Wilson funding petition v. At Risk funding petition

[Anonymous]

The petition urging a smaller cut to Wilson's budget for next year has 1000+ signatures.

This petition address funding for At Risk students has less than 100: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/letter-in-support-of-additional-funding-for-at-risk-students/signatures.html

Can we do something about that? Supporting At Risk students is probably DC's biggest school related challenge.

[jsteele]

I am confused about the purpose of that letter. DCPS is already doing -- indeed is required by law to do -- what the signers want. Is this some sort of "don't restore funding to Wilson" effort or am I being too cynical?

[Anonymous]

OP forgot to include the petition to Help Save the Wilson High School Budget:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-wilson-high-school.html

Please help support DC's more diverse and successful high school, and THE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF AT-RISK STUDENTS.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OP forgot to include the petition to Help Save the Wilson High School Budget:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-wilson-high-school.html

Please help support DC's more diverse and successful high school, and THE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF AT-RISK STUDENTS.

I think you're confused about highest number of at-risk vs. highest percentage. The latter would indicate a higher per-pupil funding amount is warranted, not the former.

Is the issue that DCPS applied the formula incorrectly? Or that you just don't like the results of the formula?

It looks to me like both petitions are asking for the same thing. They support higher at-risk funding levels, and don't support cuts >5% to any existing program. They just say it in different orders. What am I missing?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It looks to me like both petitions are asking for the same thing. They support higher at-risk funding levels, and don't support cuts >5% to any existing program. They just say it in different orders. What am I missing?

I'm confused too, as stated in my earlier post. But, the per pupil funding is separate from the at risk funding. The at risk funding is on top of the per pupil funding. Wilson is proposed to get a decrease in its per pupil funding, but will get an increase in the funding for its at risk students. Other schools are proposed to receive higher levels of per pupil funding and then receive additional at risk funds (which also go to a higher percentage of their students).

There seems to be repeated efforts to pit the Wilson cuts against the needs of at-risk students. While I can see how putting the dispute in those terms might be a winning argument for those supporting the cuts, those are not the actual terms of the debate. That's an apple and oranges comparison.

[jsteele]

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.

Do you seriously believe that the way to improve the school system is by making its best comprehensive high school worse? That is a very short-sighted approach that could easily put the entire system into a tail spin at the end of which none of the schools are very good. Your goal of a better designed school system would be met better by raising the level of other schools rather than lowering Wilson's.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the confusion. Here is the summary of the 3 things they ask for:

1. Affirm the commitment to additional funding for at-risk students and expand the benefit to alternative schools,
2. Work with schools to refine the funding process to ensure effective use of funds through greater flexibility, and
3. Provide stability for schools by preventing the loss of significant amounts of per-pupil funding this year as result of evolving budget priorities.

Alternative schools like Washington Met and Luke C Moore didn't qualify for at-risk funds as the petition states.

[Anonymous]

The At Risk petition was opened before school budgets came out, so it's not an effort to support the cuts at Wilson. In theory, the letter supports exactly what the Council and Chancellor *say* they are doing, but when you look at individual school budgets some Title 1 schools budgets were cut, and then At Risk money was added. So while the net budgets are higher they aren't as much higher as they should be to if the Chancellor was actually following the letter of the law. The real problem is probably that the Council didn't give DCPS enough money to actually follow the law and fully fund the At Risk portion.

Chancellor Henderson is making a public effort to pit Wilson and its feeders against At Risk supporters (i.e. EOTP Title 1 schools), e.g.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/wilson-hs-community-resists-budget-cuts-as-enrollment-keeps-climbing/2015/03/31/20bd3b6a-d7dc-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

But we really shouldn't accept that. This petition, in concert with the Wilson one, tells the Council we want them to do both things at once.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the confusion. Here is the summary of the 3 things they ask for:

1. Affirm the commitment to additional funding for at-risk students and expand the benefit to alternative schools,
2. Work with schools to refine the funding process to ensure effective use of funds through greater flexibility, and
3. Provide stability for schools by preventing the loss of significant amounts of per-pupil funding this year as result of evolving budget priorities.

