Questions about DCPS staffing model

[Anonymous]

The staffing model is from 2018, I have not seen it for 2019, it is probably not released yet, but I have a very basis question. The link to the staffing model is below.

The positions that are in grey are indicated as flexible positions (eg the assistant principal), the others which are not in grey can I assume them to be mandatory positions? That is DCPS will fund them in each school and the principal must make sure those positions are filled? Or is the flexibility much broader than stated in practice.

Thanks.



https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/page_content/attachments/dcps_csm_es_2018.pdf

[Anonymous]

Not exactly. Positions in white are required for certain schools. An IB Coordinator is required but only at IB schools. Same for Schoolwide Enrichment. DCPS provides funding per student but that doesn't always cover minimum staffing requirements. At elementary schools a coach is required for both math and reading but schools have only been funded for one in the past (depending on school size it may be more but I've only heard of one). That position is required so it has to be found somewhere. That's why you see a lot of part time classroom teachers--they are also part time coaches. (It's terrible for both kids and coaches.)

I would think of this more as a list of possible positions rather than a checklist of what each school has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not exactly. Positions in white are required for certain schools. An IB Coordinator is required but only at IB schools. Same for Schoolwide Enrichment. DCPS provides funding per student but that doesn't always cover minimum staffing requirements. At elementary schools a coach is required for both math and reading but schools have only been funded for one in the past (depending on school size it may be more but I've only heard of one). That position is required so it has to be found somewhere. That's why you see a lot of part time classroom teachers--they are also part time coaches. (It's terrible for both kids and coaches.)

I would think of this more as a list of possible positions rather than a checklist of what each school has.

Thanks!

So what is the purposes of the funding model, if schools are not really funded to fill those positions. What is the average parent supposed tho think when they look at the staffing model? Is this somethign LSAT or parents can push back on politically or in Head Office, if their school is not being funded enough to even meet the staffing model?

[Anonymous]

The DCPS budgeting is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

A half-dozen years ago I was on the LSAT at my local DCPS elementary. Here's how the budgeting would work: We would get a "staffing model" and a per-pupil allocation. The staffing model always included a few positions the principal didn't really want or need. The per-pupil changed every year, sometimes in the middle of the year, there was no rhyme or reason to it. But no matter how you sliced it there wasn't going to be enough money for enough classroom teachers to keep average class size below the high twenties. LSAT members would receive "training materials" from DCPS telling us how small classes were over-rated, the latest "research" suggests they may even be bad for learning.

The principal would figure out how many classrooms he needed to get the average size into the low twenties. It would usually be 2-3 more teachers than the model allowed. He would submit a budget that met the per-pupil, filled all of the required position, but had those extra 2-3 teachers. To do it he would have zero spending on non-personnel. He'd put in a note saying the PTA had agreed to cover all non-personnel expenses for the year.

The principal would then hire the people he wanted, but make no effort to hire people for the positions he didn't think were necessary. By mid-year he'd be running a nice budget surplus because of all the unfilled positions, so he'd reprogram the surplus for non-personnel expenses. At the end of the year he'd use his accumulated surplus to stock up on as many supplies and materials as he could for the next year, because he was going to submit another budget with zero for non-personnel. The PTA never ended up having to cover anything (although it did help with other things.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not exactly. Positions in white are required for certain schools. An IB Coordinator is required but only at IB schools. Same for Schoolwide Enrichment. DCPS provides funding per student but that doesn't always cover minimum staffing requirements. At elementary schools a coach is required for both math and reading but schools have only been funded for one in the past (depending on school size it may be more but I've only heard of one). That position is required so it has to be found somewhere. That's why you see a lot of part time classroom teachers--they are also part time coaches. (It's terrible for both kids and coaches.)

I would think of this more as a list of possible positions rather than a checklist of what each school has.

Thanks!

So what is the purposes of the funding model, if schools are not really funded to fill those positions. What is the average parent supposed tho think when they look at the staffing model? Is this somethign LSAT or parents can push back on politically or in Head Office, if their school is not being funded enough to even meet the staffing model?

I guess it's more of a list of possible positions. Your most likely scenario is that your principal gets an amount of money slightly more than last year and the mayor brags about every school getting increases in funding. But the cost "per teacher" will go up so you effectively have cuts. The cost per teacher is not the actual salary of a teacher at your school but the average of all compensation, benefits, and costs for hiring one teacher. In addition, you may have a low projected enrollment which impacts the overall amount of money received--it's based on number of students, not number of required staff. Principals can petition to have that number increased but would have had to do so already.

So you get your allocation of money and the principal almost literally goes shopping. The system is set up like online ordering--arrow up to add number of teachers you want, arrow down to reduce the number. As you add/subtract positions it adjusts the amount of funds remaining. The principal can go to each department and petition for why your school needs more funding and hope for the best. It's a two week-ish turn around so a lot of decisions aren't made with much thought. By the time the LSAT meets with the principal, he or she likely already knows what can and can't be done and is just asking for input as a formality. There may be decisions like do we want an extra classroom teacher or two part time positions. There really isn't much flexibility in some schools as you're basically just getting what's required at a minimum. The LSAT only signs off that it was presented, they don't approve or even have to agree with the budget.

