Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Each school does NOT receive the same per pupil $ allocation.
Yes they do, but some PTAs raise money to supplement.
You are the Fox News of DCUM. Repeat a falsehood often enough and people will start believing it.
Correct
Title I schools get higher per pupil allocation than non Title I schools.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Each school does NOT receive the same per pupil $ allocation.
Yes they do, but some PTAs raise money to supplement.
You are the Fox News of DCUM. Repeat a falsehood often enough and people will start believing it.
Anonymous wrote:11:58 here -- meant to add this is ass backwards. Don't move kids from a failing school across town, make those schools better by addressing the underlying causes of the problem, e.g. poverty, broken familes, etc. And, have at least some OOB set asides. The brutal truth is that in contrast to some families from EOTP that exert great efforts to get their kids into and commute to good schools, and invest in those schools, families from Deal/Wilson (and I am one of them) simply will not trepse across town to Eastern to make it better when most of us have the means to simply move to the burbs. It's unfortunate but it is true.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Each school does NOT receive the same per pupil $ allocation.
Yes they do, but some PTAs raise money to supplement.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In short:
Each school gets the same $ per student; so it's the parents and community and caliber of the students that make a school great. Without predictability the those types of parents/students will leave. No question. Deal and Wilson are great because the parents (IB an OOB) and Kids (IB and OOB) are generally more motivated and come from good elementary schools. The OOB families that are in the feeders took the extra step to get their kids in and schlepp them across town, that says something about them, regardless of their SES or race. The resources those schools spend on struggling kids pales in comparison to the resources schools EOTP spend. Inject more struggling and less motivated kids (and less active parents) into those schools and in a few years they will be in the same state as most of the schools EOTP.
So if take a school like Deal or Wilson, remove a substantial portion of the motivated, high achieving and committed families (whether IB or OBB) and then inject a substantial portion of kids who are testing seriously below proficient from families that aren't active in improving the schools, you are just giving Deal and Wilson the same problems the schools EOTP have. The new Deal and Wilson will have to divert $$ to address those issues, at the cost of the programs for the more advanced or even proficient kids leading to more abandonment to private and suburban schools. It's just a domino effect.
Absolutely, but if you don't believe that then common sense and reasoning doesn't make any difference. There's no evidence that a school building and teachers alone can make a school "high performing" and plenty of evidence the the preparedness of the kids and the support and SES of the families have a huge positive effect. But if despite all that, School leadership insists that "all it takes is a great teacher..." and that "low-performing schools" should be closed, then the system will continue to be dysfunctional.
School leadership knows very well that the kids and families have a huge effect, and this is why the proposal of citywide lottery was made, to "redistribute" high SES and highly motivated kids to all schools. if the school leadership tought that all it takes is a great teacher, then all they would have to do is just hire great teachers for bad schools and we would not be here discussing about sending Oyster kids to Cardozo or having Wilson as citywide lottery HS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In short:
Each school gets the same $ per student; so it's the parents and community and caliber of the students that make a school great. Without predictability the those types of parents/students will leave. No question. Deal and Wilson are great because the parents (IB an OOB) and Kids (IB and OOB) are generally more motivated and come from good elementary schools. The OOB families that are in the feeders took the extra step to get their kids in and schlepp them across town, that says something about them, regardless of their SES or race. The resources those schools spend on struggling kids pales in comparison to the resources schools EOTP spend. Inject more struggling and less motivated kids (and less active parents) into those schools and in a few years they will be in the same state as most of the schools EOTP.
So if take a school like Deal or Wilson, remove a substantial portion of the motivated, high achieving and committed families (whether IB or OBB) and then inject a substantial portion of kids who are testing seriously below proficient from families that aren't active in improving the schools, you are just giving Deal and Wilson the same problems the schools EOTP have. The new Deal and Wilson will have to divert $$ to address those issues, at the cost of the programs for the more advanced or even proficient kids leading to more abandonment to private and suburban schools. It's just a domino effect.
Absolutely, but if you don't believe that then common sense and reasoning doesn't make any difference. There's no evidence that a school building and teachers alone can make a school "high performing" and plenty of evidence the the preparedness of the kids and the support and SES of the families have a huge positive effect. But if despite all that, School leadership insists that "all it takes is a great teacher..." and that "low-performing schools" should be closed, then the system will continue to be dysfunctional.
School leadership knows very well that the kids and families have a huge effect, and this is why the proposal of citywide lottery was made, to "redistribute" high SES and highly motivated kids to all schools. if the school leadership tought that all it takes is a great teacher, then all they would have to do is just hire great teachers for bad schools and we would not be here discussing about sending Oyster kids to Cardozo or having Wilson as citywide lottery HS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Each school does NOT receive the same per pupil $ allocation.
Yes they do, but some PTAs raise money to supplement.
NP here, and not an expert, but I think Title 1 schools receive more money per pupil than non Title one schools.
Anonymous wrote:Actually I've seen very little opposition to the idea of OOB set-asides -- I don't think I've heard one person say, "oh, if they do this, we would pull our kids." It's not letting OOB kids in, it's the inability to plan and the inconvenience. It's not as if only Ward 3 parents care about this -- Hearst didn't go up until 5th grade until it became a Deal feeder. Elementary schools EOTP that are perfectly good for PK3, PK4, and kindergarten undergo an enormous amount of churn as parents move their kids into Deal feeders. What makes you think Ward 3 parents are any different?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Each school does NOT receive the same per pupil $ allocation.
Yes they do, but some PTAs raise money to supplement.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In short:
Each school gets the same $ per student; so it's the parents and community and caliber of the students that make a school great. Without predictability the those types of parents/students will leave. No question. Deal and Wilson are great because the parents (IB an OOB) and Kids (IB and OOB) are generally more motivated and come from good elementary schools. The OOB families that are in the feeders took the extra step to get their kids in and schlepp them across town, that says something about them, regardless of their SES or race. The resources those schools spend on struggling kids pales in comparison to the resources schools EOTP spend. Inject more struggling and less motivated kids (and less active parents) into those schools and in a few years they will be in the same state as most of the schools EOTP.
So if take a school like Deal or Wilson, remove a substantial portion of the motivated, high achieving and committed families (whether IB or OBB) and then inject a substantial portion of kids who are testing seriously below proficient from families that aren't active in improving the schools, you are just giving Deal and Wilson the same problems the schools EOTP have. The new Deal and Wilson will have to divert $$ to address those issues, at the cost of the programs for the more advanced or even proficient kids leading to more abandonment to private and suburban schools. It's just a domino effect.
Absolutely, but if you don't believe that then common sense and reasoning doesn't make any difference. There's no evidence that a school building and teachers alone can make a school "high performing" and plenty of evidence the the preparedness of the kids and the support and SES of the families have a huge positive effect. But if despite all that, School leadership insists that "all it takes is a great teacher..." and that "low-performing schools" should be closed, then the system will continue to be dysfunctional.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Each school does NOT receive the same per pupil $ allocation.
Yes they do, but some PTAs raise money to supplement.
Anonymous wrote:In short:
Each school gets the same $ per student; so it's the parents and community and caliber of the students that make a school great. Without predictability the those types of parents/students will leave. No question. Deal and Wilson are great because the parents (IB an OOB) and Kids (IB and OOB) are generally more motivated and come from good elementary schools. The OOB families that are in the feeders took the extra step to get their kids in and schlepp them across town, that says something about them, regardless of their SES or race. The resources those schools spend on struggling kids pales in comparison to the resources schools EOTP spend. Inject more struggling and less motivated kids (and less active parents) into those schools and in a few years they will be in the same state as most of the schools EOTP.
So if take a school like Deal or Wilson, remove a substantial portion of the motivated, high achieving and committed families (whether IB or OBB) and then inject a substantial portion of kids who are testing seriously below proficient from families that aren't active in improving the schools, you are just giving Deal and Wilson the same problems the schools EOTP have. The new Deal and Wilson will have to divert $$ to address those issues, at the cost of the programs for the more advanced or even proficient kids leading to more abandonment to private and suburban schools. It's just a domino effect.