the Shepherd Elementary community is not as uniformly wealthy or politically powerful as implied.

34% FARMS / 19% at-risk is pretty low for DC. If anything, schools with 80%+ FARMS / 50% at-risk would be higher priority in that regard. And Shepherd does have quite the lobbying power.

Wait, so we are OK with non ADA complaint, crumbling, fire hazards, and rats in schools where the kids aren't uniformly poor?

Not OK with it at all. But I'd prioritize non-ADA compliant, crumbling fire hazards, and rats in schools where the kids are uniformly poor over non-ADA compliant, crumbling fire hazards, and rats in schools where the kids are mostly not poor.