Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).

Wilson is losing a ton of funding according to the random new formulas, BUT there's a general safety measure that kicks in: no school can lose more than 5% of previous year's budget in ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. So, it doesn't matter how many kids Wilson ends up having next year. If I understand the rule correctly, Wilson could lose 99% of the students next year and still maintain essentially the same overall budget...welcome to absurdistan.

Is "absurdistan" meant to be a slur?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).

Wilson is losing a ton of funding according to the random new formulas, BUT there's a general safety measure that kicks in: no school can lose more than 5% of previous year's budget in ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. So, it doesn't matter how many kids Wilson ends up having next year. If I understand the rule correctly, Wilson could lose 99% of the students next year and still maintain essentially the same overall budget...welcome to absurdistan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP. It is the way they are rolling out these "fixes" now. Bowser was elected in November. Couldn't families and students have had fair notice that if they accumulate those 10 absences this year they will truly be bounced? Couldn't families who relied on the casual system of enrolling OOB siblings have had some heads up that come spring enrollment they will NOT have this option? And it feels as if they are profiling to a certain degree, after all who is to say that a number of these students/families may have applied to privates or charters earlier on in the school year, rather than rounding up kids to populate their new experiment in SE and other under enrolled (and thus far under performing) schools? Eventually the same result would occur and it would help ease the swell in the hallways, but this feels almost like it was by design. And if that is the case it reflects the opposite of the admin and mayor's purported goals -- to give every kid a chance at a good education ("Deal for All").

This has always been the policy throughout DCPS and is very clearly laid out in the boundary reforms as well as a policy that is not changing. I don't think it's Wilson's responsibility to inform them of it when it's not a change. And I say this as someone who has a child who will be OOB to Wilson (through feeder rights).

Interestingly, the WWS manual actually says the threshold is 15, not 10 (10 being in the DCPS manual): "Attendance requirement for out-of-boundary scholars: All out-of-boundary scholars must have fewer than 15 unexcused absences to
continue their enrollment at Wilson." See page 22 here: http://www.wilsonhs.org/ourpages/auto/2011/4/15/47453834/Woodrow_Wilson_Final_Proof.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).

Because the way the budget works, the budget for 2015-2016 is based on the number of children confirmed enrolled on count day in October 2014. That number won't change. If the number of students decreases in 2015-2016, then that will affect the 2016-2017 budget allocation, as it will be based on the number of students enrolled on count day in October 2015.

Huh? I'm not understanding you. On count day in October 2014, Wilson's enrollment was documented as 1788 (when the projection was 1708--80 fewer students). The projected enrollment for 15-16 is 1878 (90 more students than currently enrolled and 170 more than last year's projection). PP, are you saying that the 15-16 budget is based upon enrollment of 1788 students (count day enrollment), not 1878 students (projected enrollment)? If so, where is this documented?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP. It is the way they are rolling out these "fixes" now. Bowser was elected in November. Couldn't families and students have had fair notice that if they accumulate those 10 absences this year they will truly be bounced? Couldn't families who relied on the casual system of enrolling OOB siblings have had some heads up that come spring enrollment they will NOT have this option? And it feels as if they are profiling to a certain degree, after all who is to say that a number of these students/families may have applied to privates or charters earlier on in the school year, rather than rounding up kids to populate their new experiment in SE and other under enrolled (and thus far under performing) schools? Eventually the same result would occur and it would help ease the swell in the hallways, but this feels almost like it was by design. And if that is the case it reflects the opposite of the admin and mayor's purported goals -- to give every kid a chance at a good education ("Deal for All").

This has always been the policy throughout DCPS and is very clearly laid out in the boundary reforms as well as a policy that is not changing. I don't think it's Wilson's responsibility to inform them of it when it's not a change. And I say this as someone who has a child who will be OOB to Wilson (through feeder rights).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).

Because the way the budget works, the budget for 2015-2016 is based on the number of children confirmed enrolled on count day in October 2014. That number won't change. If the number of students decreases in 2015-2016, then that will affect the 2016-2017 budget allocation, as it will be based on the number of students enrolled on count day in October 2015.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).

Because the way the budget works, the budget for 2015-2016 is based on the number of children confirmed enrolled on count day in October 2014. That number won't change. If the number of students decreases in 2015-2016, then that will affect the 2016-2017 budget allocation, as it will be based on the number of students enrolled on count day in October 2015.

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP. It is the way they are rolling out these "fixes" now. Bowser was elected in November. Couldn't families and students have had fair notice that if they accumulate those 10 absences this year they will truly be bounced? Couldn't families who relied on the casual system of enrolling OOB siblings have had some heads up that come spring enrollment they will NOT have this option? And it feels as if they are profiling to a certain degree, after all who is to say that a number of these students/families may have applied to privates or charters earlier on in the school year, rather than rounding up kids to populate their new experiment in SE and other under enrolled (and thus far under performing) schools? Eventually the same result would occur and it would help ease the swell in the hallways, but this feels almost like it was by design. And if that is the case it reflects the opposite of the admin and mayor's purported goals -- to give every kid a chance at a good education ("Deal for All").

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).

Wilson is losing a ton of funding according to the random new formulas, BUT there's a general safety measure that kicks in: no school can lose more than 5% of previous year's budget in ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. So, it doesn't matter how many kids Wilson ends up having next year. If I understand the rule correctly, Wilson could lose 99% of the students next year and still maintain essentially the same overall budget...welcome to absurdistan.

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a key central office DC employee that the 1878 enrollment projection reflected in the submitted SY 2015-16 budget DOES NOT reflect the effects of the "fixes" described in the DCPS letter posted on page three of this thread. I was also told that Wilson would maintain the budget it was allocated for 1,878 students even if its enrollment is less because of the fixes implemented. I'm personally not convinced that the fixes will be put into action and I don't understand NOT adjusting budgets NOW to reflect what we REALLY think the final enrollment numbers will be (taking into account these fixes, changes in boundaries, etc.).