DCPS is misusing at-risk funds

[Anonymous]

Post article went up yesterday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4

Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school

DCPS continues to be a hot mess

[Anonymous]

You know, the framing of this makes all the difference. It's hard to have good management when there's chronic underfunding.

[Anonymous]

The key to this issue can be found in the following quote from the article:

Grosso said schools with small and falling enrollment — which tend to be in low-income neighborhoods — have higher overhead costs and their budgets do not stretch as far. Those are the schools where at-risk funds are mostly likely to cover basic staffing.

The District's use of student-based budgeting most likely to blame for this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The key to this issue can be found in the following quote from the article:

Grosso said schools with small and falling enrollment — which tend to be in low-income neighborhoods — have higher overhead costs and their budgets do not stretch as far. Those are the schools where at-risk funds are mostly likely to cover basic staffing.

The District's use of student-based budgeting most likely to blame for this situation.

This. I'm at a small school and it's so hard to make it work out. There is, or used to be, a small school premium that was like a little bump-up, but it wasn't much. Schools would love to spend at-risk funds properly, but then how does the other necessary stuff get paid for?

I really think the at-risk category should be divided into two or three tiers. Some kids are more at-risky than others, and more expensive. Schools that have a high concentration of more expensive kids have a tough time. If we had two tiers with a significant bump-up, that would more realistically reflect actual costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key to this issue can be found in the following quote from the article:

Grosso said schools with small and falling enrollment — which tend to be in low-income neighborhoods — have higher overhead costs and their budgets do not stretch as far. Those are the schools where at-risk funds are mostly likely to cover basic staffing.

The District's use of student-based budgeting most likely to blame for this situation.

This. I'm at a small school and it's so hard to make it work out. There is, or used to be, a small school premium that was like a little bump-up, but it wasn't much. Schools would love to spend at-risk funds properly, but then how does the other necessary stuff get paid for?

I really think the at-risk category should be divided into two or three tiers. Some kids are more at-risky than others, and more expensive. Schools that have a high concentration of more expensive kids have a tough time. If we had two tiers with a significant bump-up, that would more realistically reflect actual costs.

I’m not sure more complex accounting will get at the core problem.

Should some teachers cover two under-enrolled campuses? Why can’t the money that DCPS raises through its foundation be used to cover shortfalls in core funding - rather than bicycling, study abroad etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key to this issue can be found in the following quote from the article:

Grosso said schools with small and falling enrollment — which tend to be in low-income neighborhoods — have higher overhead costs and their budgets do not stretch as far. Those are the schools where at-risk funds are mostly likely to cover basic staffing.

The District's use of student-based budgeting most likely to blame for this situation.

This. I'm at a small school and it's so hard to make it work out. There is, or used to be, a small school premium that was like a little bump-up, but it wasn't much. Schools would love to spend at-risk funds properly, but then how does the other necessary stuff get paid for?

I really think the at-risk category should be divided into two or three tiers. Some kids are more at-risky than others, and more expensive. Schools that have a high concentration of more expensive kids have a tough time. If we had two tiers with a significant bump-up, that would more realistically reflect actual costs.

I’m not sure more complex accounting will get at the core problem.

Should some teachers cover two under-enrolled campuses? Why can’t the money that DCPS raises through its foundation be used to cover shortfalls in core funding - rather than bicycling, study abroad etc.

The core of the problem is there almost zero transparency across DCPS and the council, especially Grosso, is not smart or aggressive enough to investigate and hold DCPS accountable for what actually goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key to this issue can be found in the following quote from the article:

Grosso said schools with small and falling enrollment — which tend to be in low-income neighborhoods — have higher overhead costs and their budgets do not stretch as far. Those are the schools where at-risk funds are mostly likely to cover basic staffing.

The District's use of student-based budgeting most likely to blame for this situation.

