Wilson funding petition v. At Risk funding petition

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes this was Catania's baby and this is one if the un intended consequences that is now bearing bitter fruit in the case of Wilson. I wonder if all those boosters he had in here last year realize that. I wouldn't hold my breathe though.

This is a consequence of the chosen implementation, not the law itself. If Catania were still on the Council he would probably have had a hearing by now to demand better implementation.

BTW, Brandon Todd came to my door on Saturday to ask for my vote for the Ward 4 Council seat. The only question I had for him was whether he supported restoring Wilson's funding. He was unequivocal in his support. Obviously, candidates will tell you whatever you want to hear, but since he is Bowser's hand-picked candidate I was surprised by how strongly he stated his support. His solution was to find additional funding from outside the current DCPS budget. It was also pretty obvious that I wasn't the first person to ask him about the issue.

OP here and I completely agree with Jeff. The implementation sucks, not nessarily the law. I'm happy to hear that from Brandon Todd - I think that's the right answer. The Council has to find more money from outside the currently proposed DCPS budget.

I am appalled that it's ok for the Chancellor to blame supporting At Risk kids for Wilson cuts. It feel like she's trying to start a class war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The part of Henderson's letter I don't understand is the boundary revision. It never really changed how many kids will attend Wilson. the only way they can do that is to cut Deal drastically. They only really cut Eaton and that won't get them anytype of critical mass because those students are still attending either Deal or Hardy. They have to Deal with the feeders like Janney which they ducked.

There was a large swath of NW and part of SW that was inbounds for Wilson but not for a middle school that feeds to Wilson. (I used to be inbounds for Wilson, but my IB middle school fed to Cardozo, and as such my new inbounds is Cardozo). Those people are now out of bounds for Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is even more galling is that it is false. Wilson received substantially less at-risk funds last year than it should have and less per at-risk student than most other DCPS high schools. http://atriskfunds.ourdcschools.org/ (switch to table and then look just at high schools)

This linked chart shows the insanity of these budgets.......some Educational campuses (EC) receive $19K per at risk student? The allocation of at risk funds makes less and less sense the more you look at this chart.

And if the Council and Catania passed this law with zero thought about the consequences, they need to come up with the money to fix their wrongs. I agree with the poster who said it will be a long 4 years at Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is even more galling is that it is false. Wilson received substantially less at-risk funds last year than it should have and less per at-risk student than most other DCPS high schools. http://atriskfunds.ourdcschools.org/ (switch to table and then look just at high schools)

This linked chart shows the insanity of these budgets.......some Educational campuses (EC) receive $19K per at risk student? The allocation of at risk funds makes less and less sense the more you look at this chart.

And if the Council and Catania passed this law with zero thought about the consequences, they need to come up with the money to fix their wrongs. I agree with the poster who said it will be a long 4 years at Wilson.

I thought you were going to point out some struggling ECs, but those are CHML and Oyster. Hardly bastions of poverty and need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is even more galling is that it is false. Wilson received substantially less at-risk funds last year than it should have and less per at-risk student than most other DCPS high schools. http://atriskfunds.ourdcschools.org/ (switch to table and then look just at high schools)

This linked chart shows the insanity of these budgets.......some Educational campuses (EC) receive $19K per at risk student? The allocation of at risk funds makes less and less sense the more you look at this chart.

And if the Council and Catania passed this law with zero thought about the consequences, they need to come up with the money to fix their wrongs. I agree with the poster who said it will be a long 4 years at Wilson.

I thought you were going to point out some struggling ECs, but those are CHML and Oyster. Hardly bastions of poverty and need.

Oyster just got a significant budget cut, so i am not sure how to reconcile those figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is even more galling is that it is false. Wilson received substantially less at-risk funds last year than it should have and less per at-risk student than most other DCPS high schools. http://atriskfunds.ourdcschools.org/ (switch to table and then look just at high schools)

This linked chart shows the insanity of these budgets.......some Educational campuses (EC) receive $19K per at risk student? The allocation of at risk funds makes less and less sense the more you look at this chart.

And if the Council and Catania passed this law with zero thought about the consequences, they need to come up with the money to fix their wrongs. I agree with the poster who said it will be a long 4 years at Wilson.

I thought you were going to point out some struggling ECs, but those are CHML and Oyster. Hardly bastions of poverty and need.

Oyster just got a significant budget cut, so i am not sure how to reconcile those figures.

