DCPS is misusing at-risk funds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post article went up yesterday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4

Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school

DCPS continues to be a hot mess

This whole process is unfair anyway, schools like Deal, JKLM can raise thousands through their PTA to hire teachers for these positions. I used to work at Murch providing support to students who needed reading remediation. Then at the end of the year we compare schools as if the metrics are all the same, which downtown knows they are not. Of course we then blame teachers at mainly EOTP for being ineffective teachers, fire all the teachers, the principal, or some other form of reconstitution and wonder why we don't make progress. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of funds coming in to some of the WOTP schools for not just ed. positions but materials. One year a parent contact at a tech company donated new computers and printers. There is no equity anywhere because DCPS doesn't acknowledge the truth and uses bogus data to measure progress.

And when we are comparing PARCC scores, we are not taking into consideration that one child in one school received extra tutoring or support through a funded aide position and the other school did not. Then we compare supposedly students who are alike, except they are not. During the start of IMPACT, I brought this up with Mr. Kamras, who has now departed ... Seems like nothing has changed!

What’s the answer? Refuse donations in the name of equity?

Other districts do not allow PTAs to hire teachers. Other than DCPS, I've never heard of that.

Maybe, but I still don’t see how it helps DCPS to turn away donations.

Because it makes it impossible to have correct data. How can DCPS know how much money to spend per pupil with these shenanigans?

And when we are comparing PARCC scores, we are not taking into consideration that one child in one school received extra tutoring or support through a funded aide position and the other school did not. Then we compare supposedly students who are alike, except they are not. During the start of IMPACT, I brought this up with Mr. Kamras, who has now departed ... Seems like nothing has changed!

Nobody is turning away donations. They pay for other stuff and that frees up the funding for staff. And it seems that at some schools they do pay for staff, at least aides if not teachers.

https://mauryelementary.com/pta/initiatives/

Staff Our School Campaign:This year, the campaign is being called “Staff Our School”, and the funds raised will be used solely to help to cover the over $50,000 the PTA needs to pay for aides.

For the record, Maury has a high percentage of at-risk kids but is not Title I, so the aides benefit all kids. I agree that PTA fundraising is problematic but Maury spends its money well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post article went up yesterday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4

Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school

DCPS continues to be a hot mess

This whole process is unfair anyway, schools like Deal, JKLM can raise thousands through their PTA to hire teachers for these positions. I used to work at Murch providing support to students who needed reading remediation. Then at the end of the year we compare schools as if the metrics are all the same, which downtown knows they are not. Of course we then blame teachers at mainly EOTP for being ineffective teachers, fire all the teachers, the principal, or some other form of reconstitution and wonder why we don't make progress. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of funds coming in to some of the WOTP schools for not just ed. positions but materials. One year a parent contact at a tech company donated new computers and printers. There is no equity anywhere because DCPS doesn't acknowledge the truth and uses bogus data to measure progress.

And when we are comparing PARCC scores, we are not taking into consideration that one child in one school received extra tutoring or support through a funded aide position and the other school did not. Then we compare supposedly students who are alike, except they are not. During the start of IMPACT, I brought this up with Mr. Kamras, who has now departed ... Seems like nothing has changed!

What’s the answer? Refuse donations in the name of equity?

Other districts do not allow PTAs to hire teachers. Other than DCPS, I've never heard of that.

Maybe, but I still don’t see how it helps DCPS to turn away donations.

Because it makes it impossible to have correct data. How can DCPS know how much money to spend per pupil with these shenanigans?

And when we are comparing PARCC scores, we are not taking into consideration that one child in one school received extra tutoring or support through a funded aide position and the other school did not. Then we compare supposedly students who are alike, except they are not. During the start of IMPACT, I brought this up with Mr. Kamras, who has now departed ... Seems like nothing has changed!

Nobody is turning away donations. They pay for other stuff and that frees up the funding for staff. And it seems that at some schools they do pay for staff, at least aides if not teachers.

https://mauryelementary.com/pta/initiatives/

Staff Our School Campaign:This year, the campaign is being called “Staff Our School”, and the funds raised will be used solely to help to cover the over $50,000 the PTA needs to pay for aides.

For the record, Maury has a high percentage of at-risk kids but is not Title I, so the aides benefit all kids. I agree that PTA fundraising is problematic but Maury spends its money well.

I'm not trying to criticize Maury. I'm just pointing out that it's incorrect to say PTAs can't fund staff. I'm not sure what accounting they need to do per various DCPS rules, but they are explicitly raising money for staff.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure why you all don’t understand the DC PS and DC government doesn’t see this as a problem why would they ever want to give up parent funding of positions at school that’s money that DCPs Hets for free at each school. They don’t care. I think if they could figure out a way to do it more they would.

[Anonymous]

Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

If PTA funding is just to "make up for" what other schools are getting, then why do the wealthy schools have so much extra nice stuff that the poor schools don't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

If PTA funding is just to "make up for" what other schools are getting, then why do the wealthy schools have so much extra nice stuff that the poor schools don't?

+1. Get a clue PP. Tell yourself it's fair if it helps you sleep at night. But that funding goes to things your school doesn't need, like a fourth social worker. Yup we have FOUR. Can you imagine why? Your school doesn't get those funds because your school doesn't NEED those funds. What you raise goes to things that make it nice, nice, nice-- we don't have most of those things, because our extra money goes to the at-risk kids. Who's getting the better deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

Right but the aides make a big difference. Despite being relatively low paid, the aides at our school are wonderful - love kids, some are even in teacher training themselves. The free up the classroom teacher to focus on teaching. It's huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

If PTA funding is just to "make up for" what other schools are getting, then why do the wealthy schools have so much extra nice stuff that the poor schools don't?

