Reply to Funding for Shepherd's Renovation

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Funding for Shepherd's Renovation"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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 [b]it's all political[/b].[/quote]

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. [b] Grosso pretends to be fair and balanced[/b].[/quote]

Agreed.  In theory, I like the idea of a truly objective tool to determine need for renovations across the city.  But, how do we know this is a valid tool?  How was the tool was developed, and by whom exactly?  Was it vetted prior to being implemented?  What are the "4,200 data points" that went into the tool?  Without transparency, it seems like more smoke and mirrors.

Further, I understand that exceptions were made for some schools that the Committee felt had "overriding factors"--to me this suggest either that a) the tool itself isn't as comprehensive as it could be, or b) the variables that went into the formula are softer/more subjective than what has been suggested by the Committee.

Also, some inaccuracies have been noted in Shepherd's rankings--for example, they rank enrollment as flat or negative over the past 5 years--that can't be accurate.  Enrollment has grown from about 330 to 350 in the past two years since my child has been enrolled.  Also, a PK3 class was added two years ago, and two more classes will be added next year due to demand (PK3 and 1st grade).  Demand is growing, as suggested by waitlists.  If they didn't take into account future growth projections, then the tool itself is flawed.

The variables that went into the tool are on the last page here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2830804-2016-Facilities-Analysis-With-Key-for-Dist.html[/quote]

This is pretty humorous. Shepherd gets dinged in this analysis for three main reasons:

1) Recent renovation (25%) - Duh, the renovation is ongoing
2) Child population growth (5%) - incorrect data used here
3) Feeder modernization (5%) - Too many other Wilson feeders have already been renovated.

Changing the rules in the 8th inning of the game is obviously the biggest factor here.[/quote]

Isn't it a huge improvement that we cant attack the data instead of each other?[/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