Mann and Janney PTAs called out in NYTs op-ed for perpetuating segregation in cities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

Thank you for this post. My kid goes to Wilson and some of her AP classes have been huge - 35+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

I can't speak to high school, as my kids are in elementary. But I don't feel remotely bothered by the fact that other elementary schools get more funding per pupil than my kids' does. I'd be fine with requiring PTAs that can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to kick into a citywide fund, and I think it's bonkers for WOTP parents not to realize how the private fundraising we do looks to everyone else in the city. (And yes, we give more than the suggested donation per child per year, so I am talking about my own money, too, not just spending someone else's.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

If this spending disparity is such a problem, why don't more families who live in bounds for Wilson move to be in bounds for Cardozo, where their children can have the benefit of twice the public funding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

If this spending disparity is such a problem, why don't more families who live in bounds for Wilson move to be in bounds for Cardozo, where their children can have the benefit of twice the public funding?

Not this old argument again.

The people who live near Cardozo now don’t want to go there. They want to go to Wilson. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

I can't speak to high school, as my kids are in elementary. But I don't feel remotely bothered by the fact that other elementary schools get more funding per pupil than my kids' does. I'd be fine with requiring PTAs that can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to kick into a citywide fund, and I think it's bonkers for WOTP parents not to realize how the private fundraising we do looks to everyone else in the city. (And yes, we give more than the suggested donation per child per year, so I am talking about my own money, too, not just spending someone else's.)

You'd feel comfortable giving away money that would be doled out by a DCPS or DC city employee, almost certainly with little to no oversight? Considering the city's vast, rich history of malfeasance whenever there's a big pot of money to hand out, you'd probably be better off simply burning it.

[Anonymous]

I can tell you that I give money to be spent my my children's schools on the needs of that school to serve its students, and they articulate how this will be spent in the PTA budgets and other school communications. I am also happy to contribute money to a general fund for the improvement of all school, but if you tell me that all the money that I donate will be distributed by central office on whatever whim they have then my donation will be zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you that I give money to be spent my my children's schools on the needs of that school to serve its students, and they articulate how this will be spent in the PTA budgets and other school communications. I am also happy to contribute money to a general fund for the improvement of all school, but if you tell me that all the money that I donate will be distributed by central office on whatever whim they have then my donation will be zero.

What do you think happens to your taxes? This would be another pool of revenue for the city to put into the school budget, not a slush fund with no transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

If this spending disparity is such a problem, why don't more families who live in bounds for Wilson move to be in bounds for Cardozo, where their children can have the benefit of twice the public funding?

Not this old argument again.

The people who live near Cardozo now don’t want to go there. They want to go to Wilson. Why is that?

Apparently the per-pupil spending disparity isn't a significant enough problem to affect school quality, then!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you that I give money to be spent my my children's schools on the needs of that school to serve its students, and they articulate how this will be spent in the PTA budgets and other school communications. I am also happy to contribute money to a general fund for the improvement of all school, but if you tell me that all the money that I donate will be distributed by central office on whatever whim they have then my donation will be zero.

What do you think happens to your taxes? This would be another pool of revenue for the city to put into the school budget, not a slush fund with no transparency.

Bless your heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the average JKLM class size in this hypothetical?

We are at Mann and both of my kids have 21 or 22 kids in their classes. Mann has a teacher AND a partner teacher in all of their classes, K-5th grade. And of course science teacher, Performing Arts teacher etc. So, this is why I, as a single parent who cannot afford private (and believes in public schools) picked this school. I toured several schools in NW DC's Ward 3 where we live, and also a couple in Chevy Chase and Bethesda. Montgomery County PS have 25+ kids per class and only one teacher. PTA funds cannot be spent on partner teachers. So, this is why I picked Mann. Kids there since K and will be going there till 5th grade and then depending on how things evolve, will probably move to Bethesda for Middle/High School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

If this spending disparity is such a problem, why don't more families who live in bounds for Wilson move to be in bounds for Cardozo, where their children can have the benefit of twice the public funding?

Not this old argument again.

The people who live near Cardozo now don’t want to go there. They want to go to Wilson. Why is that?

Apparently the per-pupil spending disparity isn't a significant enough problem to affect school quality, then!

Of course it affects school quality. You are in favor of overcrowded schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

If this spending disparity is such a problem, why don't more families who live in bounds for Wilson move to be in bounds for Cardozo, where their children can have the benefit of twice the public funding?

