Wilson funding petition v. At Risk funding petition

[Anonymous]

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.

I'm waiting for the Catania = Marion Barry threads!

[Anonymous]

David Catania is not the mayor or the chancellor. The current mayor and her chancellor have the ability to make this better for Wilson -- now. It is the only overcrowded (and successful) DCPS high school, and for years to come will continue to serve a very high need population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Catania is not the mayor or the chancellor. The current mayor and her chancellor have the ability to make this better for Wilson -- now. It is the only overcrowded (and successful) DCPS high school, and for years to come will continue to serve a very high need population.

+1. Catania has proven once more he's a quite short-sighted legislator, but it's the Mayor who runs the executive-administrative machine responsible for overall budget allocation, and who can find the resources to fix this in the blink of an eye.

[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"?

This letter was sent out yesterday. It went to parents who wrote the chancellor about the Wilson budget cuts. I think it was also sent to the Wilson PTA and LSAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

This letter was sent out yesterday. It went to parents who wrote the chancellor about the Wilson budget cuts. I think it was also sent to the Wilson PTA and LSAT.

This is great to read. I had suspected that this informal practice existed. Further evidence that the over crowding at Wilson is actually pretty easy to address. Actually enforcing the existing rules, per the letter above, plus shrinking the boundary as was recently done, will surely do the trick.

[Anonymous]

So the letter states that several fixes will be implemented to help reduce the immediate enrollment pressure and then goes on to discuss those fixes (saying no to siblings of currently enrolled OOB students; kicking out OOB kids with more then 10 unexcused absences, kicking out students 19 and older, etc).

But I'm confused. Does the submitted budget for SY 15-16, which is based upon projected enrollment of 1878 assume these "fixes" have had had their intended effect (so otherwise enrollment would be even higher...1900+)? Or is the 1878 projection assuming no fixes and by then implementing the fixes Wilson actually ends up with enrollment lower than 1878?

Why doesn't the letter address this? The answer to this question would help provide some much needed insight.

If DCPS is actually hoping Wilson will end up with a lower enrollment (1800 or lower) because of their "fixes" would Wilson have it's budget cut even more drastically? What if the kids that leave Wilson are at-risk (I'm going to guess that most kids with 10+ unexcused absences or who are 19+ years old are likely at-risk)? Will Wilson have to give up some of it's at-risk funding to follow those kids who are forced out of Wilson? There is not nearly enough transparency here. And offering the excuse that they want to continue their increased investment in middle schools and ECs because it only started last year is way to flimsy of an explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the letter states that several fixes will be implemented to help reduce the immediate enrollment pressure and then goes on to discuss those fixes (saying no to siblings of currently enrolled OOB students; kicking out OOB kids with more then 10 unexcused absences, kicking out students 19 and older, etc).

But I'm confused. Does the submitted budget for SY 15-16, which is based upon projected enrollment of 1878 assume these "fixes" have had had their intended effect (so otherwise enrollment would be even higher...1900+)? Or is the 1878 projection assuming no fixes and by then implementing the fixes Wilson actually ends up with enrollment lower than 1878?

Why doesn't the letter address this? The answer to this question would help provide some much needed insight.

If DCPS is actually hoping Wilson will end up with a lower enrollment (1800 or lower) because of their "fixes" would Wilson have it's budget cut even more drastically? What if the kids that leave Wilson are at-risk (I'm going to guess that most kids with 10+ unexcused absences or who are 19+ years old are likely at-risk)? Will Wilson have to give up some of it's at-risk funding to follow those kids who are forced out of Wilson? There is not nearly enough transparency here. And offering the excuse that they want to continue their increased investment in middle schools and ECs because it only started last year is way to flimsy of an explanation.

You raise some fair questions in your final paragraph, however, it's clear to me that Wilson will be a lot better off with these fixes implemented, even if it means a little less money. It seems that finally DCPS/school admin are taking seriously the reality that Wilson is a neighborhood school with boundaries, not a citywide free for all. This can only be a good thing from the perspective of IB families.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the letter states that several fixes will be implemented to help reduce the immediate enrollment pressure and then goes on to discuss those fixes (saying no to siblings of currently enrolled OOB students; kicking out OOB kids with more then 10 unexcused absences, kicking out students 19 and older, etc).

But I'm confused. Does the submitted budget for SY 15-16, which is based upon projected enrollment of 1878 assume these "fixes" have had had their intended effect (so otherwise enrollment would be even higher...1900+)? Or is the 1878 projection assuming no fixes and by then implementing the fixes Wilson actually ends up with enrollment lower than 1878?

Why doesn't the letter address this? The answer to this question would help provide some much needed insight.

If DCPS is actually hoping Wilson will end up with a lower enrollment (1800 or lower) because of their "fixes" would Wilson have it's budget cut even more drastically? What if the kids that leave Wilson are at-risk (I'm going to guess that most kids with 10+ unexcused absences or who are 19+ years old are likely at-risk)? Will Wilson have to give up some of it's at-risk funding to follow those kids who are forced out of Wilson? There is not nearly enough transparency here. And offering the excuse that they want to continue their increased investment in middle schools and ECs because it only started last year is way to flimsy of an explanation.

You raise some fair questions in your final paragraph, however, it's clear to me that Wilson will be a lot better off with these fixes implemented, even if it means a little less money. It seems that finally DCPS/school admin are taking seriously the reality that Wilson is a neighborhood school with boundaries, not a citywide free for all. This can only be a good thing from the perspective of IB families.