Here is the link - Oyster is getting a 5% cut
http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/ABOUT%20DCPS/Budget%20-%20Finance/FY16%20documents/Final%20School%20Allocations-FY16/DCPS-OYSTERADAMS-Allocation-FY16.pdf

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a letter from CHristopher Rinkus at DCPS about the budget cuts to Wilson. The bottom line is that in order to fund more $ for at risk students, the per pupil funding was cut severely at Wilson. That is how DCPS came up with more money. You don't fix one problem by causing another.

That letter is pretty dense, but if I understand correctly, they over-funded middle schools last year and decided to make cuts elsewhere to "protect that investment". The cuts "elsewhere" include Wilson. I think all the talk about at-risk funding is a smokescreen being used to cover-up other irrational spending (such as over-funding middle schools).

That, and they are already thinking of specific ways to reduce overcrowding at Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a letter from CHristopher Rinkus at DCPS about the budget cuts to Wilson. The bottom line is that in order to fund more $ for at risk students, the per pupil funding was cut severely at Wilson. That is how DCPS came up with more money. You don't fix one problem by causing another.

That letter is pretty dense, but if I understand correctly, they over-funded middle schools last year and decided to make cuts elsewhere to "protect that investment". The cuts "elsewhere" include Wilson. I think all the talk about at-risk funding is a smokescreen being used to cover-up other irrational spending (such as over-funding middle schools).

But Wilson did lose at risk $ because it has a relatively low # of at risk students. Per the letter:

"For a school like Wilson, with a lower percentage of at-risk students compared to other neighborhood high schools, the change from a general at-risk allocation to a proportional at-risk allocation had an impact. Our implementation of the PWP award is an example: in the current fiscal year, Wilson’s PWP award was $100 per student, for a total of about $170,000. For the upcoming fiscal year, PWP is newly fixed to the number of at-risk students, and totals about $30,000—a reduction of approximately $140,000 in funding that Wilson received in the current fiscal year. For schools with higher percentages of at-risk students, the new PWP award formula resulted in more money than the current fiscal year."

But the rest of your analysis is right on.

My understanding of the law is that the extra money is designed to go to at risk students -- specifically tagged to the student, not the school they were attending. The funding was sold by Catania as being "in addition to" ongoing funding levels. In a sense, he seemed to be trying to require the city to make an investment, which arguably can't really be done by a law. I did not support Catania, in part because I thought this was naive and would be a disaster in implementation, but this was how most on the Council saw the law.

Some people, however, firmly believe that the money should not follow the student, but only go to struggling schools. They believe that an at risk child attending a school geographically located in Ward 3, like Wilson, doesn't require or deserve additional funding. They believe the needs of all students magically be met by virtue of attending a school with a decent past record, irregardless of overcrowding or continuing achievement gaps. Or they incorrectly believe that large schools with a lower percentage of at risk students -- even if they have a greater total number of at risk students -- already have an abundance of resources in spite of receiving lower per pupil funding.

This effort by DCPS seems like a back-handed way to take the second route and provide significant additional funding to struggling schools instead of truly providing additional funding to all at risk students. And it does it without significantly increasing the overall funding, making the problem worse. The Chancellor's letter makes that strategy quite clear.

[Anonymous]

PP. Wasn't the overcrowding supposed to be part of the boundary discussion? Not enough was done then to stop the pressure on Wilson. It will be close to 2000 students next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a letter from CHristopher Rinkus at DCPS about the budget cuts to Wilson. The bottom line is that in order to fund more $ for at risk students, the per pupil funding was cut severely at Wilson. That is how DCPS came up with more money. You don't fix one problem by causing another.

That letter is pretty dense, but if I understand correctly, they over-funded middle schools last year and decided to make cuts elsewhere to "protect that investment". The cuts "elsewhere" include Wilson. I think all the talk about at-risk funding is a smokescreen being used to cover-up other irrational spending (such as over-funding middle schools).

But Wilson did lose at risk $ because it has a relatively low # of at risk students. Per the letter:

"For a school like Wilson, with a lower percentage of at-risk students compared to other neighborhood high schools, the change from a general at-risk allocation to a proportional at-risk allocation had an impact. Our implementation of the PWP award is an example: in the current fiscal year, Wilson’s PWP award was $100 per student, for a total of about $170,000. For the upcoming fiscal year, PWP is newly fixed to the number of at-risk students, and totals about $30,000—a reduction of approximately $140,000 in funding that Wilson received in the current fiscal year. For schools with higher percentages of at-risk students, the new PWP award formula resulted in more money than the current fiscal year."

But the rest of your analysis is right on.

