The one piece of (slight) humor thus far--Shepherd's cafeteria has apparently started tweeting:

https://twitter.com/SEScafeteria

Profile pic is of where the "fire doors" from the basement-level cafeteria lead--a narrow passageway littered with debris and construction ladders, and a locked gate at the end (supposed to be unlocked during the day, but who knows). Basically, unsafe egress for kids and staff in case of emergency.

From the Education Committee's report:

The Committee feels very strongly that schools that have already had some sort of modernization should not get a Phase 2 or 3 while there are still schools that have not had any work done, except for reasons including significant building utilization concerns or health and safety reasons. The Committee recommends re-prioritizing that funding to cover some necessary small capital projects of schools not included on the CIP or not slated for modernization for several years. (page 28)

Shepherd, you've received a $19 million renovation budget already. You can wait for your extra $12 million second-helping until after everyone else has gotten their first serving.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything produced by a Council member who is fighting with the mayor is political.

Shepherd is literally the school for which the Mayor's home is zoned. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Bingo

Bowser has lived in Shepherd Park for less than six months. I don't think this argument holds water. I have a hard time thinking this was a poltical move by Grosso against Bowser. It has only emboldened her supporters in Shepherd Park, already a very solid stronghold for Bowser. Grosso is too smart to push a political item that strengthens his "opponent".

I am not IB for Shepherd. I understand the complaint that families have over the way this was handled. But frankly, serious ADA compliance issues and a working HVAC system that isn't a "death trap" as one PP put it, should not have been prioritized below decorative atrium and kiln. Blame whoever you want. But Grosso isn't wrong that there are other schools with much greater needs.

I do live in Ward 4, and I think that Brandon Todd is an ineffective voice on the council because the other council members just see a Bowser representative when they deal with him. He doesn't have his own issues or agenda. He just agrees with her, and does what she wants. I hope the voters of Ward 4 realize this before the election next month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Shepherd supposed to be a phased modernization? I ask this by way of explanation, not as a criticism of the Shepherd community. Most of the phased modernizations had the planned phases spread out over decades. Shepherd seems to have managed to get funding for their phases pushed closely together so that the process mimics a full modernization. Shepherd isn't the only school that was treated that way, but that pushing together of phases at some schools bumped back other schools that were waiting for phase 1 modernizations. Meanwhile, schools that were not successful in getting their phases pushed together were frustrated that some schools seemed to be more politically favored and were able to be fully modernized over the course of several years instead of a decade or more.

I understand the community's frustration at not getting their school fully modernized, but I just don't see the Shepherd situation as any different from the fates of other phased schools that are waiting for the remainder of their phases.

That's the thing there is no reference to ever getting the remaining funds restored.

And many other schools have no idea when they will get phase 2 or 3 done either.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything produced by a Council member who is fighting with the mayor is political.

Shepherd is literally the school for which the Mayor's home is zoned. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Bingo

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Shepherd supposed to be a phased modernization? I ask this by way of explanation, not as a criticism of the Shepherd community. Most of the phased modernizations had the planned phases spread out over decades. Shepherd seems to have managed to get funding for their phases pushed closely together so that the process mimics a full modernization. Shepherd isn't the only school that was treated that way, but that pushing together of phases at some schools bumped back other schools that were waiting for phase 1 modernizations. Meanwhile, schools that were not successful in getting their phases pushed together were frustrated that some schools seemed to be more politically favored and were able to be fully modernized over the course of several years instead of a decade or more.

I understand the community's frustration at not getting their school fully modernized, but I just don't see the Shepherd situation as any different from the fates of other phased schools that are waiting for the remainder of their phases.

That's the thing there is no reference to ever getting the remaining funds restored.

Wasn't Shepherd supposed to be a phased modernization? I ask this by way of explanation, not as a criticism of the Shepherd community. Most of the phased modernizations had the planned phases spread out over decades. Shepherd seems to have managed to get funding for their phases pushed closely together so that the process mimics a full modernization. Shepherd isn't the only school that was treated that way, but that pushing together of phases at some schools bumped back other schools that were waiting for phase 1 modernizations. Meanwhile, schools that were not successful in getting their phases pushed together were frustrated that some schools seemed to be more politically favored and were able to be fully modernized over the course of several years instead of a decade or more.

I understand the community's frustration at not getting their school fully modernized, but I just don't see the Shepherd situation as any different from the fates of other phased schools that are waiting for the remainder of their phases.

Anonymous wrote:Anything produced by a Council member who is fighting with the mayor is political.

Shepherd is literally the school for which the Mayor's home is zoned. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Just a reminder, Shepherd "had" to have a second floor kiln, which required sinking steel supports into a 50's addition.

