Funding for Shepherd's Renovation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

I'm absolutely fine with that if that's going to be the way all schools are renovated in the future (including ones about to embark on a renovation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

I'm absolutely fine with that if that's going to be the way all schools are renovated in the future (including ones about to embark on a renovation).

Until we have a new mayor, or a new education chair and it all gets changed again.

This is nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The one piece of (slight) humor thus far--Shepherd's cafeteria has apparently started tweeting:

https://twitter.com/SEScafeteria

Profile pic is of where the "fire doors" from the basement-level cafeteria lead--a narrow passageway littered with debris and construction ladders, and a locked gate at the end (supposed to be unlocked during the day, but who knows). Basically, unsafe egress for kids and staff in case of emergency.

This ish is funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Shepherd supposed to be a phased modernization? I ask this by way of explanation, not as a criticism of the Shepherd community. Most of the phased modernizations had the planned phases spread out over decades. Shepherd seems to have managed to get funding for their phases pushed closely together so that the process mimics a full modernization. Shepherd isn't the only school that was treated that way, but that pushing together of phases at some schools bumped back other schools that were waiting for phase 1 modernizations. Meanwhile, schools that were not successful in getting their phases pushed together were frustrated that some schools seemed to be more politically favored and were able to be fully modernized over the course of several years instead of a decade or more.

I understand the community's frustration at not getting their school fully modernized, but I just don't see the Shepherd situation as any different from the fates of other phased schools that are waiting for the remainder of their phases.

The process has changed so much since it started it is really difficult to trace how the phases were supposed to be executed.

If your funding is scheduled for FY19 or FY22 or whatever, you can live with that. FYNEVER, not so much.

First we waited while a bunch of schools sucked up the capital budget. Then our students and teachers lived through 3 years of bad project management from DGS, including losing a summer of work because someone forgot to pull permits. Oops. Now, 2/3rds of the way through, we're told, that's enough for you, go to the back of the line. Only half joking here, but Janney will get another renovation before Shepherd is completed.

Rumors indicate that this has more to do with the Mayor's Shelter plan vis-a-vis Todd's votes than it does with the schools anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

I'm absolutely fine with that if that's going to be the way all schools are renovated in the future (including ones about to embark on a renovation).

Until we have a new mayor, or a new education chair and it all gets changed again.

This is nuts.

If you read Grosso's report, he's working to avoid exactly the sort of constant reshuffling of priorities that you fear. The background section talks about how the Committee had a model in place that ranked the schools according to renovation need, but then soon after Bowser was elected Mayor, DCPS put forward a different model. Grosso's committee rejected that model in part because of the politics it encourages. ("Last year, the Committee purposefully did not use a Ward-based approach [like the DCPS model did] because it was believed to be too political. ") Now, the Committee is reverting back to a version of the original Committee model. The Committee is specifically trying to create a model that will remain in place for a long time, unlike DCPS's model ...

Continuously during the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they did not believe their [own] model was a good tool for prioritization with regard to future CIPs, and that they would need to create something new next year, starting the conversation this summer and come back in the Fall with something new. This is very frustrating not only for the Committee, but also for the public who engaged with the Committee over the past year to provide input to make last year’s model even better. The Committee understands that DCPS was trying to create a tool that worked for the 18 schools that have not been modernized; however, the purpose of an objective approach is to provide all school communities, not just those in the CIP, with some idea of where they land in the queue. Drastically changing the tool each year does not provide consistency nor does it instill public trust that the process is transparent and equitable. The Commit tee’s tool last year was not perfect, by any means, but it was better than what DCPS put forward this year. At the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they thought the results may have been different using their tool, but would not have known otherwise if they did not go through the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

I'm absolutely fine with that if that's going to be the way all schools are renovated in the future (including ones about to embark on a renovation).

Until we have a new mayor, or a new education chair and it all gets changed again.

This is nuts.

If you read Grosso's report, he's working to avoid exactly the sort of constant reshuffling of priorities that you fear. The background section talks about how the Committee had a model in place that ranked the schools according to renovation need, but then soon after Bowser was elected Mayor, DCPS put forward a different model. Grosso's committee rejected that model in part because of the politics it encourages. ("Last year, the Committee purposefully did not use a Ward-based approach [like the DCPS model did] because it was believed to be too political. ") Now, the Committee is reverting back to a version of the original Committee model. The Committee is specifically trying to create a model that will remain in place for a long time, unlike DCPS's model ...

Continuously during the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they did not believe their [own] model was a good tool for prioritization with regard to future CIPs, and that they would need to create something new next year, starting the conversation this summer and come back in the Fall with something new. This is very frustrating not only for the Committee, but also for the public who engaged with the Committee over the past year to provide input to make last year’s model even better. The Committee understands that DCPS was trying to create a tool that worked for the 18 schools that have not been modernized; however, the purpose of an objective approach is to provide all school communities, not just those in the CIP, with some idea of where they land in the queue. Drastically changing the tool each year does not provide consistency nor does it instill public trust that the process is transparent and equitable. The Commit tee’s tool last year was not perfect, by any means, but it was better than what DCPS put forward this year. At the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they thought the results may have been different using their tool, but would not have known otherwise if they did not go through the process.