My understanding of the law is that the extra money is designed to go to at risk students -- specifically tagged to the student, not the school they were attending. The funding was sold by Catania as being "in addition to" ongoing funding levels. In a sense, he seemed to be trying to require the city to make an investment, which arguably can't really be done by a law. I did not support Catania, in part because I thought this was naive and would be a disaster in implementation, but this was how most on the Council saw the law.

Some people, however, firmly believe that the money should not follow the student, but only go to struggling schools. They believe that an at risk child attending a school geographically located in Ward 3, like Wilson, doesn't require or deserve additional funding. They believe the needs of all students magically be met by virtue of attending a school with a decent past record, irregardless of overcrowding or continuing achievement gaps. Or they incorrectly believe that large schools with a lower percentage of at risk students -- even if they have a greater total number of at risk students -- already have an abundance of resources in spite of receiving lower per pupil funding.

This effort by DCPS seems like a back-handed way to take the second route and provide significant additional funding to struggling schools instead of truly providing additional funding to all at risk students. And it does it without significantly increasing the overall funding, making the problem worse. The Chancellor's letter makes that strategy quite clear.

"This effort by DCPS seems like a back-handed way to...provide significant additional funding to struggling schools instead of truly providing additional funding to all at risk students. And it does it without significantly increasing the overall funding, making the problem worse."

I believe you're right on all fronts. It is absurd to starve Wilson in order to throw more money out-of-the-blue, and to the tune of several million each, to smaller and worse schools such as Cardozo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a letter from CHristopher Rinkus at DCPS about the budget cuts to Wilson. The bottom line is that in order to fund more $ for at risk students, the per pupil funding was cut severely at Wilson. That is how DCPS came up with more money. You don't fix one problem by causing another.

That letter is pretty dense, but if I understand correctly, they over-funded middle schools last year and decided to make cuts elsewhere to "protect that investment". The cuts "elsewhere" include Wilson. I think all the talk about at-risk funding is a smokescreen being used to cover-up other irrational spending (such as over-funding middle schools).

But Wilson did lose at risk $ because it has a relatively low # of at risk students. Per the letter:

"For a school like Wilson, with a lower percentage of at-risk students compared to other neighborhood high schools, the change from a general at-risk allocation to a proportional at-risk allocation had an impact. Our implementation of the PWP award is an example: in the current fiscal year, Wilson’s PWP award was $100 per student, for a total of about $170,000. For the upcoming fiscal year, PWP is newly fixed to the number of at-risk students, and totals about $30,000—a reduction of approximately $140,000 in funding that Wilson received in the current fiscal year. For schools with higher percentages of at-risk students, the new PWP award formula resulted in more money than the current fiscal year."

But the rest of your analysis is right on.

My understanding of the law is that the extra money is designed to go to at risk students -- specifically tagged to the student, not the school they were attending. The funding was sold by Catania as being "in addition to" ongoing funding levels. In a sense, he seemed to be trying to require the city to make an investment, which arguably can't really be done by a law. I did not support Catania, in part because I thought this was naive and would be a disaster in implementation, but this was how most on the Council saw the law.

Some people, however, firmly believe that the money should not follow the student, but only go to struggling schools. They believe that an at risk child attending a school geographically located in Ward 3, like Wilson, doesn't require or deserve additional funding. They believe the needs of all students magically be met by virtue of attending a school with a decent past record, irregardless of overcrowding or continuing achievement gaps. Or they incorrectly believe that large schools with a lower percentage of at risk students -- even if they have a greater total number of at risk students -- already have an abundance of resources in spite of receiving lower per pupil funding.

This effort by DCPS seems like a back-handed way to take the second route and provide significant additional funding to struggling schools instead of truly providing additional funding to all at risk students. And it does it without significantly increasing the overall funding, making the problem worse. The Chancellor's letter makes that strategy quite clear.

"This effort by DCPS seems like a back-handed way to...provide significant additional funding to struggling schools instead of truly providing additional funding to all at risk students. And it does it without significantly increasing the overall funding, making the problem worse."

I believe you're right on all fronts. It is absurd to starve Wilson in order to throw more money out-of-the-blue, and to the tune of several million each, to smaller and worse schools such as Cardozo.

I thought that the original intent was to close perpetually struggling schools, not to subsidize them more.

[Anonymous]

"First, there has been an informal tradition at Wilson in recent years to admit siblings of current out-of-boundary students. Given the space constraints, this practice will not be continued. Although DCPS values keeping siblings together when possible, it is not fair to continue this practice in light of the school’s facility constraints. "

Who was the letter addressed to and when? Also according to the DCPS web site this morning it clearly states that if you live in the boundary of the school this year (but won't be according to new boundaries next year) and have a sibling currently enrolled that the other sibling may still be granted a spot for 2015-16. Is that what they are referring to as "informal practice"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spend the money elsewhere and stop the constant flood of students and money to Tenleytown.

