Reply to Questions about DCPS staffing model

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Questions about DCPS staffing model"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics