DCPS is misusing at-risk funds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is envious here? The WOTP people generally think the EOTP Title 1 schools are suboptimal, which is why we pay more than we can afford for crappy housing and donate more than we can afford to school to be at a different school (and generally give time and votes in hopes of better educational policies.)

And I don’t think Lafayette facilities have anything nothing on Dunbar, Ballou, etc.

Meanwhile, insist on taking a portion of what the half dozen ‘rich’ PTAs raise and spread it across the other hundred DCPS elementaries. Each school would get another $4000 or $5000 to spend — half a student worth of funding. That accomplishes nothing. Equalize the DCPS per-pupil funding and budgets are going backwards.

It solves nothing to be envious of the few thriving PRAs, anymore than it makes sense to be envious of all those families that can afford private schools unaffordable to those of us posting here.

Income inequality is a national problem that the jokers in Congress could have addressed long ago, but they chose to exacerbate it instead. Complaining about PTA fundraisers is a poor substitute for their national failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is envious here? The WOTP people generally think the EOTP Title 1 schools are suboptimal, which is why we pay more than we can afford for crappy housing and donate more than we can afford to school to be at a different school (and generally give time and votes in hopes of better educational policies.)

And I don’t think Lafayette facilities have anything nothing on Dunbar, Ballou, etc.

Meanwhile, insist on taking a portion of what the half dozen ‘rich’ PTAs raise and spread it across the other hundred DCPS elementaries. Each school would get another $4000 or $5000 to spend — half a student worth of funding. That accomplishes nothing. Equalize the DCPS per-pupil funding and budgets are going backwards.

It solves nothing to be envious of the few thriving PRAs, anymore than it makes sense to be envious of all those families that can afford private schools unaffordable to those of us posting here.

Income inequality is a national problem that the jokers in Congress could have addressed long ago, but they chose to exacerbate it instead. Complaining about PTA fundraisers is a poor substitute for their national failures.

It's the person up-thread who thinks wealthy PTA funding goes to make up the difference in per-pupil funding. At-risk funding goes to cover the extra cost of educating at-risk kids. I don't at all believe that wealthy schools receive half the per-pupil funding, but even if they did, that seems about right. At-risk kids can be extremely expensive to educate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

No one is saying it's a problem. The problem is DCPS not accounting for money or who is doing what with particular funds, then claiming that all schools are the same and blaming teachers, administrators, or parents even for their students not growing academically. Their usual mantra is well all schools are funded equally, but as we know funds are used and distributed differently and some schools are able to top up funds or pay for aides due to the PTA. Downtown DCPS, seems to not be able to understand anything beyond rhetoric and jargon, they don't know what goes on in reality .... hence comments about equity and access bulllsh###

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is envious here? The WOTP people generally think the EOTP Title 1 schools are suboptimal, which is why we pay more than we can afford for crappy housing and donate more than we can afford to school to be at a different school (and generally give time and votes in hopes of better educational policies.)

And I don’t think Lafayette facilities have anything nothing on Dunbar, Ballou, etc.

Meanwhile, insist on taking a portion of what the half dozen ‘rich’ PTAs raise and spread it across the other hundred DCPS elementaries. Each school would get another $4000 or $5000 to spend — half a student worth of funding. That accomplishes nothing. Equalize the DCPS per-pupil funding and budgets are going backwards.

It solves nothing to be envious of the few thriving PRAs, anymore than it makes sense to be envious of all those families that can afford private schools unaffordable to those of us posting here.

Income inequality is a national problem that the jokers in Congress could have addressed long ago, but they chose to exacerbate it instead. Complaining about PTA fundraisers is a poor substitute for their national failures.

It's the person up-thread who thinks wealthy PTA funding goes to make up the difference in per-pupil funding. At-risk funding goes to cover the extra cost of educating at-risk kids. I don't at all believe that wealthy schools receive half the per-pupil funding, but even if they did, that seems about right. At-risk kids can be extremely expensive to educate.

