DCPS Central Services Budget Cuts

[Anonymous]

What I’m still not getting from responders is WHY Central Office is dramatically larger than comparable districts. I’m not against any explanation, or the existence of centralized functions but I don’t get the why. I’m not surprised that the staff care about children. Or have specific jobs. BUT What requirements are they meeting with the staff they have differently from other districts and what are the justifications?

[Anonymous]

Cornerstones can go!

[Anonymous]

The new Amplify curriculum central office wants to role out in science is terrible. It has dozens of factual errors and awful graphics. A human heart in the anatomy unit is just shown as a box. The definition of bacteria is wrong. Can we cut the thousands some fool spent on it?

[Anonymous]

“but the cuts unfortunately were not done in a way to keep the staff who do their job well”.

Blame the Chancellor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new Amplify curriculum central office wants to role out in science is terrible. It has dozens of factual errors and awful graphics. A human heart in the anatomy unit is just shown as a box. The definition of bacteria is wrong. Can we cut the thousands some fool spent on it?

Almost all of the home grown curricula are bad and substantially worse than what DCPS could buy off the shelf for much less money. Why would a single city even want to develop its own math or science curriculum? I understand pieces of social studies, in order to emphasize local history and likely government given the unique DC context... and maybe some of ELA to emphasize local writers, local culture, etc, but neither of those require entirely new curricula and neither of those have anything to do with math or science. It's insane how much money DCPS wastes on developing its own stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The entire Early Childhood Division should be cut. They make all of the teachers at my school participate in mandatory coaching sessions every week. I’m so sick of them being in my classroom trying to tell me what to do.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new Amplify curriculum central office wants to role out in science is terrible. It has dozens of factual errors and awful graphics. A human heart in the anatomy unit is just shown as a box. The definition of bacteria is wrong. Can we cut the thousands some fool spent on it?

Almost all of the home grown curricula are bad and substantially worse than what DCPS could buy off the shelf for much less money. Why would a single city even want to develop its own math or science curriculum? I understand pieces of social studies, in order to emphasize local history and likely government given the unique DC context... and maybe some of ELA to emphasize local writers, local culture, etc, but neither of those require entirely new curricula and neither of those have anything to do with math or science. It's insane how much money DCPS wastes on developing its own stuff.

The irony here with this comment and sentiment is that these "home grown" curricula you're referring to from the central office are made by teachers that are hired and paid admin premium to write it. You know...teachers that are so universally competent and efficient that they don't need a central office beyond maybe a skeleton crew ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new Amplify curriculum central office wants to role out in science is terrible. It has dozens of factual errors and awful graphics. A human heart in the anatomy unit is just shown as a box. The definition of bacteria is wrong. Can we cut the thousands some fool spent on it?

Almost all of the home grown curricula are bad and substantially worse than what DCPS could buy off the shelf for much less money. Why would a single city even want to develop its own math or science curriculum? I understand pieces of social studies, in order to emphasize local history and likely government given the unique DC context... and maybe some of ELA to emphasize local writers, local culture, etc, but neither of those require entirely new curricula and neither of those have anything to do with math or science. It's insane how much money DCPS wastes on developing its own stuff.

The irony here with this comment and sentiment is that these "home grown" curricula you're referring to from the central office are made by teachers that are hired and paid admin premium to write it. You know...teachers that are so universally competent and efficient that they don't need a central office beyond maybe a skeleton crew ?

Absolutely not true or at least misleading. There are a slew of central office people who are curriculum developers. If they outsource the actual writing, that’s even more embarrassing for DCPS. And being a competent teacher doesn’t make you good at writing your own curriculum.

[Anonymous]

More money for actual instruction. Why do we have central office when my kid hasn ‘t had a science teacher all year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More money for actual instruction. Why do we have central office when my kid hasn ‘t had a science teacher all year?

Your kid hasn’t had a teacher because being a teacher is ridiculously hard and almost no one wants to do it. Not having a central office team doesn’t change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More money for actual instruction. Why do we have central office when my kid hasn ‘t had a science teacher all year?

Your kid hasn’t had a teacher because being a teacher is ridiculously hard and almost no one wants to do it. Not having a central office team doesn’t change that.

Being a teacher is a lot less hard in a classroom of 22 students than in a classroom of 28 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More money for actual instruction. Why do we have central office when my kid hasn ‘t had a science teacher all year?

Your kid hasn’t had a teacher because being a teacher is ridiculously hard and almost no one wants to do it. Not having a central office team doesn’t change that.

Being a teacher is a lot less hard in a classroom of 22 students than in a classroom of 28 students.

I disagree. The only difference I truly noticed was when my class size got down to 15, and that was only because none of those students had behavior issues. Take a look at self-contained classes for example. Some have less than 8 students and it’s HARD. All it takes is one student, one parent, or one administrator to make your life miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new Amplify curriculum central office wants to role out in science is terrible. It has dozens of factual errors and awful graphics. A human heart in the anatomy unit is just shown as a box. The definition of bacteria is wrong. Can we cut the thousands some fool spent on it?

Almost all of the home grown curricula are bad and substantially worse than what DCPS could buy off the shelf for much less money. Why would a single city even want to develop its own math or science curriculum? I understand pieces of social studies, in order to emphasize local history and likely government given the unique DC context... and maybe some of ELA to emphasize local writers, local culture, etc, but neither of those require entirely new curricula and neither of those have anything to do with math or science. It's insane how much money DCPS wastes on developing its own stuff.

I’m as anti-central office as the next, but the answer to your question is: they didn’t.

https://amplify.com/programs/amplify-science/

[Anonymous]

Our entire elementary school curriculum is available through PDF on Canvas, is digital through Canvas and digital in Microsoft OneNote. Besides the curriculum I never use the Canvas resources or Microsoft OneNote; I don't know any elementary school teacher that does.

And the RCT (required curricular tasks) are completely useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I’m still not getting from responders is WHY Central Office is dramatically larger than comparable districts. I’m not against any explanation, or the existence of centralized functions but I don’t get the why. I’m not surprised that the staff care about children. Or have specific jobs. BUT What requirements are they meeting with the staff they have differently from other districts and what are the justifications?

What is your source for this? And are those districts serving comparable numbers of students with disabilities, English-learners, recent immigrants, unhoused students, etc. who have services coordinated centrally?