Fillmore killed....again.

[Anonymous]

Just rename Fillmore for Duke Ellington and it will get access to virtually unlimited cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ what do you mean "Fillmore is already doing it". Fillmore has dedicated arts and music rooms with all of the needed supplies. The Fillmore schools have neither the space nor supplies at their home schools. How is this supposed to work?

Fillmore does art for Marie Reed at Marie Reed.

[Anonymous]

The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

From the last Post article, it costs more than twice as much to provide art per child at Fillmore than it would at the home schools. $1147 vs $459 per child or thereabout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

From the last Post article, it costs more than twice as much to provide art per child at Fillmore than it would at the home schools. $1147 vs $459 per child or thereabout.

Like it or not, that's a compelling argument. Of course, budgetary concerns that make logical sense are not a demonstrable priority with DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

From the last Post article, it costs more than twice as much to provide art per child at Fillmore than it would at the home schools. $1147 vs $459 per child or thereabout.

What Post article? You mean the article from last year, when the City was paying fat $$ Charter buses to cart Ellington and Fillmore kids around (under the same contract), rather than use DCPS's own cheap buses? Paying some political crony running the Charter company? Those bloated costs?

[Anonymous]

When I attended elementary school, we had a music teacher come into our classroom to teach us music. Our classroom teachers handled art, and very effectively. All this handwringing is much ado about nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

From the last Post article, it costs more than twice as much to provide art per child at Fillmore than it would at the home schools. $1147 vs $459 per child or thereabout.

What Post article? You mean the article from last year, when the City was paying fat $$ Charter buses to cart Ellington and Fillmore kids around (under the same contract), rather than use DCPS's own cheap buses? Paying some political crony running the Charter company? Those bloated costs?

With four schools being renovated and busing kids to swing space, I'm pretty sure that transport is still at a premium. Even with the cheaper busing projections, the per pupil outlay was higher for Fillmore schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

Fillmore is mediocre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

From the last Post article, it costs more than twice as much to provide art per child at Fillmore than it would at the home schools. $1147 vs $459 per child or thereabout.

What Post article? You mean the article from last year, when the City was paying fat $$ Charter buses to cart Ellington and Fillmore kids around (under the same contract), rather than use DCPS's own cheap buses? Paying some political crony running the Charter company? Those bloated costs?

With four schools being renovated and busing kids to swing space, I'm pretty sure that transport is still at a premium. Even with the cheaper busing projections, the per pupil outlay was higher for Fillmore schools.

When you take the necessity of transport into account, the costs are similar. Look, it's like this: Ellington for example must have students bused because they don't have art space without it. The Fillmore feeder schools, similarly, must have students bused because they wouldn't have art space without being transported. It's actually quite fair, when you consider that in DCPS, students DO have access to art rooms (which is why Fillmore exists in the first place).

Now, if DCPS were going to put up money to build art rooms for these Fillmore kids at their home schools, I don't think you would see much hand-wringing about losing Fillmore. But what are the odds on DCPS paying out THAT kind of money in order to create an equal playing field? In comparison, paying for transport to Fillmore is quite logical and reasonable. (assuming, of course, you aren't paying some political crony for use of his private Coach company).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I attended elementary school, we had a music teacher come into our classroom to teach us music. Our classroom teachers handled art, and very effectively. All this handwringing is much ado about nothing.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best I can decipher from this decision, as a matter of DCPS policy, is it desires "mediocrity" as a goal to be achieved for the public schools; but anything measurably better than "mediocre" must be eliminated, as its existence serves as a reminder that mediocrity isn't good at all.

From the last Post article, it costs more than twice as much to provide art per child at Fillmore than it would at the home schools. $1147 vs $459 per child or thereabout.

What Post article? You mean the article from last year, when the City was paying fat $$ Charter buses to cart Ellington and Fillmore kids around (under the same contract), rather than use DCPS's own cheap buses? Paying some political crony running the Charter company? Those bloated costs?

With four schools being renovated and busing kids to swing space, I'm pretty sure that transport is still at a premium. Even with the cheaper busing projections, the per pupil outlay was higher for Fillmore schools.

When you take the necessity of transport into account, the costs are similar. Look, it's like this: Ellington for example must have students bused because they don't have art space without it. The Fillmore feeder schools, similarly, must have students bused because they wouldn't have art space without being transported. It's actually quite fair, when you consider that in DCPS, students DO have access to art rooms (which is why Fillmore exists in the first place).

Now, if DCPS were going to put up money to build art rooms for these Fillmore kids at their home schools, I don't think you would see much hand-wringing about losing Fillmore. But what are the odds on DCPS paying out THAT kind of money in order to create an equal playing field? In comparison, paying for transport to Fillmore is quite logical and reasonable. (assuming, of course, you aren't paying some political crony for use of his private Coach company).

Ellington is an arts high school. Different situation from elementary.

If every school must have arts space, then we need to re-draw boundaries and reduce enrollment at the schools without it now to free up a classroom or two. There is more than enough classroom space city-wide -- we just lack political will to make the choices.

If closing Fillmore will start that discussion, I'm all for it.

[Anonymous]

You're missing it: almost every DCPS school in the City has separate space for art, except the Fillmore feeders.

[Anonymous]

Old Ross parent here again -- JEEZ. You parents who think it will be so great for your full time teachers to "collaborate" with an outside art reacher are deluding yourselves. DCPS teachers have so much on their plates, so little time, to integrate a new outside teacher to take up their space and try and thread lessons in small school houses is --IMPOSSIBLE!!! Fillmore takes the burden off of the FT teachers, places the adventure in the hands of the students, and for the arts-leaning kids it is invaluable. For the kids who "hate it", they will learn to put up with behaving on a school bus for 20 minutes a day and finding some escape from their routine of math/english/sports. Trashing Fillmore is disgraceful, know your history. Will there be a council hearing on the subject? And Fillmore supporters, have you contacted your local council and ANC?

[Anonymous]

PP here again --meant to point out the "20 minutes a day" of bus is ONCE A WEEK for a valuable, concentrated amount of arts education. DON'T LOSE FILLMORE!!!!