Article about renovations and new construction of DCPS buildings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

Are you saying that DC shouldn't invest in buildings or programs in poor neighborhoods? I don't think that's what you meant, directly, but that is the implication of what you are saying.

I think one of the reasons DC has invested so much money even in underperforming schools is that it cannot -- morally or politically -- only invest in "up and coming" gentrifying schools. I do agree that we need better planning. But in the end we do need excellent school facilities in every area of the city, full stop.

We should certainly have more honest conversations about what schools are working, however, and maybe we should allow high-performing charters to co-locate with some of these under enrolled DCPS schools. If Ballou continues to be under enrolled, maybe Thurgood Marshall could move or replicate there? And perhaps DCI should have been placed in Dunbar or Roosevelt?

Sorry, sounds like more money for charter operators, after providing more money to the building trade. how about more money directed specifically at kids education within the DCPS framework.

Even before you allocate the money, make a full plan. Duh. This is why DCPS consistently fails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Are you saying that DC shouldn't invest in buildings or programs in poor neighborhoods? I don't think that's what you meant, directly, but that is the implication of what you are saying.

I am the OP you are referring to here. I can see how you got that impression out of what was written, but that's not at all what I meant. What I meant was that any major investment in the physical plant of a school needs to be matched with a method to maintain or improve enrollment at the school. Building a school with big drops in enrollment and not coming up with an appropriate program to halt that drop is madness.

And I agree with you, I think there should be a lot of focus on rebuilding schools and programs in the poorer parts of town. It just needs to be better thought out, or we will end up building palaces that no one wants to go to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

Are you saying that DC shouldn't invest in buildings or programs in poor neighborhoods? I don't think that's what you meant, directly, but that is the implication of what you are saying.

I think one of the reasons DC has invested so much money even in underperforming schools is that it cannot -- morally or politically -- only invest in "up and coming" gentrifying schools. I do agree that we need better planning. But in the end we do need excellent school facilities in every area of the city, full stop.

We should certainly have more honest conversations about what schools are working, however, and maybe we should allow high-performing charters to co-locate with some of these under enrolled DCPS schools. If Ballou continues to be under enrolled, maybe Thurgood Marshall could move or replicate there? And perhaps DCI should have been placed in Dunbar or Roosevelt?

Sorry, sounds like more money for charter operators, after providing more money to the building trade. how about more money directed specifically at kids education within the DCPS framework.

Even before you allocate the money, make a full plan. Duh. This is why DCPS consistently fails.

Maybe there was plan -- to build new schools that would have low enrollment, which would make it seem logical for charters to eventually "co-locate" there, thus growing charters while shrinkng DCPS - and shrinking neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe there was plan -- to build new schools that would have low enrollment, which would make it seem logical for charters to eventually "co-locate" there, thus growing charters while shrinkng DCPS - and shrinking neighborhood schools.

If that was the plan, maybe they should have told the charters about it! The reality is that it has been an immense struggle for charters to get just the empty buildings out of DCPS/DGS, only recently has that logjam begun to break despite clear law requiring it (see the Landrieu Act, requiring charters to have first right to empty DCPS buildings). And there is no way that DCPS is going to give up the newly renovated buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe there was plan -- to build new schools that would have low enrollment, which would make it seem logical for charters to eventually "co-locate" there, thus growing charters while shrinkng DCPS - and shrinking neighborhood schools.

If that was the plan, maybe they should have told the charters about it! The reality is that it has been an immense struggle for charters to get just the empty buildings out of DCPS/DGS, only recently has that logjam begun to break despite clear law requiring it (see the Landrieu Act, requiring charters to have first right to empty DCPS buildings). And there is no way that DCPS is going to give up the newly renovated buildings.

Oh, you never know what will happen - especially if DCPS gets "Chartering authority"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe there was plan -- to build new schools that would have low enrollment, which would make it seem logical for charters to eventually "co-locate" there, thus growing charters while shrinkng DCPS - and shrinking neighborhood schools.

