Funding for Shepherd's Renovation

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different issue and point in the process. Murch has been handled very poorly but in a different way.

Right, but Shepherd is not the only school facing budget cuts to its renovation process, correct?

There might be cases about which I don't know or have forgotten, but I'm not aware of another school having its budget simply cut. Murch had renovation money reprogrammed for temporary facilities which was in effect a renovation cut, but the money will still be spent for the school. In addition, Murch received budget increases. Other schools have had their renovations delayed, so funds were cut with a view to them being restored later. Here is a thread discussing that from last year:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/461045.page

Similarly, Coolidge is having the bulk of its renovation money cut, but that money is supposed to be restored later. I think what makes Shepherd unique is that it is in the midst of its renovation and there is an expectation that the renovation be completed rather than than simply stopped part way. Also, there is no indication that Shepherd's money will be restored after a delay. To the contrary, all suggestions of which I am aware are that-- other than some ADA funds -- there is no additional money on the horizon. Add on top of that the suspicion of some -- including me though my suspicions are wholly unsupported -- that there might be some politics involved and this is a fairly unusual situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different issue and point in the process. Murch has been handled very poorly but in a different way.

Right, but Shepherd is not the only school facing budget cuts to its renovation process, correct?

In the most recent markup of the Mayor's budget by the Council's Committee on Education, Shepherd is the only school that had its entire remaining renovations budget removed.

Shepherd is in a unique position, as Jeff mentioned, in that it was a phased renovation. Since phased renovations are themselves being phased out, future school renovation budgets will be awarded in a lump sum. So Shepherd is sort of stuck in the middle of this process, and instead of completing the phased renovation, the renovation is simply being abandoned.

Coolidge also had funds removed, but had much of it replaced in later years.

As for Grosso's comments about the need to prioritize renovations EOTR--not sure I buy it. In the documents I've seen, of the $12.4 million budgeted for Shepherd, only about $4.3 million went to EOTR schools. The rest went to WOTR schools, including $4.25 million for Oyster-Adams, $3 million to Francis Stevens, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different issue and point in the process. Murch has been handled very poorly but in a different way.

Right, but Shepherd is not the only school facing budget cuts to its renovation process, correct?

In the most recent markup of the Mayor's budget by the Council's Committee on Education, Shepherd is the only school that had its entire remaining renovations budget removed.

Shepherd is in a unique position, as Jeff mentioned, in that it was a phased renovation. Since phased renovations are themselves being phased out, future school renovation budgets will be awarded in a lump sum. So Shepherd is sort of stuck in the middle of this process, and instead of completing the phased renovation, the renovation is simply being abandoned.

Coolidge also had funds removed, but had much of it replaced in later years.

As for Grosso's comments about the need to prioritize renovations EOTR--not sure I buy it. In the documents I've seen, of the $12.4 million budgeted for Shepherd but reallocated by the Council to other schools, only about $4.3 million went to EOTR schools. The rest went to WOTR schools, including $4.25 million for Oyster-Adams, $3 million to Francis Stevens, etc.

Whoops, clarified in bold.

[Anonymous]

This is about Grosso maneuvering politically against Bowser, nothing more, nothing less. The kids are just collateral damage.

The Council can't be bothered to provide proper oversight to DGS, but they make this $12M their righteous stand for equity? Bullshit.

Excepting the cafeteria safety concerns this is not a tragedy (imho), it is just stupid, short-sighted behavior from the Council. Which is really par for the course, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is about Grosso maneuvering politically against Bowser, nothing more, nothing less. The kids are just collateral damage.

The Council can't be bothered to provide proper oversight to DGS, but they make this $12M their righteous stand for equity? Bullshit.

Excepting the cafeteria safety concerns this is not a tragedy (imho), it is just stupid, short-sighted behavior from the Council. Which is really par for the course, I guess.

+1. Especially the Grosso part. Brandon Todd is also collateral damage.

[Anonymous]

If this is the case, Grosso has lost my vote.

[Anonymous]

I found the City Paper article linked earlier in the thread, and the related spreadsheet analysis from the Education Committee, to be pretty useful in understanding what's happening. There's a limited budget for renovations of schools. Each school wants a big piece of the pie. There are over 100 schools. The Education Committee created a methodology to rank each school's need for renovations, using factors such as when the school received its last renovation effort, how full the school is, whether the student population is growing or shrinking, etc.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/article/20780187/dc-council-tries-to-fix-broken-school-modernization-program
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2830804-2016-Facilities-Analysis-With-Key-for-Dist.html

Shepherd ranked in the 80s on that list, along with other schools often discussed here like Ellington, Deal, Roosevelt, Hearst, and Janney, meaning there are 70+ other schools which are deemed more in need of renovations than Shepherd. The top of the priority list seems mostly claimed by schools in Wards 7 and 8, although there is a smattering from each of the Wards. For those of you who like to keep score on Wards, there's only one Ward 3 school in the top 24. Each of those top 24 schools scored 10 on the renovation scale, which means they've never had any renovation at all. By contrast, Shepherd scored a 4, which suggests it's had some renovation in the recent past.