Alternative schools like Washington Met and Luke C Moore didn't qualify for at-risk funds as the petition states.

So, basically it boils down to extend at risk funding to alternative schools and reduce Wilson's cut to 5%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OP forgot to include the petition to Help Save the Wilson High School Budget:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-wilson-high-school.html

Please help support DC's more diverse and successful high school, and THE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF AT-RISK STUDENTS.

I'm not the OP, but I am one of the people who signed on to and was part of the effort to draft the at-risk funds petition. The PP is correct that it was started prior to the budgets coming out. We didn't know anything about Wilson's budget getting cut. What we did know was that our kids go to some of the schools with the lowest per at-risk student amounts. While I very much support Wilson and do not want their funding to be cut, I also would remind the quoted PP that not everyone's children go to or have any chance of going to Wilson. The schools that they attend now and will attend in the future do not deserve to have their budgets cut either.

Our ultimate goal was to ask the Chancellor to restore the "money follows student" principle of the at risk money, and then, when she basically declared that that was happening, to thank her for making that decision and encourage her, DCPS and Council to keep making decisions that way.

[Anonymous]

The Chancellor's office called at least 2 Ward 1 elementary school principals to accuse them of putting parents up to drafting the At Risk petition.

That shows a level of nervousness from the city belied by the petition's reasonable tone. Perhaps because they know they didn't really follow the At Risk funding law?

[Anonymous]

jsteele 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.

Do you seriously believe that the way to improve the school system is by making its best comprehensive high school worse? That is a very short-sighted approach that could easily put the entire system into a tail spin at the end of which none of the schools are very good. Your goal of a better designed school system would be met better by raising the level of other schools rather than lowering Wilson's.

+1. With 43% out-boundary students at Wilson, it is obvious that parents all over the city WANT to go there. Who is the PP to try to stop that "flood" by starving the school they have chosen? Strengthen Wilson AND strengthen other high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP forgot to include the petition to Help Save the Wilson High School Budget:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-wilson-high-school.html

Please help support DC's more diverse and successful high school, and THE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF AT-RISK STUDENTS.

I'm not the OP, but I am one of the people who signed on to and was part of the effort to draft the at-risk funds petition. The PP is correct that it was started prior to the budgets coming out. We didn't know anything about Wilson's budget getting cut. What we did know was that our kids go to some of the schools with the lowest per at-risk student amounts. While I very much support Wilson and do not want their funding to be cut, I also would remind the quoted PP that not everyone's children go to or have any chance of going to Wilson. The schools that they attend now and will attend in the future do not deserve to have their budgets cut either.

Our ultimate goal was to ask the Chancellor to restore the "money follows student" principle of the at risk money, and then, when she basically declared that that was happening, to thank her for making that decision and encourage her, DCPS and Council to keep making decisions that way.

What seems to be a common theme with both petitions is that DCPS and/ or the Mayor is doing something really strange with next year's budget. Perhaps we need a new, joint petition asking for an independent, external and ongoing audit of the school system budget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP forgot to include the petition to Help Save the Wilson High School Budget:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-wilson-high-school.html

Please help support DC's more diverse and successful high school, and THE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF AT-RISK STUDENTS.

I'm not the OP, but I am one of the people who signed on to and was part of the effort to draft the at-risk funds petition. The PP is correct that it was started prior to the budgets coming out. We didn't know anything about Wilson's budget getting cut. What we did know was that our kids go to some of the schools with the lowest per at-risk student amounts. While I very much support Wilson and do not want their funding to be cut, I also would remind the quoted PP that not everyone's children go to or have any chance of going to Wilson. The schools that they attend now and will attend in the future do not deserve to have their budgets cut either.

Our ultimate goal was to ask the Chancellor to restore the "money follows student" principle of the at risk money, and then, when she basically declared that that was happening, to thank her for making that decision and encourage her, DCPS and Council to keep making decisions that way.

What seems to be a common theme with both petitions is that DCPS and/ or the Mayor is doing something really strange with next year's budget. Perhaps we need a new, joint petition asking for an independent, external and ongoing audit of the school system budget?

I will happily sign that petition as well.