Not this old argument again.

The people who live near Cardozo now don’t want to go there. They want to go to Wilson. Why is that?

Apparently the per-pupil spending disparity isn't a significant enough problem to affect school quality, then!

Of course it affects school quality. You are in favor of overcrowded schools?

The point is that DCPS pours money into schools like Cardozo and Ballou but they do a poor job of making sure the money is used effectively. Many people on this thread have given examples of how money has been wasted. Wilson has many problems but it is the best of the worst and it stays afloat due to a concentration of high socioeconomic students who supplement, etc and get good results. If Wilson had more money and a better principal, it could be a much stronger school that serves all its students (low and high income) well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not to say that Janney doesn't get less per student, but my understanding is that Janney refuses to take the number of students that DCPS feels that they should and they get penalized because of that. Also this does not consider the number of special ed, FARM, non-native English speaking, and other students that students that require more resources.

It's definitely more to do with the additional services required at Title I schools -- Janney gets less money per student because it needs less money per student. (I say that as a current Janney parent whose kid used to go to an EOTP Title I charter school.) The additional spending at other schools is not evidence of "waste" or "corruption," as people have said -- it's evidence that the schools have to spend enormous amounts of money to try to deal with the effects of structural inequalities.

+1. While Title 1 schools get more money than schools like Janney, those dollars are not spread across every student like at Janney. That money goes to things like extra psychologists, behavioral supports, etc, that cannot be accessed by every student.

As it should be. But why oppose people giving money to public schools?

I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t.

But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools.

Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof?

If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it?

I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school.

No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there.

So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do.

Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools?

You are missing the point. The PTA funding does not even come close to "mak[ing] up for a funding disparity". Each of the WOTP schools are underfunded by millions of dollars per year relative to other schools in the district. This is not just an elementary school problem. There are high schools that receive nearly twice the per student funding as Wilson High School. For example, Wilson receives per student funding of $10,730 vs. $20,343 per student funding at Cardoza EC. If Wilson received the same per student funding as Cardoza, it would increase Wilson's funding by nearly $18 million per year! With that kind of money, Wilson might be able to maintain clean, working bathrooms.

But even that does not tell the full story on how DCPS underfunds top performing WOTP students. At Wilson High School, the Principle enforces a policy where the classroom size for regular education classes (i.e., non-honors, non-AP) are kept intentionally low (15 students per classroom) while honors and AP classes are typically twice as high and sometimes above 35 per class. See Wilson LSAT Meeting notes (https://wilsonhs.org/pdf/LSAT//LSAT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20%20Past/LSAT%20meeting%209%2015%2015%20minutes%20final.pdf) stating "Some high-performance classes (AP, honors) have higher numbers [of students per classroom], though not too many are over 35. Regular ed classes are kept intentionally low (c. 15 per class)."

This means that top performing WOTP high school students effectively receive a fraction of fraction of the funding that other students in DCPS receive. A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the DCPS funding for top WOTP high school students at about 33% (65% of the per-student funding times 50% reduction in per-student teacher expenses) of DCPS students who attend other neighborhood high schools. This is outrageous and unethical. At these funding levels, this is not the pursuit of equity but a demonstration of antipathy.

If this spending disparity is such a problem, why don't more families who live in bounds for Wilson move to be in bounds for Cardozo, where their children can have the benefit of twice the public funding?

Not this old argument again.

The people who live near Cardozo now don’t want to go there. They want to go to Wilson. Why is that?

Apparently the per-pupil spending disparity isn't a significant enough problem to affect school quality, then!

Of course it affects school quality. You are in favor of overcrowded schools?

The point is that DCPS pours money into schools like Cardozo and Ballou but they do a poor job of making sure the money is used effectively. Many people on this thread have given examples of how money has been wasted. Wilson has many problems but it is the best of the worst and it stays afloat due to a concentration of high socioeconomic students who supplement, etc and get good results. If Wilson had more money and a better principal, it could be a much stronger school that serves all its students (low and high income) well.

+1 And it would send a positive signal to parents in other Wards of the city who are working hard to create high schools that can attract, retain, and challenge high performing students. As it is now, DCPS, Wilson, and its principle are sending the exact opposite signal: if you are successful in attracting high performing students we will dramatically cut your budget, we will eliminate tracking to force your high performing students into the same classrooms as students who are grade levels behind ("Honors for All"), and we will double the number of students per classroom for the reduced number of true honors courses that we offer.