Aren't there currently schools slated for renovation that are not in as much need as others? If this were the case, Lafayette's renovation would be placed on hold for Orr no? I'm not at any of these schools, I'm trying to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

I'm absolutely fine with that if that's going to be the way all schools are renovated in the future (including ones about to embark on a renovation).

Until we have a new mayor, or a new education chair and it all gets changed again.

This is nuts.

If you read Grosso's report, he's working to avoid exactly the sort of constant reshuffling of priorities that you fear. The background section talks about how the Committee had a model in place that ranked the schools according to renovation need, but then soon after Bowser was elected Mayor, DCPS put forward a different model. Grosso's committee rejected that model in part because of the politics it encourages. ("Last year, the Committee purposefully did not use a Ward-based approach [like the DCPS model did] because it was believed to be too political. ") Now, the Committee is reverting back to a version of the original Committee model. The Committee is specifically trying to create a model that will remain in place for a long time, unlike DCPS's model ...

Continuously during the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they did not believe their [own] model was a good tool for prioritization with regard to future CIPs, and that they would need to create something new next year, starting the conversation this summer and come back in the Fall with something new. This is very frustrating not only for the Committee, but also for the public who engaged with the Committee over the past year to provide input to make last year’s model even better. The Committee understands that DCPS was trying to create a tool that worked for the 18 schools that have not been modernized; however, the purpose of an objective approach is to provide all school communities, not just those in the CIP, with some idea of where they land in the queue. Drastically changing the tool each year does not provide consistency nor does it instill public trust that the process is transparent and equitable. The Commit tee’s tool last year was not perfect, by any means, but it was better than what DCPS put forward this year. At the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they thought the results may have been different using their tool, but would not have known otherwise if they did not go through the process.

Aren't there currently schools slated for renovation that are not in as much need as others? If this were the case, Lafayette's renovation would be placed on hold for Orr no? I'm not at any of these schools, I'm trying to understand.

Orr is being renovated, so there's really no way to make that happen sooner. But look at the top 5 in the education committee's report, and at least 3 of them aren't being started for a few more years.

That's why I don't buy Grosso's grandstanding about using objective priorities. If he was serious, he would have stopped several other renovations from moving forward and spent that money on the top priorities. Instead, he only went after Shepherd, which makes it seem politically motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

I'm absolutely fine with that if that's going to be the way all schools are renovated in the future (including ones about to embark on a renovation).

Until we have a new mayor, or a new education chair and it all gets changed again.

This is nuts.

If you read Grosso's report, he's working to avoid exactly the sort of constant reshuffling of priorities that you fear. The background section talks about how the Committee had a model in place that ranked the schools according to renovation need, but then soon after Bowser was elected Mayor, DCPS put forward a different model. Grosso's committee rejected that model in part because of the politics it encourages. ("Last year, the Committee purposefully did not use a Ward-based approach [like the DCPS model did] because it was believed to be too political. ") Now, the Committee is reverting back to a version of the original Committee model. The Committee is specifically trying to create a model that will remain in place for a long time, unlike DCPS's model ...

Continuously during the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they did not believe their [own] model was a good tool for prioritization with regard to future CIPs, and that they would need to create something new next year, starting the conversation this summer and come back in the Fall with something new. This is very frustrating not only for the Committee, but also for the public who engaged with the Committee over the past year to provide input to make last year’s model even better. The Committee understands that DCPS was trying to create a tool that worked for the 18 schools that have not been modernized; however, the purpose of an objective approach is to provide all school communities, not just those in the CIP, with some idea of where they land in the queue. Drastically changing the tool each year does not provide consistency nor does it instill public trust that the process is transparent and equitable. The Commit tee’s tool last year was not perfect, by any means, but it was better than what DCPS put forward this year. At the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they thought the results may have been different using their tool, but would not have known otherwise if they did not go through the process.

Aren't there currently schools slated for renovation that are not in as much need as others? If this were the case, Lafayette's renovation would be placed on hold for Orr no? I'm not at any of these schools, I'm trying to understand.

Orr is being renovated, so there's really no way to make that happen sooner. But look at the top 5 in the education committee's report, and at least 3 of them aren't being started for a few more years.

That's why I don't buy Grosso's grandstanding about using objective priorities. If he was serious, he would have stopped several other renovations from moving forward and spent that money on the top priorities. Instead, he only went after Shepherd, which makes it seem politically motivated.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

I'm absolutely fine with that if that's going to be the way all schools are renovated in the future (including ones about to embark on a renovation).

Until we have a new mayor, or a new education chair and it all gets changed again.

This is nuts.

