DCPS is misusing at-risk funds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the op and to me that is the biggest scandal. I don't have (and most of us don't) the level of detail to see the actual budgets for the individual schools

DCPS quotes that all schools receive the same base allocation which is supposed to include special teachers

http://dcpsdatacenter.com/assets/docs/pdfs/fy19initialallocation_Amidon-Bowen%20ES.pdf They get 3 arts teachers
http://dcpsdatacenter.com/assets/docs/pdfs/fy19initialallocation_Brent%20ES.pdf The get 4.5 arts teachers

The discrepency is related to school size.
All those funds are supposed to be from the general fund and not at-risk funds. Parents and the article are claiming that's not true at Amidon Bowen and other schools.

[Anonymous]

The funds for specials should have a minimum of one fully funded art and one fully funded music teacher per school. Period. I do not care if there are 40 students or 400.

This might push DCPS to make the hard decisions about closing under enrolled or too small schools or even failing schools. Don’t make schools scrimp on important things like enrich,ent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the op and to me that is the biggest scandal. I don't have (and most of us don't) the level of detail to see the actual budgets for the individual schools

DCPS quotes that all schools receive the same base allocation which is supposed to include special teachers

http://dcpsdatacenter.com/assets/docs/pdfs/fy19initialallocation_Amidon-Bowen%20ES.pdf They get 3 arts teachers
http://dcpsdatacenter.com/assets/docs/pdfs/fy19initialallocation_Brent%20ES.pdf The get 4.5 arts teachers

The discrepency is related to school size.
All those funds are supposed to be from the general fund and not at-risk funds. Parents and the article are claiming that's not true at Amidon Bowen and other schools.

I don't think you understand what people are saying, because what you wrote here does not make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The funds for specials should have a minimum of one fully funded art and one fully funded music teacher per school. Period. I do not care if there are 40 students or 400.

This might push DCPS to make the hard decisions about closing under enrolled or too small schools or even failing schools. Don’t make schools scrimp on important things like enrich,ent.

Come on, that is just strange. The kids are supposed to get each special once a week. What is the teacher supposed to do the rest of the time? Cancel math so the kids get more music?

Our school has part-timers in those positions and it is fine. You are just being ornery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the op and to me that is the biggest scandal. I don't have (and most of us don't) the level of detail to see the actual budgets for the individual schools

DCPS quotes that all schools receive the same base allocation which is supposed to include special teachers

http://dcpsdatacenter.com/assets/docs/pdfs/fy19initialallocation_Amidon-Bowen%20ES.pdf They get 3 arts teachers
http://dcpsdatacenter.com/assets/docs/pdfs/fy19initialallocation_Brent%20ES.pdf The get 4.5 arts teachers

The discrepency is related to school size.
All those funds are supposed to be from the general fund and not at-risk funds. Parents and the article are claiming that's not true at Amidon Bowen and other schools.

I don't think you understand what people are saying, because what you wrote here does not make sense.

What's the issue

DCPS allocates positions based on school size. The funding should be from general fund dollars. At-risk funds should not be used for those positions. That's the scandal, at-risk funds are covering positions that should be general fund positions instead of going to at-risk initiatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funds for specials should have a minimum of one fully funded art and one fully funded music teacher per school. Period. I do not care if there are 40 students or 400.

This might push DCPS to make the hard decisions about closing under enrolled or too small schools or even failing schools. Don’t make schools scrimp on important things like enrich,ent.

Come on, that is just strange. The kids are supposed to get each special once a week. What is the teacher supposed to do the rest of the time? Cancel math so the kids get more music?

Our school has part-timers in those positions and it is fine. You are just being ornery.

No I’m not. There are no schools with 40 students, do that was obvious hyperbole. If specials teachers have extra time, they can be hall or lunch room monitors or help out struggling readers (as many schools have volunteers do) or chaperone field trips or act as an aide in ECE classrooms or shelve library books. There are never enough adults in a school that there is NOTHING for them to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funds for specials should have a minimum of one fully funded art and one fully funded music teacher per school. Period. I do not care if there are 40 students or 400.

This might push DCPS to make the hard decisions about closing under enrolled or too small schools or even failing schools. Don’t make schools scrimp on important things like enrich,ent.

Come on, that is just strange. The kids are supposed to get each special once a week. What is the teacher supposed to do the rest of the time? Cancel math so the kids get more music?

Our school has part-timers in those positions and it is fine. You are just being ornery.

No I’m not. There are no schools with 40 students, do that was obvious hyperbole. If specials teachers have extra time, they can be hall or lunch room monitors or help out struggling readers (as many schools have volunteers do) or chaperone field trips or act as an aide in ECE classrooms or shelve library books. There are never enough adults in a school that there is NOTHING for them to do.

