Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Post article went up yesterday
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4
Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school
DCPS continues to be a hot mess
This whole process is unfair anyway, schools like Deal, JKLM can raise thousands through their PTA to hire teachers for these positions. I used to work at Murch providing support to students who needed reading remediation. Then at the end of the year we compare schools as if the metrics are all the same, which downtown knows they are not. Of course we then blame teachers at mainly EOTP for being ineffective teachers, fire all the teachers, the principal, or some other form of reconstitution and wonder why we don't make progress. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of funds coming in to some of the WOTP schools for not just ed. positions but materials. One year a parent contact at a tech company donated new computers and printers. There is no equity anywhere because DCPS doesn't acknowledge the truth and uses bogus data to measure progress.
Anonymous wrote:Post article went up yesterday
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-is-misspending-millions-of-dollars-intended-to-help-the-citys-poorest-students/2018/04/14/6006c02a-3788-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.0d14c5c37fe4
Basically, at-risk funds are being used for standard/core positions, that should be funded form the base budget allocation. instead of being available for additional non/core uses at the discretion of each school
DCPS continues to be a hot mess
Anonymous wrote:I love how Grasso muses about suing schools to make them spend the at-risk funds correctly, as if the schools are spendibg the money on manicures.
What does he suggest that schools do when the budget doesn’t meet requirements?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do some schools need to be joined together?
That does happen sometimes, but it's hard to do. You have to have a building big enough for the combined population. And people tend to oppose it if it means the school will be farther from home.
Whenever you see a school with a hyphenated name, remember that's probably the result of a merger.
Anonymous wrote:Do some schools need to be joined together?
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.
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.
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.
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.