If you read Grosso's report, he's working to avoid exactly the sort of constant reshuffling of priorities that you fear. The background section talks about how the Committee had a model in place that ranked the schools according to renovation need, but then soon after Bowser was elected Mayor, DCPS put forward a different model. Grosso's committee rejected that model in part because of the politics it encourages. ("Last year, the Committee purposefully did not use a Ward-based approach [like the DCPS model did] because it was believed to be too political. ") Now, the Committee is reverting back to a version of the original Committee model. The Committee is specifically trying to create a model that will remain in place for a long time, unlike DCPS's model ...

Continuously during the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they did not believe their [own] model was a good tool for prioritization with regard to future CIPs, and that they would need to create something new next year, starting the conversation this summer and come back in the Fall with something new. This is very frustrating not only for the Committee, but also for the public who engaged with the Committee over the past year to provide input to make last year’s model even better. The Committee understands that DCPS was trying to create a tool that worked for the 18 schools that have not been modernized; however, the purpose of an objective approach is to provide all school communities, not just those in the CIP, with some idea of where they land in the queue. Drastically changing the tool each year does not provide consistency nor does it instill public trust that the process is transparent and equitable. The Commit tee’s tool last year was not perfect, by any means, but it was better than what DCPS put forward this year. At the budget hearing, DCPS stated that they thought the results may have been different using their tool, but would not have known otherwise if they did not go through the process.

Aren't there currently schools slated for renovation that are not in as much need as others? If this were the case, Lafayette's renovation would be placed on hold for Orr no? I'm not at any of these schools, I'm trying to understand.

Orr is being renovated, so there's really no way to make that happen sooner. But look at the top 5 in the education committee's report, and at least 3 of them aren't being started for a few more years.

That's why I don't buy Grosso's grandstanding about using objective priorities. If he was serious, he would have stopped several other renovations from moving forward and spent that money on the top priorities. Instead, he only went after Shepherd, which makes it seem politically motivated.

Agree.

+2.

[Anonymous]

Lafayette's #19 on the list: never been renovated before, facilities in "poor" condition that are rated worse than Shepherd's, extremely high utilization rate and overcrowded, plus temporary classrooms in use. Seems to make sense to renovate there.

Shepherd is #84 on the list, largely because it's already has 19 million worth of renovation, is rated in good condition already, and is underutilized by the neighborhood.

Makes me wonder if the whole reason Shepherd even got to start its major renovation years ago was through political connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette's #19 on the list: never been renovated before, facilities in "poor" condition that are rated worse than Shepherd's, extremely high utilization rate and overcrowded, plus temporary classrooms in use. Seems to make sense to renovate there.

Shepherd is #84 on the list, largely because it's already has 19 million worth of renovation, is rated in good condition already, and is underutilized by the neighborhood.

Makes me wonder if the whole reason Shepherd even got to start its major renovation years ago was through political connections.

Why would #19 make sense as higher priority than the top 5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette's #19 on the list: never been renovated before, facilities in "poor" condition that are rated worse than Shepherd's, extremely high utilization rate and overcrowded, plus temporary classrooms in use. Seems to make sense to renovate there.

Shepherd is #84 on the list, largely because it's already has 19 million worth of renovation, is rated in good condition already, and is underutilized by the neighborhood.

Makes me wonder if the whole reason Shepherd even got to start its major renovation years ago was through political connections.

Why would #19 make sense as higher priority than the top 5?

Probably because it's current construction that's underway. No one is stopping the Shepherd phase 1 project in its tracks - they're just delaying phase 2 until other schools get a little help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette's #19 on the list: never been renovated before, facilities in "poor" condition that are rated worse than Shepherd's, extremely high utilization rate and overcrowded, plus temporary classrooms in use. Seems to make sense to renovate there.

Shepherd is #84 on the list, largely because it's already has 19 million worth of renovation, is rated in good condition already, and is underutilized by the neighborhood.

Makes me wonder if the whole reason Shepherd even got to start its major renovation years ago was through political connections.

Why would #19 make sense as higher priority than the top 5?

Probably because it's current construction that's underway. No one is stopping the Shepherd phase 1 project in its tracks - they're just delaying phase 2 until other schools get a little help.

So Lafayette, Ellington, and Murch are going to be stopped after phase 1 with no finish date, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette's #19 on the list: never been renovated before, facilities in "poor" condition that are rated worse than Shepherd's, extremely high utilization rate and overcrowded, plus temporary classrooms in use. Seems to make sense to renovate there.

Shepherd is #84 on the list, largely because it's already has 19 million worth of renovation, is rated in good condition already, and is underutilized by the neighborhood.

Makes me wonder if the whole reason Shepherd even got to start its major renovation years ago was through political connections.

Why would #19 make sense as higher priority than the top 5?

Probably because it's current construction that's underway. No one is stopping the Shepherd phase 1 project in its tracks - they're just delaying phase 2 until other schools get a little help.

That's insane, not the way ANY other project has worked and guarantees that they'll never get to phase 3. Totally inefficient too.

[Anonymous]

Looks to me like Grosso included money for all of the top 5. Not sure what the complaint is. https://www.scribd.com/doc/311999204/05052016-FY17-Education-Committee-Budget-Report-FINAL (page 28)