My advice is to push back on the "everyone got an increase" claim. We know personnel costs will increase because of the new teacher contract. That will likely eat up any increases but they won't publicize that. Lobby for more accurate enrollment numbers. There's honestly not much that can be done this late. For the long term, a maintenance of effort like Maryland has might be something to consider, though we may already have something like that in place. Also, remembering that when a position is cut, everyone else picks up that position's slack. The work didn't go away, someone else is doing it and it's stretching everyone thin. In my experience it's one of the big reasons for high teacher turn over. Each year I get more added to my duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DCPS budgeting is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

A half-dozen years ago I was on the LSAT at my local DCPS elementary. Here's how the budgeting would work: We would get a "staffing model" and a per-pupil allocation. The staffing model always included a few positions the principal didn't really want or need. The per-pupil changed every year, sometimes in the middle of the year, there was no rhyme or reason to it. But no matter how you sliced it there wasn't going to be enough money for enough classroom teachers to keep average class size below the high twenties. LSAT members would receive "training materials" from DCPS telling us how small classes were over-rated, the latest "research" suggests they may even be bad for learning.

The principal would figure out how many classrooms he needed to get the average size into the low twenties. It would usually be 2-3 more teachers than the model allowed. He would submit a budget that met the per-pupil, filled all of the required position, but had those extra 2-3 teachers. To do it he would have zero spending on non-personnel. He'd put in a note saying the PTA had agreed to cover all non-personnel expenses for the year.

The principal would then hire the people he wanted, but make no effort to hire people for the positions he didn't think were necessary. By mid-year he'd be running a nice budget surplus because of all the unfilled positions, so he'd reprogram the surplus for non-personnel expenses. At the end of the year he'd use his accumulated surplus to stock up on as many supplies and materials as he could for the next year, because he was going to submit another budget with zero for non-personnel. The PTA never ended up having to cover anything (although it did help with other things.)

I think they've changed things so this doesn't happen. PTAs can still cover nonpersonnel expenses (talk about lack of equity...) but I don't think a principal can under staff and reallocate the money. We've had positions we tried to fill and couldn't and were just out the money. But I agree--a lot of creativity by the principal goes a long way.

[Anonymous]

What about reading and math specialists? They are not listed here. Is that if your school is lucky you might get one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about reading and math specialists? They are not listed here. Is that if your school is lucky you might get one?

Each school should have a separate math and reading coach. But only one is funded. Interventionists that work with students is a teacher position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DCPS budgeting is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

A half-dozen years ago I was on the LSAT at my local DCPS elementary. Here's how the budgeting would work: We would get a "staffing model" and a per-pupil allocation. The staffing model always included a few positions the principal didn't really want or need. The per-pupil changed every year, sometimes in the middle of the year, there was no rhyme or reason to it. But no matter how you sliced it there wasn't going to be enough money for enough classroom teachers to keep average class size below the high twenties. LSAT members would receive "training materials" from DCPS telling us how small classes were over-rated, the latest "research" suggests they may even be bad for learning.

The principal would figure out how many classrooms he needed to get the average size into the low twenties. It would usually be 2-3 more teachers than the model allowed. He would submit a budget that met the per-pupil, filled all of the required position, but had those extra 2-3 teachers. To do it he would have zero spending on non-personnel. He'd put in a note saying the PTA had agreed to cover all non-personnel expenses for the year.

The principal would then hire the people he wanted, but make no effort to hire people for the positions he didn't think were necessary. By mid-year he'd be running a nice budget surplus because of all the unfilled positions, so he'd reprogram the surplus for non-personnel expenses. At the end of the year he'd use his accumulated surplus to stock up on as many supplies and materials as he could for the next year, because he was going to submit another budget with zero for non-personnel. The PTA never ended up having to cover anything (although it did help with other things.)

This is very interesting. Thanks for the background.

Now the part about "small classes are bad" is just frightening....

[Anonymous]

Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?

I'm 22:49 again.

When I was on the LSAT, we got charged a standard amount for each position based on average cost, the actual salary was not a consideration nor was it revealed to us. There may be incentives baked in elsewhere but not in the budget model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?

I'm 22:49 again.

When I was on the LSAT, we got charged a standard amount for each position based on average cost, the actual salary was not a consideration nor was it revealed to us. There may be incentives baked in elsewhere but not in the budget model.

Hm.

That's actually great to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?

We pay the same for a first year as a 25-year which is great! You can look up all DC government employee salaries online--they post a very large PDF twice a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?

We pay the same for a first year as a 25-year which is great! You can look up all DC government employee salaries online--they post a very large PDF twice a year.

Stated another way, the individual school budget does not reflect the actual salaries of the teachers in the building -- every teaching position is listed in the budget as if they all earned the same average salary. But the teachers actual salaries vary widely based on the compensation model. This spreads the cost of experienced teachers across the system and eliminates a budget incentive to push out older teachers at the school level and makes it easier for smaller schools (with smaller) budgets to keep experienced teachers without hurting the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about reading and math specialists? They are not listed here. Is that if your school is lucky you might get one?

Each school should have a separate math and reading coach. But only one is funded. Interventionists that work with students is a teacher position.

This perplexes me, these are the coach position, some of which are 100% for teacher training, and others can be 50% teaching. Teacher professional development coming out of the school budget. So if the unfunded position is not, well funded, how mandated is it really. When faced with making choices between a class room teacher and a coach, are such decision left up to the principal?

Thanks