Design a school system that is more than one feeder pattern.

A better idea woukd be to break up DCPS into 6 or 8 subdistricts. Return to a true neighborhood and local base system. Provide a standard amount for each pupil but more could be allocated in at risk cases. Elect and empower local school boards on how to spend the money as they see fit and give the. Autonomy to set their own hiring practices. Shrink the central office down to almost nothing.

The problem with your solution is pretty obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"First, there has been an informal tradition at Wilson in recent years to admit siblings of current out-of-boundary students. Given the space constraints, this practice will not be continued. Although DCPS values keeping siblings together when possible, it is not fair to continue this practice in light of the school’s facility constraints. "

Who was the letter addressed to and when? Also according to the DCPS web site this morning it clearly states that if you live in the boundary of the school this year (but won't be according to new boundaries next year) and have a sibling currently enrolled that the other sibling may still be granted a spot for 2015-16. Is that what they are referring to as "informal practice"?

I don't believe so. I believe it refers to siblings/ students who were not in boundary even before the new reform takes place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a letter from CHristopher Rinkus at DCPS about the budget cuts to Wilson. The bottom line is that in order to fund more $ for at risk students, the per pupil funding was cut severely at Wilson. That is how DCPS came up with more money. You don't fix one problem by causing another.

That letter is pretty dense, but if I understand correctly, they over-funded middle schools last year and decided to make cuts elsewhere to "protect that investment". The cuts "elsewhere" include Wilson. I think all the talk about at-risk funding is a smokescreen being used to cover-up other irrational spending (such as over-funding middle schools).

But Wilson did lose at risk $ because it has a relatively low # of at risk students. Per the letter:

"For a school like Wilson, with a lower percentage of at-risk students compared to other neighborhood high schools, the change from a general at-risk allocation to a proportional at-risk allocation had an impact. Our implementation of the PWP award is an example: in the current fiscal year, Wilson’s PWP award was $100 per student, for a total of about $170,000. For the upcoming fiscal year, PWP is newly fixed to the number of at-risk students, and totals about $30,000—a reduction of approximately $140,000 in funding that Wilson received in the current fiscal year. For schools with higher percentages of at-risk students, the new PWP award formula resulted in more money than the current fiscal year."

But the rest of your analysis is right on.

My understanding of the law is that the extra money is designed to go to at risk students -- specifically tagged to the student, not the school they were attending. The funding was sold by Catania as being "in addition to" ongoing funding levels. In a sense, he seemed to be trying to require the city to make an investment, which arguably can't really be done by a law. I did not support Catania, in part because I thought this was naive and would be a disaster in implementation, but this was how most on the Council saw the law.

Some people, however, firmly believe that the money should not follow the student, but only go to struggling schools. They believe that an at risk child attending a school geographically located in Ward 3, like Wilson, doesn't require or deserve additional funding. They believe the needs of all students magically be met by virtue of attending a school with a decent past record, irregardless of overcrowding or continuing achievement gaps. Or they incorrectly believe that large schools with a lower percentage of at risk students -- even if they have a greater total number of at risk students -- already have an abundance of resources in spite of receiving lower per pupil funding.

This effort by DCPS seems like a back-handed way to take the second route and provide significant additional funding to struggling schools instead of truly providing additional funding to all at risk students. And it does it without significantly increasing the overall funding, making the problem worse. The Chancellor's letter makes that strategy quite clear.

Your understanding of the law is correct--it is additional funding that is supposed to follow the student. The problem is that for 2014-2015, the Chancellor did not implement this properly and did not have the money follow the student. As a result, many schools with lots of at-risk students got very little money on a per-at-risk-student basis, and those with relatively view got lots of money on a per-at-risk-student basis. For next year, this is corrected. Schools west of the park that got too much money for 2015-2016 will now get the amount that they should receive based on the number of at-risk students who attend. This may look like a cut; after all, this year they got more than they deserve this year. But relative to the situation before there was any at-risk money, it is more money.

However, there is more than just this going on with the Wilson budget. Wilson is also losing money because DCPS is moving $ to middle schools from other schools. That has nothing to do with the at-risk allocation. And it sounds like from the letter that the Chancellor has removed the minimum per-pupil allocation, which has also affected Wilson.