I am sure that a second floor cafeteria would have cost less.

Someone actually needs to be accountable for this kind of decision-making. Do that, and Shepherd would gain more sympathy. The cafeteria is deplorable. But why this wasn't one of the primary objectives of the initial renovation is even more deplorable. Why work wasn't done last summer? Inexcusable. Why the school needs an atrium? I am still scratching my head over that.

Anonymous wrote:So Shepherd got a $19 million renovation, and Smothers is going to get $700,000. But Shepherd is complaining because it wants the full $31 million and to leave Smothers with nothing. Got it.

Smothers is slated for renovation in FY22. Seems like fair game for its funding to be stripped before or during its renovation now that the city has allowed it to other schools. Would you like others to speak up about it when that happens?

So Shepherd got a $19 million renovation, and Smothers is going to get $700,000. But Shepherd is complaining because it wants the full $31 million and to leave Smothers with nothing. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just reading some of the news articles about this fight, and I saw several saying that before Grosso presented the Education Committee's spreadsheet for determining which schools were most in need of renovation dollars, Bowser and DME Jennifer Niles had their own model for determining fairly which schools should get first dibs. I could not find Bowser's tool anywhere online though, to see what criteria she used. Does anyone have a link? It would be interesting to compare the two tools.

The tool DCPS used is right on their website accessible here (on their modernization page, near the bottom under "Capital Improvement Plan Prioritization): https://sites.google.com/a/dc.gov/dcps-school-modernizations/home

The DCPS tool gives only 10% weight to the condition of the school building. Compare that to the Education Committee's evaluation tool, and it is hard to argue that Grosso is the one being political here, in my opinion.

The biggest problem with the Education Committee's rankings is that they had to rely on data from DCPS and DGS, much of which is flawed. It is my understanding that some of the committee's "adjustments" were in cases where the data was so flawed that it was ridiculous. For example, DCPS counts trailers as capacity so overcrowded schools often show a building utilization rate that can be as low as 80%. In other cases, DGS facilities assessments say the building is good, but there is an acknowledged, critical issue.

The neighborhood cluster thing is a problem too because it does not align to school boundaries for most schools and does not account for OOB attendance and boundary utilization rates.

I live in Colonial Village. I've also spoken to Grosso. People, get over yourselves. There are neighborhoods with greater need!

The schools with the most need aren't getting the $12M. Like PP said, what is $700k going to do at Smothers? Why is Shepherd the only school that got striped the last of its budget? I don't see Lafayette or Murch getting the last of their budget stripped and spread out in pennies ($700k is pennies in construction terms). The fact that Shepherd is the only school that got stripped + Grosso's comments show this whole drama is political BS.

$4.25M for Oyster Adams
$300,000 for Aiton ES Renovation/Modernization
$3M for Francis Stevens ES Modernization
$1.7M for Garfield ES Renovation/Modernization
$1.6M for Malcolm X at Green
$1M for Raymond ES Modernization/Renovation
$700,000 for Smothers ES Modernization/Renovation

Here is the detailed description. Start at page 21.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/311999204/21/IV-COMMITTEE-ACTION-AND-VOTE

Smothers is getting a new roof and exterior doors. The Committee says that it's unfair for schools who have already had a Phase 1 renovation to move to Phase 2 renovations when other schools haven't gotten anything yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is still plenty of time for Lafayette and Murch to get stripped of money (or more money in Murch's case).

But it really doesn't help the Shepherd cause to pit schools against each other.

Agreed. I almost feel that this is what they want us to do--to deflect from their political maneuvering, massive cost overruns and negligence in providing proper oversight to the renovations process for ALL schools.

-a Shepherd parent

PP here--forgot an important detail. Fixed that.

Anonymous wrote:There is still plenty of time for Lafayette and Murch to get stripped of money (or more money in Murch's case).

But it really doesn't help the Shepherd cause to pit schools against each other.

Agreed. I almost feel that this is what they want us to do--to deflect from their massive cost overruns and negligence in providing proper oversight to the renovations process for ALL schools.

-a Shepherd parent

Anonymous wrote:There is still plenty of time for Lafayette and Murch to get stripped of money (or more money in Murch's case).

But it really doesn't help the Shepherd cause to pit schools against each other.

PP before you. I'm not at Shepherd but I agree I think this is exactly what's happening and it's not cool. If they are going to use this method going forward I don't think any school is going to be stripped of money AFTER it's been allocated. Guess Shepherd is just collateral damage. I still think they should use this method going forward, not strip $12m after it was allocated.