I'm sure this is frustrating for everyone, and I'm sure there's lots of neighborhood politics at play. But it seems from looking at the spreadsheet that the Education Committee was trying to create an objective methodology that took politics and neighborhood power out of the equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found the City Paper article linked earlier in the thread, and the related spreadsheet analysis from the Education Committee, to be pretty useful in understanding what's happening. There's a limited budget for renovations of schools. Each school wants a big piece of the pie. There are over 100 schools. The Education Committee created a methodology to rank each school's need for renovations, using factors such as when the school received its last renovation effort, how full the school is, whether the student population is growing or shrinking, etc.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/article/20780187/dc-council-tries-to-fix-broken-school-modernization-program
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2830804-2016-Facilities-Analysis-With-Key-for-Dist.html

Shepherd ranked in the 80s on that list, along with other schools often discussed here like Ellington, Deal, Roosevelt, Hearst, and Janney, meaning there are 70+ other schools which are deemed more in need of renovations than Shepherd. The top of the priority list seems mostly claimed by schools in Wards 7 and 8, although there is a smattering from each of the Wards. For those of you who like to keep score on Wards, there's only one Ward 3 school in the top 24. Each of those top 24 schools scored 10 on the renovation scale, which means they've never had any renovation at all. By contrast, Shepherd scored a 4, which suggests it's had some renovation in the recent past.

I'm sure this is frustrating for everyone, and I'm sure there's lots of neighborhood politics at play. But it seems from looking at the spreadsheet that the Education Committee was trying to create an objective methodology that took politics and neighborhood power out of the equation.

You make valid points but what you're not getting is this is a new calculation being implemented after Shepherd is 90% done. If they did this before Shepherd got started with its phased project it would be much lower. You can't assess a school when it's almost done and say "well you've done enough to get your needs met now let's move to the next school." If that's the case, is every single school going to get just enough done to make them not in the top 20 and then completely stop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You make valid points but what you're not getting is this is a new calculation being implemented after Shepherd is 90% done. If they did this before Shepherd got started with its phased project it would be much lower. You can't assess a school when it's almost done and say "well you've done enough to get your needs met now let's move to the next school." If that's the case, is every single school going to get just enough done to make them not in the top 20 and then completely stop?

I do understand that Shepherd is close to being done, but what I think the Committee is saying is that just because Shepherd is in-progress doesn't mean Shepherd gets all the money it wants immediately over other schools that desperately need renovations. Looking at the chart, as I understand it, schools in orange and red have renovations in-progress. Some of those are high on the priority list and others are low on the priority list. There are many schools looking to claim a piece of the renovation budget. Shepherd is not being zeroed out; it just isn't getting as much money as it wants as fast as it wants. That way, there's money available to make progress on renovations at other schools that score higher on the priority list.

As much as people complain about the condition of Shepherd's facilities, it's rated a 4 as compared to other schools on the list (with 1 being highest). But if you take a look at the top of the priority list, you see most schools there are rated 9-10, which translates to "poor" condition.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different issue and point in the process. Murch has been handled very poorly but in a different way.

Right, but Shepherd is not the only school facing budget cuts to its renovation process, correct?

There might be cases about which I don't know or have forgotten, but I'm not aware of another school having its budget simply cut. Murch had renovation money reprogrammed for temporary facilities which was in effect a renovation cut, but the money will still be spent for the school. In addition, Murch received budget increases. Other schools have had their renovations delayed, so funds were cut with a view to them being restored later. Here is a thread discussing that from last year:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/461045.page

Similarly, Coolidge is having the bulk of its renovation money cut, but that money is supposed to be restored later. I think what makes Shepherd unique is that it is in the midst of its renovation and there is an expectation that the renovation be completed rather than than simply stopped part way. Also, there is no indication that Shepherd's money will be restored after a delay. To the contrary, all suggestions of which I am aware are that-- other than some ADA funds -- there is no additional money on the horizon. Add on top of that the suspicion of some -- including me though my suspicions are wholly unsupported -- that there might be some politics involved and this is a fairly unusual situation.

By that measure, Raymond got cut almost it's whole budget, with just a few million for design in 2022. And they're #2 on the list. Murch is #9 but is moving forward with construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make valid points but what you're not getting is this is a new calculation being implemented after Shepherd is 90% done. If they did this before Shepherd got started with its phased project it would be much lower. You can't assess a school when it's almost done and say "well you've done enough to get your needs met now let's move to the next school." If that's the case, is every single school going to get just enough done to make them not in the top 20 and then completely stop?