If that was the plan, maybe they should have told the charters about it! The reality is that it has been an immense struggle for charters to get just the empty buildings out of DCPS/DGS, only recently has that logjam begun to break despite clear law requiring it (see the Landrieu Act, requiring charters to have first right to empty DCPS buildings). And there is no way that DCPS is going to give up the newly renovated buildings.

Oh, you never know what will happen - especially if DCPS gets "Chartering authority"

That's a valid point. But if it takes DCPS getting chartering authority to create programs that people want to send their kids to (especially low income families), then maybe that's the way it should be. Whatever they have been doing for the past 45 years hasn't been working too well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new building is not a panacea, but an old, shitty building is definitely a "Stop" sign to middle class parents. No one on this site would have sent their kid to a rat trap like Roosevelt was even if Maria Montessori herself was the kindergarten teacher.

"Build it and they will come" is not true.

Basically, you need both 1) an acceptable building and 2) a good principal/program. For years, DCPS didn't have either 1 or 2. It has spent a ton of money to get more of 1. It is still working on 2.

100% agreed. What's frustrating is what appears to be the lack of understanding of this seemingly obvious point. There doesn't appear to be enough coordination match strong programs with new buildings so that they can be full and useful. Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

And once again, all of this planning and spending is being done with little coordination with DCPS on the programming side, and no coordination with charters who now house 44% of public school students.

That's a nice dream, but unfortunately, that's not how most cities work. You build when you have the money (cash flow and borrowing authority) because that window doesn't last long and only comes around maybe twice in a lifetime. Call it the Robert Moses school of Public Financing: Shovels in the ground as quickly as possible. If the city had waited until DCPS had a coordinated, city-wide, politically balanced plan, not one of the new buildings/renovations would have been started yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe there was plan -- to build new schools that would have low enrollment, which would make it seem logical for charters to eventually "co-locate" there, thus growing charters while shrinkng DCPS - and shrinking neighborhood schools.

If that was the plan, maybe they should have told the charters about it! The reality is that it has been an immense struggle for charters to get just the empty buildings out of DCPS/DGS, only recently has that logjam begun to break despite clear law requiring it (see the Landrieu Act, requiring charters to have first right to empty DCPS buildings). And there is no way that DCPS is going to give up the newly renovated buildings.

Oh, you never know what will happen - especially if DCPS gets "Chartering authority"

That's a valid point. But if it takes DCPS getting chartering authority to create programs that people want to send their kids to (especially low income families), then maybe that's the way it should be. Whatever they have been doing for the past 45 years hasn't been working too well.

But why would it be necessary for DCPS to have chartering authority to provide a decent public school -- unless they were trying to get out of the public school administration business and get into charter school admin instead. DCPS has had charter companies run schools - sorry, I forget which one Dunbar? ballou? The charter folks were supposed to "turn it around" post haste by the mere power of innovative private mgt and new teachers, but it didn't work and the charter group left.

Whenever DCPS proposes charters or makes it difficult to improve neighborhood schools, I suggest you consider what their motives might be. Instead of being incompetent, it could be the appearance of incompetence to push the city into more charters (meaning less predicability, less proximity and additional long commutes for parents and kids) which will result in better jobs for administrators in the charter sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new building is not a panacea, but an old, shitty building is definitely a "Stop" sign to middle class parents. No one on this site would have sent their kid to a rat trap like Roosevelt was even if Maria Montessori herself was the kindergarten teacher.

"Build it and they will come" is not true.

Basically, you need both 1) an acceptable building and 2) a good principal/program. For years, DCPS didn't have either 1 or 2. It has spent a ton of money to get more of 1. It is still working on 2.

100% agreed. What's frustrating is what appears to be the lack of understanding of this seemingly obvious point. There doesn't appear to be enough coordination match strong programs with new buildings so that they can be full and useful. Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

And once again, all of this planning and spending is being done with little coordination with DCPS on the programming side, and no coordination with charters who now house 44% of public school students.

That's a nice dream, but unfortunately, that's not how most cities work. You build when you have the money (cash flow and borrowing authority) because that window doesn't last long and only comes around maybe twice in a lifetime. Call it the Robert Moses school of Public Financing: Shovels in the ground as quickly as possible. If the city had waited until DCPS had a coordinated, city-wide, politically balanced plan, not one of the new buildings/renovations would have been started yet.

