DCPS is misusing at-risk funds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

In the long run, the suburbs and private schools can add capacity. Just like back when DCPS enrollment was at its historic low. Giving up free mediocre preschool in exchange for a good K-12 is well worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In the long run, the suburbs and private schools can add capacity. Just like back when DCPS enrollment was at its historic low. Giving up free mediocre preschool in exchange for a good K-12 is well worth it.

They aren’t shifting resources due to school capacity. It is a purposeful, deliberate, long-term strategy to address the achievement gap, presumably so it doesn’t expand to be as wide as DC’s is.

[Anonymous]

This whole argument is silly. "spreading" PTA funds just means eliminating them. Who does that help, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is silly. "spreading" PTA funds just means eliminating them. Who does that help, exactly?

If it motivates wealthy parents to demand adequate resources for the whole system, everyone would be helped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is silly. "spreading" PTA funds just means eliminating them. Who does that help, exactly?

If it motivates wealthy parents to demand adequate resources for the whole system, everyone would be helped.

Sure. Then more funding would roll from the East side of the park to the West.

PS- in case didn't know this, rich white voters in DC do not have the clout one might expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In the long run, the suburbs and private schools can add capacity. Just like back when DCPS enrollment was at its historic low. Giving up free mediocre preschool in exchange for a good K-12 is well worth it.

They aren’t shifting resources due to school capacity. It is a purposeful, deliberate, long-term strategy to address the achievement gap, presumably so it doesn’t expand to be as wide as DC’s is.

This is also true in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In the long run, the suburbs and private schools can add capacity. Just like back when DCPS enrollment was at its historic low. Giving up free mediocre preschool in exchange for a good K-12 is well worth it.

They aren’t shifting resources due to school capacity. It is a purposeful, deliberate, long-term strategy to address the achievement gap, presumably so it doesn’t expand to be as wide as DC’s is.

This is also true in DC.

It is supposed to be — as the article says it isn’t actually happening because of how the budget and/or the budget process is structured.

[Anonymous]

I think the bigger issue with how the budget is structured is how the smaller schools get harmed. Truth be told, DC needs to consolidate its small schools even further to make the funding more efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the bigger issue with how the budget is structured is how the smaller schools get harmed. Truth be told, DC needs to consolidate its small schools even further to make the funding more efficient.

Or create a small school plus-up or something to address this.

DCPS doesn’t want to close or consolidate schools because it would then have to offer the buildings for lease to charter schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is silly. "spreading" PTA funds just means eliminating them. Who does that help, exactly?

If it motivates wealthy parents to demand adequate resources for the whole system, everyone would be helped.

It motivates people to move, even to completely different cities. This idea that affluent people and their money are captive is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bigger issue with how the budget is structured is how the smaller schools get harmed. Truth be told, DC needs to consolidate its small schools even further to make the funding more efficient.

Or create a small school plus-up or something to address this.

DCPS doesn’t want to close or consolidate schools because it would then have to offer the buildings for lease to charter schools.

There used to be a small school plus up, not sure if there still is.

The boundary overhaul was supposed to steer more kids to underenrolled schools, so I wouldn't expect closures anytime soon.

[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.

Actually, what DCPS is doing is the opposite of student-based budgeting -- it's giving every school set staffing, whether its enrollment merits it or not. Those of who follow schools' budgets closely saw that Perry Stein omitted a LOT of context here. Even the title is galling -- is giving poor kids ART TEACHERS a MISUSE?!

[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.

What funder wants to cover core shortfalls? Do you know anything about philanthropy?!

[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.

Yes. It is unpopular, but DCPS needs to close schools with enrollment too low to make them viable. Deal is cheaper per student and has tons of offerings, in large part because it has way more kids. You can hire more specials teachers and run more clubs because more kids = more money. Whereas Eliot-Hine or Kramer should be closed because it's really expensive to offer all the basic subjects when they aren't many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the bigger issue with how the budget is structured is how the smaller schools get harmed. Truth be told, DC needs to consolidate its small schools even further to make the funding more efficient.

Yes. Do you want to tell Bowser to do that in an election year?