Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.

That said, Wilson was one of the schools that received a lot less at risk funding than it was "due". Its at-risk funding is rising substantially in this budget, but they are hacking away at the rest of the budget so much that per student fund is dropping more than 10 percent.

PP you are quoting. I have no opinion on the Wilson fight--haven't engaged in it at all or looked at its funding, and I haven't signed that letter. But I still dislike the 5% principle from the at-risk funding letter, and that's why I am not signing it, even though I support having the at-risk funds follow the students.

Actually I am not quoting, I have actually looked at the budget. The 5 percent principle for total $ already exists. Wilson is losing more per pupil because enrollment is projected to go up another 200 students.

You quoted my initial response. Did you mean to quote something else?

My apologies. I completely misunderstood you. I thought (wrongly) that you were just suggesting that I was just quoting the petition. Clearly reading too fast and not getting enough sleep. Sorry! The point still stand that the broader 5% principle already applies to the level of funding, but that can result in a perverse result when enrollment is climbing fast. That is why some are suggesting that the 5% principle should apply to per pupil funding not the level of funding.

Why is central office upset about this letter to the point where it would contact principals in ward 1? is it because it calls for the at-risk funding to follow students AND have no school lose more than 5%, thus asking them to find more money overall? Otherwise, I am baffled, as it's a pretty congratulatory letter.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year - when DCPS didn't allocate the $ according to the law's specification due to time or whatever their excuse was - is the root of the problem.

As a result of this one-time action, they raised expectations in schools that got more than they should have due to low numbers of at-risk students -- and schools with high numbers of at-risk students felt shortchanged.

Now everyone is upset because no one ever thinks their budgets should decrease, regardless of reason.

It's messy, seems unfair to all and nearly impossible to explain.

+1. Especially when, as is the case of Wilson, the school is in such high demand that it needs to accommodate more students. What sense does it make to cut the budget by 5% when you have 200 students more? That's equivalent to a 10% per-student cut, if not more.

Point of clarification, Wilson's cut is 10%. Adding to that the expected increase in number of students, the actual cut will be higher.

10% cut in absolute numbers, which implies around 20% per-pupil cut assuming 200 more kids beyond this year's 1800?

If so, that's just crazy.

part of the complaint here seems to stem from Wilson's expected overcrowding. Remind me WHY we have to let 200 more students than planned for attend Wilson?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year - when DCPS didn't allocate the $ according to the law's specification due to time or whatever their excuse was - is the root of the problem.

As a result of this one-time action, they raised expectations in schools that got more than they should have due to low numbers of at-risk students -- and schools with high numbers of at-risk students felt shortchanged.

Now everyone is upset because no one ever thinks their budgets should decrease, regardless of reason.

It's messy, seems unfair to all and nearly impossible to explain.

+1. Especially when, as is the case of Wilson, the school is in such high demand that it needs to accommodate more students. What sense does it make to cut the budget by 5% when you have 200 students more? That's equivalent to a 10% per-student cut, if not more.

Point of clarification, Wilson's cut is 10%. Adding to that the expected increase in number of students, the actual cut will be higher.

Anonymous wrote:Last year - when DCPS didn't allocate the $ according to the law's specification due to time or whatever their excuse was - is the root of the problem.

As a result of this one-time action, they raised expectations in schools that got more than they should have due to low numbers of at-risk students -- and schools with high numbers of at-risk students felt shortchanged.

Now everyone is upset because no one ever thinks their budgets should decrease, regardless of reason.

It's messy, seems unfair to all and nearly impossible to explain.

+1. Especially when, as is the case of Wilson, the school is in such high demand that it needs to accommodate more students. What sense does it make to cut the budget by 5% when you have 200 students more? That's equivalent to a 10% per-student cut, if not more.

Last year - when DCPS didn't allocate the $ according to the law's specification due to time or whatever their excuse was - is the root of the problem.

As a result of this one-time action, they raised expectations in schools that got more than they should have due to low numbers of at-risk students -- and schools with high numbers of at-risk students felt shortchanged.

Now everyone is upset because no one ever thinks their budgets should decrease, regardless of reason.

It's messy, seems unfair to all and nearly impossible to explain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.

That said, Wilson was one of the schools that received a lot less at risk funding than it was "due". Its at-risk funding is rising substantially in this budget, but they are hacking away at the rest of the budget so much that per student fund is dropping more than 10 percent.

PP you are quoting. I have no opinion on the Wilson fight--haven't engaged in it at all or looked at its funding, and I haven't signed that letter. But I still dislike the 5% principle from the at-risk funding letter, and that's why I am not signing it, even though I support having the at-risk funds follow the students.

Actually I am not quoting, I have actually looked at the budget. The 5 percent principle for total $ already exists. Wilson is losing more per pupil because enrollment is projected to go up another 200 students.

If this goes through, doesn't it create the incentive for Wilson to find ways to kick out those 200 new students and even a few more? Talk about disrupting a school.

I'm the earlier PP who clarified the intent of the letter itself. It's kind of a damned-if-you-do situation, no matter what side you're on.

Our assumption is that there is only so much money to go around. Money must be apportioned based on % of at risk kids. It also must correspond to enrollment increases and decreases. If there is a finite amount of money at one school, and an enrollment increase, and money that needs to go to at risk programming, it seems like there is no way within that particular universe to avoid cutting programs that are not funded with at risk money. I know how that sounds/feels to people whose children are thriving in programs that are not at risk programs, and I can certainly understand the resentment that would breed.

On the other side, we have elementary schools east of the park (parents with kids at those schools worked on the letter) who saw low per student at risk funds numbers at their schools, while schools west of the park had large amounts. My child's school is more than 50% at risk kids and our funding was pretty low, especially when you compare the per pupil funding in that category to (I believe it was) Mann, who had only a couple of at risk kids but still got a large allocation for student satisfaction that goes under the at risk umbrella. It was hard to look at those numbers and not feel resentment.

I think that the problem with both of these situations is that they both assume that there is only so much money. My hope was that this letter would thank the Chancellor and company for doing what the law required (have the at risk money follow the student) and that by requesting that no school lose more than 5% of its overall budget, the onus would be on the Chancellor's office to find money to make up for the shortfalls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.

That said, Wilson was one of the schools that received a lot less at risk funding than it was "due". Its at-risk funding is rising substantially in this budget, but they are hacking away at the rest of the budget so much that per student fund is dropping more than 10 percent.

PP you are quoting. I have no opinion on the Wilson fight--haven't engaged in it at all or looked at its funding, and I haven't signed that letter. But I still dislike the 5% principle from the at-risk funding letter, and that's why I am not signing it, even though I support having the at-risk funds follow the students.

Actually I am not quoting, I have actually looked at the budget. The 5 percent principle for total $ already exists. Wilson is losing more per pupil because enrollment is projected to go up another 200 students.

If this goes through, doesn't it create the incentive for Wilson to find ways to kick out those 200 new students and even a few more? Talk about disrupting a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.

That said, Wilson was one of the schools that received a lot less at risk funding than it was "due". Its at-risk funding is rising substantially in this budget, but they are hacking away at the rest of the budget so much that per student fund is dropping more than 10 percent.

PP you are quoting. I have no opinion on the Wilson fight--haven't engaged in it at all or looked at its funding, and I haven't signed that letter. But I still dislike the 5% principle from the at-risk funding letter, and that's why I am not signing it, even though I support having the at-risk funds follow the students.

Actually I am not quoting, I have actually looked at the budget. The 5 percent principle for total $ already exists. Wilson is losing more per pupil because enrollment is projected to go up another 200 students.

You quoted my initial response. Did you mean to quote something else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.

That said, Wilson was one of the schools that received a lot less at risk funding than it was "due". Its at-risk funding is rising substantially in this budget, but they are hacking away at the rest of the budget so much that per student fund is dropping more than 10 percent.

PP you are quoting. I have no opinion on the Wilson fight--haven't engaged in it at all or looked at its funding, and I haven't signed that letter. But I still dislike the 5% principle from the at-risk funding letter, and that's why I am not signing it, even though I support having the at-risk funds follow the students.

Actually I am not quoting, I have actually looked at the budget. The 5 percent principle for total $ already exists. Wilson is losing more per pupil because enrollment is projected to go up another 200 students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.

That said, Wilson was one of the schools that received a lot less at risk funding than it was "due". Its at-risk funding is rising substantially in this budget, but they are hacking away at the rest of the budget so much that per student fund is dropping more than 10 percent.

PP you are quoting. I have no opinion on the Wilson fight--haven't engaged in it at all or looked at its funding, and I haven't signed that letter. But I still dislike the 5% principle from the at-risk funding letter, and that's why I am not signing it, even though I support having the at-risk funds follow the students.

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.

That said, Wilson was one of the schools that received a lot less at risk funding than it was "due". Its at-risk funding is rising substantially in this budget, but they are hacking away at the rest of the budget so much that per student fund is dropping more than 10 percent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP forgot to include the petition to Help Save the Wilson High School Budget:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-wilson-high-school.html

Please help support DC's more diverse and successful high school, and THE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF AT-RISK STUDENTS.

I'm not the OP, but I am one of the people who signed on to and was part of the effort to draft the at-risk funds petition. The PP is correct that it was started prior to the budgets coming out. We didn't know anything about Wilson's budget getting cut. What we did know was that our kids go to some of the schools with the lowest per at-risk student amounts. While I very much support Wilson and do not want their funding to be cut, I also would remind the quoted PP that not everyone's children go to or have any chance of going to Wilson. The schools that they attend now and will attend in the future do not deserve to have their budgets cut either.

Our ultimate goal was to ask the Chancellor to restore the "money follows student" principle of the at risk money, and then, when she basically declared that that was happening, to thank her for making that decision and encourage her, DCPS and Council to keep making decisions that way.

This is a helpful clarification (as was the earlier similar post). Thanks!

I don't like the part of the at-risk letter that says that no school should have a decrease of more than 5%. The fact is that there are schools that got too much at-risk funding for 2014-2015, and if taking that money away from them and moving it to the schools with lots of at-risk students means they will have a decrease of more than 5%, then that is fine with me. I also find it strange to send a congratulatory letter for doing what they are required to do by law.