WTF? Why on earth would it benefit a school to have a music teacher acting like a classroom aide? They would have to pay a teacher's salary for aide work, it would be a huge waste of money. And nobody goes to teaching school so that they can spend half their time as a floater aide.

A part-time specials teacher is perfectly adequate and is nowhere, anywhere even close to the biggest problem facing DCPS' smaller schools. Exactly what is it that you think kids are missing out on if they don't have this?

[Anonymous]

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.

Pooling PTA funding could go a long way towards closing the resource gap between rich and poor schools in D.C. The Malibu-Santa Monica School District is doing this. See, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/california-pta-fund-raising-inequality.html

[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.

Pooling PTA funding could go a long way towards closing the resource gap between rich and poor schools in D.C. The Malibu-Santa Monica School District is doing this. See, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/california-pta-fund-raising-inequality.html

Pooling would go a long way towards nothing, except fueling your schadenfreude.

DC has just a few PTA’s with outsized fundraising, and has dozens and dozens of school with modest funds. Spreading around the aggregate would add little to the vast majority of schools, but the high-fundraisers would have much, much less, so you would feel better. Ultimately, the donations would evaporate and no one would get anything. Well done!

Santa Monica-Malibu has more donor schools than taker schools (7 vs 4), and they all feed into 2 high schools. A very different situation.

[Anonymous]

Pooling won’t work but parent organizations should not be allowed to subsidize any paid staff.

Doing so masks true school staffing needs and creates inequity. If all schools need a minimum of one in every elementary class, then we as taxpayers should fund that. Same with behavior techs and janitors and so on.

Poor schools should start with the same staffing model as rich schools — and then given significantly more. IMO enough to reduce class sizes by 30-50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pooling won’t work but parent organizations should not be allowed to subsidize any paid staff.

Doing so masks true school staffing needs and creates inequity. If all schools need a minimum of one in every elementary class, then we as taxpayers should fund that. Same with behavior techs and janitors and so on.

Poor schools should start with the same staffing model as rich schools — and then given significantly more. IMO enough to reduce class sizes by 30-50%.

They will just pay for other stuff like paper to free up the school's money for staff. The underlying fact is that well-educated parents will not accept the kind of school that base DCPS funding produces. If they can't add their own money, they will leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pooling won’t work but parent organizations should not be allowed to subsidize any paid staff.

Doing so masks true school staffing needs and creates inequity. If all schools need a minimum of one in every elementary class, then we as taxpayers should fund that. Same with behavior techs and janitors and so on.

Poor schools should start with the same staffing model as rich schools — and then given significantly more. IMO enough to reduce class sizes by 30-50%.

They will just pay for other stuff like paper to free up the school's money for staff. The underlying fact is that well-educated parents will not accept the kind of school that base DCPS funding produces. If they can't add their own money, they will leave.

Thank you someone who understands reality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pooling won’t work but parent organizations should not be allowed to subsidize any paid staff.

Doing so masks true school staffing needs and creates inequity. If all schools need a minimum of one in every elementary class, then we as taxpayers should fund that. Same with behavior techs and janitors and so on.

Poor schools should start with the same staffing model as rich schools — and then given significantly more. IMO enough to reduce class sizes by 30-50%.

They will just pay for other stuff like paper to free up the school's money for staff. The underlying fact is that well-educated parents will not accept the kind of school that base DCPS funding produces. If they can't add their own money, they will leave.

Paper isn’t enough to pay a salary. No other school district in the country permits what happens in DC.

Let the parents throw their resources at aftercare or summer stuff. But the rest is unfair on its face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pooling won’t work but parent organizations should not be allowed to subsidize any paid staff.

Doing so masks true school staffing needs and creates inequity. If all schools need a minimum of one in every elementary class, then we as taxpayers should fund that. Same with behavior techs and janitors and so on.

Poor schools should start with the same staffing model as rich schools — and then given significantly more. IMO enough to reduce class sizes by 30-50%.

They will just pay for other stuff like paper to free up the school's money for staff. The underlying fact is that well-educated parents will not accept the kind of school that base DCPS funding produces. If they can't add their own money, they will leave.

Paper isn’t enough to pay a salary. No other school district in the country permits what happens in DC.

Let the parents throw their resources at aftercare or summer stuff. But the rest is unfair on its face.

Of course it is unfair, but what do you propose to do that will make the school still be acceptable to the parents?

[Anonymous]

Leave and go where? They can go to private school - but there aren’t enough seats to absorb everyone - and the suburban schools operate with the same or even less base funding and extras as DCPS. No PK4 (or PK3) except for students with special needs for starters.

In MontCo, for example, Title 1 and Focus (close to Title 1) schools get more staff. The class sizes in low-need schools are required to be larger than the ones in the high-needs parts of the county.