Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What about reading and math specialists? They are not listed here. Is that if your school is lucky you might get one?
Each school should have a separate math and reading coach. But only one is funded. Interventionists that work with students is a teacher position.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?
We pay the same for a first year as a 25-year which is great! You can look up all DC government employee salaries online--they post a very large PDF twice a year.
Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?
I'm 22:49 again.
When I was on the LSAT, we got charged a standard amount for each position based on average cost, the actual salary was not a consideration nor was it revealed to us. There may be incentives baked in elsewhere but not in the budget model.
Anonymous wrote:Question- do schools "pay" more for more experienced (higher salaried) teachers? Is there an incentive to hire only new, cheap teachers? Or is a teacher the same as another teacher on the system?
Anonymous wrote:The DCPS budgeting is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
A half-dozen years ago I was on the LSAT at my local DCPS elementary. Here's how the budgeting would work: We would get a "staffing model" and a per-pupil allocation. The staffing model always included a few positions the principal didn't really want or need. The per-pupil changed every year, sometimes in the middle of the year, there was no rhyme or reason to it. But no matter how you sliced it there wasn't going to be enough money for enough classroom teachers to keep average class size below the high twenties. LSAT members would receive "training materials" from DCPS telling us how small classes were over-rated, the latest "research" suggests they may even be bad for learning.
The principal would figure out how many classrooms he needed to get the average size into the low twenties. It would usually be 2-3 more teachers than the model allowed. He would submit a budget that met the per-pupil, filled all of the required position, but had those extra 2-3 teachers. To do it he would have zero spending on non-personnel. He'd put in a note saying the PTA had agreed to cover all non-personnel expenses for the year.
The principal would then hire the people he wanted, but make no effort to hire people for the positions he didn't think were necessary. By mid-year he'd be running a nice budget surplus because of all the unfilled positions, so he'd reprogram the surplus for non-personnel expenses. At the end of the year he'd use his accumulated surplus to stock up on as many supplies and materials as he could for the next year, because he was going to submit another budget with zero for non-personnel. The PTA never ended up having to cover anything (although it did help with other things.)
Anonymous wrote:What about reading and math specialists? They are not listed here. Is that if your school is lucky you might get one?
Anonymous wrote:The DCPS budgeting is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
A half-dozen years ago I was on the LSAT at my local DCPS elementary. Here's how the budgeting would work: We would get a "staffing model" and a per-pupil allocation. The staffing model always included a few positions the principal didn't really want or need. The per-pupil changed every year, sometimes in the middle of the year, there was no rhyme or reason to it. But no matter how you sliced it there wasn't going to be enough money for enough classroom teachers to keep average class size below the high twenties. LSAT members would receive "training materials" from DCPS telling us how small classes were over-rated, the latest "research" suggests they may even be bad for learning.
The principal would figure out how many classrooms he needed to get the average size into the low twenties. It would usually be 2-3 more teachers than the model allowed. He would submit a budget that met the per-pupil, filled all of the required position, but had those extra 2-3 teachers. To do it he would have zero spending on non-personnel. He'd put in a note saying the PTA had agreed to cover all non-personnel expenses for the year.
The principal would then hire the people he wanted, but make no effort to hire people for the positions he didn't think were necessary. By mid-year he'd be running a nice budget surplus because of all the unfilled positions, so he'd reprogram the surplus for non-personnel expenses. At the end of the year he'd use his accumulated surplus to stock up on as many supplies and materials as he could for the next year, because he was going to submit another budget with zero for non-personnel. The PTA never ended up having to cover anything (although it did help with other things.)
I think they've changed things so this doesn't happen. PTAs can still cover nonpersonnel expenses (talk about lack of equity...) but I don't think a principal can under staff and reallocate the money. We've had positions we tried to fill and couldn't and were just out the money. But I agree--a lot of creativity by the principal goes a long way.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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?
Anonymous wrote: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.