This. I'm at a small school and it's so hard to make it work out. There is, or used to be, a small school premium that was like a little bump-up, but it wasn't much. Schools would love to spend at-risk funds properly, but then how does the other necessary stuff get paid for?

I really think the at-risk category should be divided into two or three tiers. Some kids are more at-risky than others, and more expensive. Schools that have a high concentration of more expensive kids have a tough time. If we had two tiers with a significant bump-up, that would more realistically reflect actual costs.

I’m not sure more complex accounting will get at the core problem.

Should some teachers cover two under-enrolled campuses? Why can’t the money that DCPS raises through its foundation be used to cover shortfalls in core funding - rather than bicycling, study abroad etc.

Some teachers, such as specials teachers, can work across two schools. This happens all the time. But the challenge small schools face is that they may have, say, 34 Kindergarteners when they should have 40. So they have two classes of 17, and those 17 kids still need a full-time teacher. You can't just cut 15% off the school day.

[Anonymous]

Do some schools need to be joined together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do some schools need to be joined together?

That does happen sometimes, but it's hard to do. You have to have a building big enough for the combined population. And people tend to oppose it if it means the school will be farther from home.

Whenever you see a school with a hyphenated name, remember that's probably the result of a merger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do some schools need to be joined together?

That does happen sometimes, but it's hard to do. You have to have a building big enough for the combined population. And people tend to oppose it if it means the school will be farther from home.

Whenever you see a school with a hyphenated name, remember that's probably the result of a merger.

Shaed and Emery were merged in 2011 or around that time to form Langley. That's the only recent merger I can recall, but there are probably more. One of the reasons for the boundary overhaul was to better match students to building capacity.

They are reluctant to close schools if enrollment is slowly increasing, or if the toddler population in the area is increasing. Riding out a low point may be the right call in the long term, but it's expensive.

[Anonymous]

I love how Grasso muses about suing schools to make them spend the at-risk funds correctly, as if the schools are spendibg the money on manicures.

What does he suggest that schools do when the budget doesn’t meet requirements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how Grasso muses about suing schools to make them spend the at-risk funds correctly, as if the schools are spendibg the money on manicures.

What does he suggest that schools do when the budget doesn’t meet requirements?

From what I've watched of these hearings, he begs DCPS to tell them what the true amount of funds needed for student support, but DCPS isn't forthcoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Post article went up yesterday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4

Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school

DCPS continues to be a hot mess

This whole process is unfair anyway, schools like Deal, JKLM can raise thousands through their PTA to hire teachers for these positions. I used to work at Murch providing support to students who needed reading remediation. Then at the end of the year we compare schools as if the metrics are all the same, which downtown knows they are not. Of course we then blame teachers at mainly EOTP for being ineffective teachers, fire all the teachers, the principal, or some other form of reconstitution and wonder why we don't make progress. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of funds coming in to some of the WOTP schools for not just ed. positions but materials. One year a parent contact at a tech company donated new computers and printers. There is no equity anywhere because DCPS doesn't acknowledge the truth and uses bogus data to measure progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post article went up yesterday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4

Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school

DCPS continues to be a hot mess

This whole process is unfair anyway, schools like Deal, JKLM can raise thousands through their PTA to hire teachers for these positions. I used to work at Murch providing support to students who needed reading remediation. Then at the end of the year we compare schools as if the metrics are all the same, which downtown knows they are not. Of course we then blame teachers at mainly EOTP for being ineffective teachers, fire all the teachers, the principal, or some other form of reconstitution and wonder why we don't make progress. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of funds coming in to some of the WOTP schools for not just ed. positions but materials. One year a parent contact at a tech company donated new computers and printers. There is no equity anywhere because DCPS doesn't acknowledge the truth and uses bogus data to measure progress.

This. Most at-risk or low-income kids cost more to educate-- more than the at-risk premium currently provides for-- but also, mostly don't have the kind of parents who can donate or raise any money. So there should be a plus-up to account for that as well.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how using at-risk funding to pay for staff is misuse of funds.