Wilson funding petition v. At Risk funding petition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Wilson is losing a ton of funding according to the random new formulas, BUT there's a general safety measure that kicks in: no school can lose more than 5% of previous year's budget in ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. So, it doesn't matter how many kids Wilson ends up having next year. If I understand the rule correctly, Wilson could lose 99% of the students next year and still maintain essentially the same overall budget...welcome to absurdistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Wilson is losing a ton of funding according to the random new formulas, BUT there's a general safety measure that kicks in: no school can lose more than 5% of previous year's budget in ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. So, it doesn't matter how many kids Wilson ends up having next year. If I understand the rule correctly, Wilson could lose 99% of the students next year and still maintain essentially the same overall budget...welcome to absurdistan.

...and this is why I thought the new system creates a perverse incentive for Wilson to find ways to get rid of 200 students if not more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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").

This has always been the policy throughout DCPS and is very clearly laid out in the boundary reforms as well as a policy that is not changing. I don't think it's Wilson's responsibility to inform them of it when it's not a change. And I say this as someone who has a child who will be OOB to Wilson (through feeder rights).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Because the way the budget works, the budget for 2015-2016 is based on the number of children confirmed enrolled on count day in October 2014. That number won't change. If the number of students decreases in 2015-2016, then that will affect the 2016-2017 budget allocation, as it will be based on the number of students enrolled on count day in October 2015.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Because the way the budget works, the budget for 2015-2016 is based on the number of children confirmed enrolled on count day in October 2014. That number won't change. If the number of students decreases in 2015-2016, then that will affect the 2016-2017 budget allocation, as it will be based on the number of students enrolled on count day in October 2015.

True, unless the 5% loss limit applies then too (i have no idea if it does)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Because the way the budget works, the budget for 2015-2016 is based on the number of children confirmed enrolled on count day in October 2014. That number won't change. If the number of students decreases in 2015-2016, then that will affect the 2016-2017 budget allocation, as it will be based on the number of students enrolled on count day in October 2015.

Huh? I'm not understanding you. On count day in October 2014, Wilson's enrollment was documented as 1788 (when the projection was 1708--80 fewer students). The projected enrollment for 15-16 is 1878 (90 more students than currently enrolled and 170 more than last year's projection). PP, are you saying that the 15-16 budget is based upon enrollment of 1788 students (count day enrollment), not 1878 students (projected enrollment)? If so, where is this documented?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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").

This has always been the policy throughout DCPS and is very clearly laid out in the boundary reforms as well as a policy that is not changing. I don't think it's Wilson's responsibility to inform them of it when it's not a change. And I say this as someone who has a child who will be OOB to Wilson (through feeder rights).

Interestingly, the WWS manual actually says the threshold is 15, not 10 (10 being in the DCPS manual): "Attendance requirement for out-of-boundary scholars: All out-of-boundary scholars must have fewer than 15 unexcused absences to
continue their enrollment at Wilson." See page 22 here: http://www.wilsonhs.org/ourpages/auto/2011/4/15/47453834/Woodrow_Wilson_Final_Proof.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Because the way the budget works, the budget for 2015-2016 is based on the number of children confirmed enrolled on count day in October 2014. That number won't change. If the number of students decreases in 2015-2016, then that will affect the 2016-2017 budget allocation, as it will be based on the number of students enrolled on count day in October 2015.

Huh? I'm not understanding you. On count day in October 2014, Wilson's enrollment was documented as 1788 (when the projection was 1708--80 fewer students). The projected enrollment for 15-16 is 1878 (90 more students than currently enrolled and 170 more than last year's projection). PP, are you saying that the 15-16 budget is based upon enrollment of 1788 students (count day enrollment), not 1878 students (projected enrollment)? If so, where is this documented?

That is what our DCPS ES principal told us. It is actual enrollment of count day in year X that the budget in year X+1 is based on. Perhaps it is different for high schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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").

This has always been the policy throughout DCPS and is very clearly laid out in the boundary reforms as well as a policy that is not changing. I don't think it's Wilson's responsibility to inform them of it when it's not a change. And I say this as someone who has a child who will be OOB to Wilson (through feeder rights).

Interestingly, the WWS manual actually says the threshold is 15, not 10 (10 being in the DCPS manual): "Attendance requirement for out-of-boundary scholars: All out-of-boundary scholars must have fewer than 15 unexcused absences to
continue their enrollment at Wilson." See page 22 here: http://www.wilsonhs.org/ourpages/auto/2011/4/15/47453834/Woodrow_Wilson_Final_Proof.pdf

Oops, that should read the WWHS manual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Wilson is losing a ton of funding according to the random new formulas, BUT there's a general safety measure that kicks in: no school can lose more than 5% of previous year's budget in ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. So, it doesn't matter how many kids Wilson ends up having next year. If I understand the rule correctly, Wilson could lose 99% of the students next year and still maintain essentially the same overall budget...welcome to absurdistan.

Is "absurdistan" meant to be a slur?

[Anonymous]

I'm convinced more than ever that no one in central office knows wtf they're doing. Just reading this thread and the information out there doesn't make any sense. There is nothing explaining how at risk funds will go to the at risk students at Wilson when there's not enough money for the basics. It's a simple question that the chancellor need to answer. She should be charged with making the budget work since the letter from DCPS claims there are benefits to Wilson with this new budget. I'm positive they make the budget without thinking about actual consequences- like less security for more kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.).

Wilson is losing a ton of funding according to the random new formulas, BUT there's a general safety measure that kicks in: no school can lose more than 5% of previous year's budget in ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. So, it doesn't matter how many kids Wilson ends up having next year. If I understand the rule correctly, Wilson could lose 99% of the students next year and still maintain essentially the same overall budget...welcome to absurdistan.

Is "absurdistan" meant to be a slur?

absurdistan = a place where absurd things happen. If that's a slur to you...means you're a happy inhabitant of said place.

[Anonymous]

I am struggling between compassion for the kids that will be kicked out because of the new enforcement of existing standards and being appalled at 10 unexcused absences. That is two weeks of school and does not include sick days which are excused. Who allows their kid to miss this much school? I would assume kids coming from OOB are from families that care about education, regardless of SES.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to know if there's going to be across-the-board new leadership at Wilson next year.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have the skinny on that?