Bowser cuts school renovation funds - Murch, others delayed or cancelled while Ellington tops $178 M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One glaring problem with DCPS decision-makers is the extremity of some of their decisions: an extra $30 million to Ellington to bring it up to $178 million? Sure. Completely eliminate minimum per-pupil funding for Wilson? Oh, sure. It's not nuanced or careful decision-making at all. Most politicians would be careful not to enrage ANY constituency; or, if you are like Chris Christie, you will go out of your way to punish someone who annoys; but I don't have the impression much of anything is going into their thought process other than perhaps personal interests. It's like, meh, voters schmoters; my niece is going to Ellington, so let's help her out.

Then urge the city council to pass a law mandating a city-wide per pupil minimum expenditure rate--which doesn't currently exist by statute.

For operating funds? What does that have to do with capital spending? Per pupil doesn't make sense for capex, which is the subject of this thread. Think about it, schools get renovated every decade or two on a rolling basis. In your renovation year, your capex per student is huge, intervening years it's minimal. What's your agenda here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is David Grosso's recommendations for changing the budget:

http://www.davidgrosso.org/grosso-analysis/2015/5/13/committee-on-education-fy2016-budget-report-summary

He takes some money from Duke Ellington and from Garrison.

It's not much of a reduction for Ellington - only $3M, while Garrison gets a big hit. I don't see the equity in this at all. There doesn't appear to be any other schools that getting reductions like this.

Even so, Peggy Cooper Cafritz will try to cut off Grosso's balls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One glaring problem with DCPS decision-makers is the extremity of some of their decisions: an extra $30 million to Ellington to bring it up to $178 million? Sure. Completely eliminate minimum per-pupil funding for Wilson? Oh, sure. It's not nuanced or careful decision-making at all. Most politicians would be careful not to enrage ANY constituency; or, if you are like Chris Christie, you will go out of your way to punish someone who annoys; but I don't have the impression much of anything is going into their thought process other than perhaps personal interests. It's like, meh, voters schmoters; my niece is going to Ellington, so let's help her out.

Then urge the city council to pass a law mandating a city-wide per pupil minimum expenditure rate--which doesn't currently exist by statute.

For operating funds? What does that have to do with capital spending? Per pupil doesn't make sense for capex, which is the subject of this thread. Think about it, schools get renovated every decade or two on a rolling basis. In your renovation year, your capex per student is huge, intervening years it's minimal. What's your agenda here?

The agenda is to point out half-assery in general. A true half-ass doesn't make dumb decisions on Tuesday with respect to only one issue; it half-asses every single day, about everything except the most simple of issues.