Looking beyond our own parochial interests (which I share at this point), if kids 19 and over or with more than 10 unexcused absences are sticking it out at Wilson, there is something about the school that is keeping them there. I would guess that their most likely alternative is dropping out. If so, kids who already probably face significant challenges are going to fall further behind. That can't be good for any of us in the long run. One would hope that DCPS would see these kids as more than unwanted baggage.

[Anonymous]

I agree Jeff but there are programs which better fit their needs. Are they missing because they have to work to support their family? Are they unable to access the curriculum? We don't know but if they are over 19 or excessively absent (I am not sure that 10 is a good threshold) then DCPS needs to provide them with a program/services which Wilson can't.

[Anonymous]

Agree with PP. It is the way they are rolling out these "fixes" now. Bowser was elected in November. Couldn't families and students have had fair notice that if they accumulate those 10 absences this year they will truly be bounced? Couldn't families who relied on the casual system of enrolling OOB siblings have had some heads up that come spring enrollment they will NOT have this option? And it feels as if they are profiling to a certain degree, after all who is to say that a number of these students/families may have applied to privates or charters earlier on in the school year, rather than rounding up kids to populate their new experiment in SE and other under enrolled (and thus far under performing) schools? Eventually the same result would occur and it would help ease the swell in the hallways, but this feels almost like it was by design. And if that is the case it reflects the opposite of the admin and mayor's purported goals -- to give every kid a chance at a good education ("Deal for All").

[Anonymous]

Oops, the "PP" I agreed with was Jeff's comment, not the one just above mine. I'm 15:17. And I meant to add they've got the kids rounded up just when there are NO OTHER OPTIONS --choices were taken away by this point. Of course this explains the 2nd, even 3rd round opportunities at the under populated schools.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the letter states that several fixes will be implemented to help reduce the immediate enrollment pressure and then goes on to discuss those fixes (saying no to siblings of currently enrolled OOB students; kicking out OOB kids with more then 10 unexcused absences, kicking out students 19 and older, etc).

But I'm confused. Does the submitted budget for SY 15-16, which is based upon projected enrollment of 1878 assume these "fixes" have had had their intended effect (so otherwise enrollment would be even higher...1900+)? Or is the 1878 projection assuming no fixes and by then implementing the fixes Wilson actually ends up with enrollment lower than 1878?

Why doesn't the letter address this? The answer to this question would help provide some much needed insight.

If DCPS is actually hoping Wilson will end up with a lower enrollment (1800 or lower) because of their "fixes" would Wilson have it's budget cut even more drastically? What if the kids that leave Wilson are at-risk (I'm going to guess that most kids with 10+ unexcused absences or who are 19+ years old are likely at-risk)? Will Wilson have to give up some of it's at-risk funding to follow those kids who are forced out of Wilson? There is not nearly enough transparency here. And offering the excuse that they want to continue their increased investment in middle schools and ECs because it only started last year is way to flimsy of an explanation.

You raise some fair questions in your final paragraph, however, it's clear to me that Wilson will be a lot better off with these fixes implemented, even if it means a little less money. It seems that finally DCPS/school admin are taking seriously the reality that Wilson is a neighborhood school with boundaries, not a citywide free for all. This can only be a good thing from the perspective of IB families.

Looking beyond our own parochial interests (which I share at this point), if kids 19 and over or with more than 10 unexcused absences are sticking it out at Wilson, there is something about the school that is keeping them there. I would guess that their most likely alternative is dropping out. If so, kids who already probably face significant challenges are going to fall further behind. That can't be good for any of us in the long run. One would hope that DCPS would see these kids as more than unwanted baggage.

And it would be great if every kid (or new adult) who wanted to attend Wilson had that opportunity, but clearly that time has passed. It's not only the 19 year olds and 10 or more unexcused absences who will no longer have access to Wilson, it's everyone who is not at a feeder school. DCPS needs to have more than one desirable, non-selective HS. I'm not familiar enough with the budget details to know if the DCPS school budgets are a good allocation of resources across schools (and I'm guessing they're not), but Wilson stands alone among the comprehensive HSs in DC in its offerings of AP classes, sports and clubs. Does it make sense to try to provide some of the same opportunities at other schools?

I hate the way the DCPS budget is a zero sum game in school budgets and modernization funds, and would likely support more money for Wilson that doesn't subtract from other schools, but from a DCPS perspective there's tremendous inequality in the offerings at HSs. With a fixed budget, I'm not surprised they took from Wilson to give to other schools. Arguments to restore some of Wilsons funding need to recognize these facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

This letter was sent out yesterday. It went to parents who wrote the chancellor about the Wilson budget cuts. I think it was also sent to the Wilson PTA and LSAT.

This is great to read. I had suspected that this informal practice existed. Further evidence that the over crowding at Wilson is actually pretty easy to address. Actually enforcing the existing rules, per the letter above, plus shrinking the boundary as was recently done, will surely do the trick.

There are a lot of "informal traditions" at DCPS. Go along to get along, and don't rock the boat. It's the DC way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree, and am surprised that Kaya is not gone already. When I see the school scandal in Atlanta that is sending schools administrators to the federal slammer, I wonder how close the chancellor and her crew are to a similar situation.

[Anonymous]

I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).