I'd appreciate a more informed discussion on this subject. My guess is that PTA fundraising does not go for extravagent extras. The problem is more that the high risk schools have *higher* needs than even the PTA funding could meet. And for gentrifying schools, the PTA money substantively helps the whole school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post article went up yesterday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4

Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school

DCPS continues to be a hot mess

This whole process is unfair anyway, schools like Deal, JKLM can raise thousands through their PTA to hire teachers for these positions. I used to work at Murch providing support to students who needed reading remediation. Then at the end of the year we compare schools as if the metrics are all the same, which downtown knows they are not. Of course we then blame teachers at mainly EOTP for being ineffective teachers, fire all the teachers, the principal, or some other form of reconstitution and wonder why we don't make progress. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of funds coming in to some of the WOTP schools for not just ed. positions but materials. One year a parent contact at a tech company donated new computers and printers. There is no equity anywhere because DCPS doesn't acknowledge the truth and uses bogus data to measure progress.

What’s the answer? Refuse donations in the name of equity?

No, just be honest and stop comparing! Stop demonizing EOTP for things that are out of their control...

What a bizarre discussion. Who is comparing and demonizing?

Hello? This is exactly what education is these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

Where is your data for your first sentence?

[Anonymous]

The PTA dollars generally go to aides in the early grades which generally are whiter and richer than the rest of the school

Don't think this is an accident. Many white folks leave after pre-k. They stay for the free preschool/daycare. Most of the other white folks leave at or before 4th grade

The overall problem is still why aren't all schools being funded with the same amount for all core positions

At-risk should be for at-risk not for core functions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

If PTA funding is just to "make up for" what other schools are getting, then why do the wealthy schools have so much extra nice stuff that the poor schools don't?

I'd appreciate a more informed discussion on this subject. My guess is that PTA fundraising does not go for extravagent extras. The problem is more that the high risk schools have *higher* needs than even the PTA funding could meet. And for gentrifying schools, the PTA money substantively helps the whole school.

Yes. The high-risk schools have way more need than is captured by the funding, AND they don't have a wealthy PTA. So they're doubly behind.

At gentrifying schools, the PTA money sometimes goes to at-risk things, sometimes not. But at a lot of gentrifying schools, the PTA isn't yet able to raise enough to make a dent anyway. Often the PTA is mostly preschool parents who are still struggling with student loans and babies in daycare, and as PTA rookies, don't necessarily have the know-how to pull off a big auction or whatever else. In early gentrification the affluent parents may be only 5 or 10 percent of the school's families. It's not enough of a fundraising base, compared to the need of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

If PTA funding is just to "make up for" what other schools are getting, then why do the wealthy schools have so much extra nice stuff that the poor schools don't?

I'd appreciate a more informed discussion on this subject. My guess is that PTA fundraising does not go for extravagent extras. The problem is more that the high risk schools have *higher* needs than even the PTA funding could meet. And for gentrifying schools, the PTA money substantively helps the whole school.

Have you ever been to the WOTP schools? Go to Lafayette, then visit almost any poorer school. Amazing. The digital sign alone...

No - the obvious answer is that in one school district, at least some portion of the PTA fundraising should be mandated to go to all the schools or to needier schools. I've never seen one district where parents can just kind of pay to make their school, and only their school, more like a private. It's nuts. No, PTAs should not be able to pay salaries nor should they need to, taxes are high enough and so is per student spending. Most other places have to raise taxes in order to pay for improvements for the schools, resulting in a more equitable district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how Grasso muses about suing schools to make them spend the at-risk funds correctly, as if the schools are spendibg the money on manicures.

What does he suggest that schools do when the budget doesn’t meet requirements?

From what I've watched of these hearings, he begs DCPS to tell them what the true amount of funds needed for student support, but DCPS isn't forthcoming.

Our school spent the money on a summer conference for the admin team. It was supposed to revolutionize the way we handle problem behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy schools receive often less than 1/2 the funding per student than poorer schools. So, if they want to do away with PTA funding, they are going to need to make up those differences to some extent.

Also, let's keep in mind that while the dollar figures are high, most schools (Mann being the exception) are only paying for 1-2 teachers or a handful of aides across the whole school. While it's nice, it is not like they have a significant number of extra, trained teachers.

If PTA funding is just to "make up for" what other schools are getting, then why do the wealthy schools have so much extra nice stuff that the poor schools don't?

I'd appreciate a more informed discussion on this subject. My guess is that PTA fundraising does not go for extravagent extras. The problem is more that the high risk schools have *higher* needs than even the PTA funding could meet. And for gentrifying schools, the PTA money substantively helps the whole school.

Have you ever been to the WOTP schools? Go to Lafayette, then visit almost any poorer school. Amazing. The digital sign alone...

No - the obvious answer is that in one school district, at least some portion of the PTA fundraising should be mandated to go to all the schools or to needier schools. I've never seen one district where parents can just kind of pay to make their school, and only their school, more like a private. It's nuts. No, PTAs should not be able to pay salaries nor should they need to, taxes are high enough and so is per student spending. Most other places have to raise taxes in order to pay for improvements for the schools, resulting in a more equitable district.

Exactly. Go on, wealthy school parents-- what is it that you envy at our Title I EOTP? Is it our behavior specialist? Our extra half a psychologist? Our social workers who are constantly getting screamed at by mentally ill parents? Maybe our behavior techs, who get paid crap money to deal with freaking-out kids all day long? I could give you a long list of things I envy about your school, but I'd like to hear your list first.