Nope, not the same person. There is a reason DCPS closely guards each school’s per-pupil allocation. I’m skeptical that the difference is anywhere near half, but the allocations are different.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Schools get reconstituted regularly in those thought that don't meet academic targets, teachers and principals get fired, schools become destabilized and so the cycle begins. How are schools with mainly low-income students expected to compete? Educational Reform in DC doesn't seem to recognize that it's not a competition, IMPACT, race to the top, etc!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 what sucks though is DCPS constantly saying that schools are funded the same or rather that students receive the same amount of money, which we ALL here on DCUM seem to acknowledge they don't!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 what sucks though is DCPS constantly saying that schools are funded the same or rather that students receive the same amount of money, which we ALL here on DCUM seem to acknowledge they don't!

ok it's time to have some actual numbers

here you go

http://dcpsbudget.ourdcschools.org/

I know there are a ton of active white parents complaining about Amidon Bowen a majority black school with majority poor kids
Let's compare them to Brent shall we which is a majority white school with majority rich kids

Amidon Bowen gets 13,092 per student
Brent gets 10,003 per student

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 what sucks though is DCPS constantly saying that schools are funded the same or rather that students receive the same amount of money, which we ALL here on DCUM seem to acknowledge they don't!

ok it's time to have some actual numbers

here you go

http://dcpsbudget.ourdcschools.org/

I know there are a ton of active white parents complaining about Amidon Bowen a majority black school with majority poor kids
Let's compare them to Brent shall we which is a majority white school with majority rich kids

Amidon Bowen gets 13,092 per student
Brent gets 10,003 per student

Ok, but so what? It doesn't tell you the actual cost of educating the actual kids. At-risk has a very broad definition in DC, and the cost of educating at-risk kids varies widely by individual circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think using funds to pay for continuing ed is a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 what sucks though is DCPS constantly saying that schools are funded the same or rather that students receive the same amount of money, which we ALL here on DCUM seem to acknowledge they don't!

ok it's time to have some actual numbers

here you go

http://dcpsbudget.ourdcschools.org/

I know there are a ton of active white parents complaining about Amidon Bowen a majority black school with majority poor kids
Let's compare them to Brent shall we which is a majority white school with majority rich kids

Amidon Bowen gets 13,092 per student
Brent gets 10,003 per student

Ok, but so what? It doesn't tell you the actual cost of educating the actual kids. At-risk has a very broad definition in DC, and the cost of educating at-risk kids varies widely by individual circumstances.

Now add in PTA funding per student. And then ask yourself which school you would prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's middle ground here. I know at least 1 Hill school uses PTA money to pay for a behavior tech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 what sucks though is DCPS constantly saying that schools are funded the same or rather that students receive the same amount of money, which we ALL here on DCUM seem to acknowledge they don't!

ok it's time to have some actual numbers

here you go

http://dcpsbudget.ourdcschools.org/

I know there are a ton of active white parents complaining about Amidon Bowen a majority black school with majority poor kids
Let's compare them to Brent shall we which is a majority white school with majority rich kids

Amidon Bowen gets 13,092 per student
Brent gets 10,003 per student

Yeah but what does that extra 3k/kid pay for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 what sucks though is DCPS constantly saying that schools are funded the same or rather that students receive the same amount of money, which we ALL here on DCUM seem to acknowledge they don't!

ok it's time to have some actual numbers

here you go

http://dcpsbudget.ourdcschools.org/

I know there are a ton of active white parents complaining about Amidon Bowen a majority black school with majority poor kids
Let's compare them to Brent shall we which is a majority white school with majority rich kids

Amidon Bowen gets 13,092 per student
Brent gets 10,003 per student

Yeah but what does that extra 3k/kid pay for?

You can compare the budgets of different schools here: http://dcpsdatacenter.com/fy17_submitted.html Look at the top of Amidon-Bowen's chart for what is funded with at-risk. Compare that to Brent and you'll see, for example, that Brent has one social worker and Amidon-Bowen has two.

Clearly, a lot of the difference is going to special needs stuff. You can see that the rust-colored bar is a lot bigger for Amidon-Bowen, and that Amidon-Bowen has a lot more Special Ed staff. Special Ed costs vary depending on what tier the kids are in, but if a school is operating self-contained classrooms, those are especially costly because the student-teacher ratio is so low.

Ask yourself, PP, would you take on Amidon-Bowen's student body in exchange for the extra money? Would you trade?

[Anonymous]

PTA fundraising (at any school) does not make-up the difference between Amidon-Bowen and Brent per-pupil funding, and, yes, I’d prefer to send my kids to Brent, which presumably has more ready-to-learn students.

A-B deserves more funding if it’s students have greater needs. And they do get more. (whether the amount is right is a separate question.)

The people upthread complaining about the unfairness of high-$ PTAs and not believing that per-pupil funding differs between schools are off-base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how using at-risk funding to pay for staff is misuse of funds.

I also think every school should have a fully funded art and music teacher for ALL students.