I do understand that Shepherd is close to being done, but what I think the Committee is saying is that just because Shepherd is in-progress doesn't mean Shepherd gets all the money it wants immediately over other schools that desperately need renovations. Looking at the chart, as I understand it, schools in orange and red have renovations in-progress. Some of those are high on the priority list and others are low on the priority list. There are many schools looking to claim a piece of the renovation budget. Shepherd is not being zeroed out; it just isn't getting as much money as it wants as fast as it wants. That way, there's money available to make progress on renovations at other schools that score higher on the priority list.

As much as people complain about the condition of Shepherd's facilities, it's rated a 4 as compared to other schools on the list (with 1 being highest). But if you take a look at the top of the priority list, you see most schools there are rated 9-10, which translates to "poor" condition.

Have you read the entire thread? Shepherd is getting zeroed out with no promise to restore. Again, this calculation is for renovations going forward. Shepherd has been doing its renovations in phases (before this calculation came out). Grosso's comments are clear that it's all political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Have you read the entire thread? Shepherd is getting zeroed out with no promise to restore. Again, this calculation is for renovations going forward. Shepherd has been doing its renovations in phases (before this calculation came out). Grosso's comments are clear that it's all political.

It's also all political coming from Bowser. They're all waving around these objective measures as if it means something, but then running with political motivations anyway. At least Bowser is pretty obvious about her politics. Grosso pretends to be fair and balanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make valid points but what you're not getting is this is a new calculation being implemented after Shepherd is 90% done. If they did this before Shepherd got started with its phased project it would be much lower. You can't assess a school when it's almost done and say "well you've done enough to get your needs met now let's move to the next school." If that's the case, is every single school going to get just enough done to make them not in the top 20 and then completely stop?

I do understand that Shepherd is close to being done, but what I think the Committee is saying is that just because Shepherd is in-progress doesn't mean Shepherd gets all the money it wants immediately over other schools that desperately need renovations. Looking at the chart, as I understand it, schools in orange and red have renovations in-progress. Some of those are high on the priority list and others are low on the priority list. There are many schools looking to claim a piece of the renovation budget. Shepherd is not being zeroed out; it just isn't getting as much money as it wants as fast as it wants. That way, there's money available to make progress on renovations at other schools that score higher on the priority list.

As much as people complain about the condition of Shepherd's facilities, it's rated a 4 as compared to other schools on the list (with 1 being highest). But if you take a look at the top of the priority list, you see most schools there are rated 9-10, which translates to "poor" condition.

? I'm confused. The majority of Shepherd's funds ($4m) was given to Oyster (3.85) and Shepherd has 3.55.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Have you read the entire thread? Shepherd is getting zeroed out with no promise to restore. Again, this calculation is for renovations going forward. Shepherd has been doing its renovations in phases (before this calculation came out). Grosso's comments are clear that it's all political.

It's also all political coming from Bowser. They're all waving around these objective measures as if it means something, but then running with political motivations anyway. At least Bowser is pretty obvious about her politics. Grosso pretends to be fair and balanced.

But why make children collateral damage? Why pit schools and neighborhoods against each other with funds that were already promised and are clearly needed (at least the ADA portion)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make valid points but what you're not getting is this is a new calculation being implemented after Shepherd is 90% done. If they did this before Shepherd got started with its phased project it would be much lower. You can't assess a school when it's almost done and say "well you've done enough to get your needs met now let's move to the next school." If that's the case, is every single school going to get just enough done to make them not in the top 20 and then completely stop?

I do understand that Shepherd is close to being done, but what I think the Committee is saying is that just because Shepherd is in-progress doesn't mean Shepherd gets all the money it wants immediately over other schools that desperately need renovations. Looking at the chart, as I understand it, schools in orange and red have renovations in-progress. Some of those are high on the priority list and others are low on the priority list. There are many schools looking to claim a piece of the renovation budget. Shepherd is not being zeroed out; it just isn't getting as much money as it wants as fast as it wants. That way, there's money available to make progress on renovations at other schools that score higher on the priority list.

As much as people complain about the condition of Shepherd's facilities, it's rated a 4 as compared to other schools on the list (with 1 being highest). But if you take a look at the top of the priority list, you see most schools there are rated 9-10, which translates to "poor" condition.

? I'm confused. The majority of Shepherd's funds ($4m) was given to Oyster (3.85) and Shepherd has 3.55.

Just to clarify, the funds aren't gong to Oyster. They are going to Oyster-Adams and will be used for the Adams campus which is the middle school (and which is in bad shape and has not seen work, from what I understand). The schools have two separate campuses, but were assessed together which skews the results.