Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an excellent idea -- especially for start-up schools or schools in neighborhoods with transitioning student needs.

DC gov sees no issue with putting forth capital investment for buildings, assuming that's the primary motive for families to enroll, but they should be investing in human capital to build up better programs. DCPS can easiliy compete with the charter sector on facilities, but they've been unable or unwilling to raise the bar inside classrooms beyond ES and the charter sector has shrewdly filled the void.

That's part of the problem. Some still view DCPS as a jobs program for the otherwise unemployable, particularly in the central office.

With that attitude its nearly impossible to retain talented staff.

Anonymous wrote:It's an excellent idea -- especially for start-up schools or schools in neighborhoods with transitioning student needs.

DC gov sees no issue with putting forth capital investment for buildings, assuming that's the primary motive for families to enroll, but they should be investing in human capital to build up better programs. DCPS can easiliy compete with the charter sector on facilities, but they've been unable or unwilling to raise the bar inside classrooms beyond ES and the charter sector has shrewdly filled the void.

It's an excellent idea -- especially for start-up schools or schools in neighborhoods with transitioning student needs.

Anonymous wrote:Wow I really like your idea Jeff, and I've tried to think my way out of this conundrum for years. Have you gotten any traction on this idea with any of the people who run DCPS curriculum and instruction?

While I am adamant that I came up with that idea myself, it has since become apparent to me that many others also thought of it. So, I can't claim any exclusivity. I think there is sympathy for the idea, but I don't know if the resources are there. Relative to Roosevelt, Abigail Smith said they had thought about hitting up private funders, foundations, and so on for start-up money. So, they are thinking about it.

Wow I really like your idea Jeff, and I've tried to think my way out of this conundrum for years. Have you gotten any traction on this idea with any of the people who run DCPS curriculum and instruction?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Funding attractive programs is a necessary first step and in the case of smaller schools that you want to grow, can't be done with per-pupil funding. This is absolutely required to not only provide Deal for all, but also Wilson for all.

For those of us newer to this conversation, what do you mean by "attractive programs", and what kind of funding would be required for them? Also, when you say it "can't be done with per-pupil funding", do you mean per-pupil isn't enough so there needs to be more funding, or do you mean the per-pupil calculation should be changed itself?

And while I'm asking newbie questions, what is up with the funding staying with whatever school the student was at on count day? Who does that serve (other than schools that kick out a ton of studnets right after count day and before DC CAS)? Why has that been allowed to go on for so long, instead of having the funding follow the student and given out maybe in advisory allotments, or if nothing else, beginning of year and mid year allotments according to where the child is in school at that time? That would be one of the few changes that would be more fair across the board to everyone. Why doesn't it work that way in DC?

By "attractive programs" I mean academic and extra-curricular activities that make the school a better choice than others. For instance, in middle school, offering more than grade level. Multiple foreign languages, specialized classes such as computer programming, advance art and music. A small school is simply not going to have enough students to fill classrooms for all of these things. So, they will always have to make difficult choices about what to offer. However, a school that is currently small, but hopes to grow, faces a chicken and egg problem. The per-pupil funding mechanism doesn't provide enough money to fund the programs that will attract more students. Without those programs, the school won't grow.

I think that at schools that are identified as schools that should grow: for example Roosevelt High School after renovation which will be less than half capacity, DCPS should fund programs rather than students. For instance, decide which levels of math, science, etc., which languages, which extra-curriculars and so on, will be offered. Then, provide funding for those. In the first couple of years, there might be classes with only a couple of students. But, other families will be willing to attend the school knowing that those programs are there. Moreover, that initial small class size could in fact be an incentive itself. Imagine having the choice between Option A that has an established calculus program or Option B that is offering calculus for the first time, but the class is taught by an experienced teacher and only has 3 students. By the time time the class reaches full-enrollment, it will be just as established as the other one.

As for funding not following the student, I think David Catania has legislation to address that issue.

jsteele wrote:Funding attractive programs is a necessary first step and in the case of smaller schools that you want to grow, can't be done with per-pupil funding. This is absolutely required to not only provide Deal for all, but also Wilson for all.

For those of us newer to this conversation, what do you mean by "attractive programs", and what kind of funding would be required for them? Also, when you say it "can't be done with per-pupil funding", do you mean per-pupil isn't enough so there needs to be more funding, or do you mean the per-pupil calculation should be changed itself?

And while I'm asking newbie questions, what is up with the funding staying with whatever school the student was at on count day? Who does that serve (other than schools that kick out a ton of studnets right after count day and before DC CAS)? Why has that been allowed to go on for so long, instead of having the funding follow the student and given out maybe in advisory allotments, or if nothing else, beginning of year and mid year allotments according to where the child is in school at that time? That would be one of the few changes that would be more fair across the board to everyone. Why doesn't it work that way in DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, we'd all like good middle schools in our neighborhood. That's a no-brainer.

Now how in the world does she propose to do that? Renovating - or even, say, building a $50+ million (Brookland Middle School) - middle school doesn't simply give it the numbers, academic program, extracurriculars, and, mostly, leadership that rivals Deal.

Oh - and the high SES and proficient students that enter it on day 1. That's the kicker, I think. How is she going to create that in all 7 of the other wards? Wave a magic wand - say her magic platitudes?

baby steps -- at a minimum how about Algebra available for 7th grade and up?

Yes, and for this you'd need to get rid of most of the ECs.

Anonymous wrote:Sure, we'd all like good middle schools in our neighborhood. That's a no-brainer.

Now how in the world does she propose to do that? Renovating - or even, say, building a $50+ million (Brookland Middle School) - middle school doesn't simply give it the numbers, academic program, extracurriculars, and, mostly, leadership that rivals Deal.

Oh - and the high SES and proficient students that enter it on day 1. That's the kicker, I think. How is she going to create that in all 7 of the other wards? Wave a magic wand - say her magic platitudes?

baby steps -- at a minimum how about Algebra available for 7th grade and up?

Jeff you are absolutely correct. It's how DCPS kept a few smaller schools programming strong and growing but that was all before charters. Now we can't ever go back to that thanks to the PPF created by Mary Levy, who now admits it was a mistake. But really, there was nothing else that could be done once we had charters.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that a system based solely on enrollments cannot provide the enrichment and options available at Alice Deal for other schools. Will a Mayor Bowser or Mayor Catania break that link?

And how do you propose per student parity for the 44% of students now enrolled in charters?

Funding attractive programs is a necessary first step and in the case of smaller schools that you want to grow, can't be done with per-pupil funding. This is absolutely required to not only provide Deal for all, but also Wilson for all.

Sure, we'd all like good middle schools in our neighborhood. That's a no-brainer.

Now how in the world does she propose to do that? Renovating - or even, say, building a $50+ million (Brookland Middle School) - middle school doesn't simply give it the numbers, academic program, extracurriculars, and, mostly, leadership that rivals Deal.

Oh - and the high SES and proficient students that enter it on day 1. That's the kicker, I think. How is she going to create that in all 7 of the other wards? Wave a magic wand - say her magic platitudes?

I don't think Alice Deal for all is possible under any scenario. Bowser has no idea what she's talking about. But I do think a good start in improving schools is changing the funding formula.

I think it's clear that a system based solely on enrollments cannot provide the enrichment and options available at Alice Deal for other schools. Will a Mayor Bowser or Mayor Catania break that link?