PP who wrote what you bolded. Also read all of "The Power Broker" (really!), so I definitely get your Robert Moses references. And I agree, you have to take the opportunities when they come along- there's a reason there are so many buildings in this country built in that horrible concrete brutalist style- it's what was popular in the late 60s/early 70s when the country was riding high on the massive economic growth from the post-WWII, baby boom era, before it all blew up in 1973 with the oil embargoes. But that era also saw a lot of investment in important social programs to match the physical building.

It's a good point that we have become hamstrung by all the various rules and bureaucracies that maybe it's impossible to make big changes in an organization as big as DCPS. I don't think so, but you may be right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

Are you saying that DC shouldn't invest in buildings or programs in poor neighborhoods? I don't think that's what you meant, directly, but that is the implication of what you are saying.

I think one of the reasons DC has invested so much money even in underperforming schools is that it cannot -- morally or politically -- only invest in "up and coming" gentrifying schools. I do agree that we need better planning. But in the end we do need excellent school facilities in every area of the city, full stop.

We should certainly have more honest conversations about what schools are working, however, and maybe we should allow high-performing charters to co-locate with some of these under enrolled DCPS schools. If Ballou continues to be under enrolled, maybe Thurgood Marshall could move or replicate there? And perhaps DCI should have been placed in Dunbar or Roosevelt?

Sorry, sounds like more money for charter operators, after providing more money to the building trade. how about more money directed specifically at kids education within the DCPS framework.

The problem isn't not enough money, the problem is how it's spent. The top people in DCPS will say it privately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe there was plan -- to build new schools that would have low enrollment, which would make it seem logical for charters to eventually "co-locate" there, thus growing charters while shrinkng DCPS - and shrinking neighborhood schools.

If that was the plan, maybe they should have told the charters about it! The reality is that it has been an immense struggle for charters to get just the empty buildings out of DCPS/DGS, only recently has that logjam begun to break despite clear law requiring it (see the Landrieu Act, requiring charters to have first right to empty DCPS buildings). And there is no way that DCPS is going to give up the newly renovated buildings.

Oh, you never know what will happen - especially if DCPS gets "Chartering authority"

That's a valid point. But if it takes DCPS getting chartering authority to create programs that people want to send their kids to (especially low income families), then maybe that's the way it should be. Whatever they have been doing for the past 45 years hasn't been working too well.

This is a concept that makes little sense to me. If DCPS is so full of innovative ideas for special programs that it needs to create its own charter schools, what say they be implemented in the schools DCPS already has? Particularly the failing ones?

[Anonymous]

See = Brookland Middle School.

Next year, it will be a beautiful new building, with very little thought to given as far as I can tell with what it will take to attract and retain Ward 5/Brookland students, many of who have already committed to various alternative paths. (Like DCI, current Wilson feeders, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is a concept that makes little sense to me. If DCPS is so full of innovative ideas for special programs that it needs to create its own charter schools, what say they be implemented in the schools DCPS already has? Particularly the failing ones?

A fundamental (but not only) constraint is the teachers union contract. It currently does not allow for things like longer school days, mandatory classes on Saturdays, etc, which are some of the things that KIPP/DC Prep/others find important in creating programs for low income kids. DCPS has expressed a desire to do longer school days at some schools, but has not made any changes to the contract, which of course would require union approval.

http://greatergreatereducation.org/post/21007/can-nonprofits-help-extend-the-dcps-school-day/

FYI, I am by no means bashing the union here, just trying to lay out some of the issues that prevent quick changes by DCPS.

[Anonymous]

you can bet that the union and the teachers would go for longer days if they could pot in and the pay were adequate -- but it won't be -- (and probably isn't in the charters -- I don't know) so teachers and unions are likely to made out as not "putting children first."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Even before you allocate the money, make a full plan. Duh. This is why DCPS consistently fails.

DCPS doesn't have a planning office. So making that plan is nobody's job. That's one of the things Catania has been trying to fix.