Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're too simplistic. Deal gets even less per student than Hardy.

Then how do they do more (courses, sports, activities) with less?

Deal gets $500 less per student per year, but the overall Deal budget is $11 million and Hardy is $4 million. There are huge economies of scale in operating a school. For example, each school only has one principal and they get paid the same, right there is a difference of $250/student in the cost of a principal.

Anonymous wrote:Cool numbers (seriously, thanks for the data) but ultimately signifying nothing. The funding appears to be almost linearly tied to the proportion of students at risk. So, Hardy receives more per pupil than Deal because it has a student population needing extra remediation, but less than every other MS because it has a student population less in need of extra remediation.

If you plotted these per pupil expenditures amounts on a map, I suspect you'd see a decreasing trend from SE to NW. The further north and west the school is located, the less per pupil funding it receives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're too simplistic. Deal gets even less per student than Hardy.

Then how do they do more (courses, sports, activities) with less?

Deal gets $500 less per student per year, but the overall Deal budget is $11 million and Hardy is $4 million. There are huge economies of scale in operating a school. For example, each school only has one principal and they get paid the same, right there is a difference of $250/student in the cost of a principal.

Deal could junk the school uniforms and save some $ that way.

That is Hardy....

(or maybe Deal could add them).

The school doesn't pay for the uniforms, parents do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're too simplistic. Deal gets even less per student than Hardy.

Then how do they do more (courses, sports, activities) with less?

Deal gets $500 less per student per year, but the overall Deal budget is $11 million and Hardy is $4 million. There are huge economies of scale in operating a school. For example, each school only has one principal and they get paid the same, right there is a difference of $250/student in the cost of a principal.

Deal could junk the school uniforms and save some $ that way.

That is Hardy....

(or maybe Deal could add them).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're too simplistic. Deal gets even less per student than Hardy.

Then how do they do more (courses, sports, activities) with less?

Deal gets $500 less per student per year, but the overall Deal budget is $11 million and Hardy is $4 million. There are huge economies of scale in operating a school. For example, each school only has one principal and they get paid the same, right there is a difference of $250/student in the cost of a principal.

Deal could junk the school uniforms and save some $ that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're too simplistic. Deal gets even less per student than Hardy.

Then how do they do more (courses, sports, activities) with less?

Deal gets $500 less per student per year, but the overall Deal budget is $11 million and Hardy is $4 million. There are huge economies of scale in operating a school. For example, each school only has one principal and they get paid the same, right there is a difference of $250/student in the cost of a principal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're too simplistic. Deal gets even less per student than Hardy.

Then how do they do more (courses, sports, activities) with less?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool numbers (seriously, thanks for the data) but ultimately signifying nothing. The funding appears to be almost linearly tied to the proportion of students at risk. So, Hardy receives more per pupil than Deal because it has a student population needing extra remediation, but less than every other MS because it has a student population less in need of extra remediation.

If you plotted these per pupil expenditures amounts on a map, I suspect you'd see a decreasing trend from SE to NW. The further north and west the school is located, the less per pupil funding it receives.

The numbers signify that the folks asserting that "DCPS has put tons of new resources into Hardy" don't know what they're talking about.

No, you have no idea what is the appropriate counterfactual. Perhaps they would have put $1k less per student into Hardy had it not been for these extras. We would never know.

(This speaks to the difficulty of good social science research; it is not an attack on you.)

You are being too cute by half.

The reality is that Hardy gets less money per student than most DCPS middle schools.

You're too simplistic. Deal gets even less per student than Hardy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. This is all moot anyway. The available evidence suggests that the school is making great strides as we type. It will be comical to reflect on this thread in four years.

+
It was suggested earlier that DCPS should persuade Marion Barry to protest the changes underway at Hardy, the way he did several years ago as Deal was taking off under Dr. Kim. Then IB families probably would be lining up to check Hardy out!

You think you're funny but I bet you're not a Hardy parent. Then you would know that not everyone in the community thinks Mayor Barry is a "joke" and some find it offensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. This is all moot anyway. The available evidence suggests that the school is making great strides as we type. It will be comical to reflect on this thread in four years.

+
It was suggested earlier that DCPS should persuade Marion Barry to protest the changes underway at Hardy, the way he did several years ago as Deal was taking off under Dr. Kim. Then IB families probably would be lining up to check Hardy out!

Anonymous wrote:Parent in-bounds for Mann here: Jeebus, give it a rest already.

We can agree on many points:
Hardy is not yet comparable with Deal.
Hardy may become comparable with Deal in the near future.
This process has already begun and it is making significant strides.
There are benefits to neighborhood schools.
If the concern is academic preparation, OOB feeder school kids meet the qualification.
If we care about playdates or commutes, OOB feeder school kids do not meet the qualification.

The naysayers need to pipe down. They're adding almost nothing substantive to this thread and, instead, are muddying it up so much that learning about the progress being made at Hardy requires reading 750 posts for the two dozen relevant ones. If you want a discussion about the benefit of feeder vs. non-feeder, or OOB vs. IB, or whatever, take it elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool numbers (seriously, thanks for the data) but ultimately signifying nothing. The funding appears to be almost linearly tied to the proportion of students at risk. So, Hardy receives more per pupil than Deal because it has a student population needing extra remediation, but less than every other MS because it has a student population less in need of extra remediation.

If you plotted these per pupil expenditures amounts on a map, I suspect you'd see a decreasing trend from SE to NW. The further north and west the school is located, the less per pupil funding it receives.

The numbers signify that the folks asserting that "DCPS has put tons of new resources into Hardy" don't know what they're talking about.

No, you have no idea what is the appropriate counterfactual. Perhaps they would have put $1k less per student into Hardy had it not been for these extras. We would never know.

(This speaks to the difficulty of good social science research; it is not an attack on you.)

You are being too cute by half.

The reality is that Hardy gets less money per student than most DCPS middle schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool numbers (seriously, thanks for the data) but ultimately signifying nothing. The funding appears to be almost linearly tied to the proportion of students at risk. So, Hardy receives more per pupil than Deal because it has a student population needing extra remediation, but less than every other MS because it has a student population less in need of extra remediation.

If you plotted these per pupil expenditures amounts on a map, I suspect you'd see a decreasing trend from SE to NW. The further north and west the school is located, the less per pupil funding it receives.

The numbers signify that the folks asserting that "DCPS has put tons of new resources into Hardy" don't know what they're talking about.

No, you have no idea what is the appropriate counterfactual. Perhaps they would have put $1k less per student into Hardy had it not been for these extras. We would never know.

(This speaks to the difficulty of good social science research; it is not an attack on you.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool numbers (seriously, thanks for the data) but ultimately signifying nothing. The funding appears to be almost linearly tied to the proportion of students at risk. So, Hardy receives more per pupil than Deal because it has a student population needing extra remediation, but less than every other MS because it has a student population less in need of extra remediation.

If you plotted these per pupil expenditures amounts on a map, I suspect you'd see a decreasing trend from SE to NW. The further north and west the school is located, the less per pupil funding it receives.

The numbers signify that the folks asserting that "DCPS has put tons of new resources into Hardy" don't know what they're talking about.

Anonymous wrote:Cool numbers (seriously, thanks for the data) but ultimately signifying nothing. The funding appears to be almost linearly tied to the proportion of students at risk. So, Hardy receives more per pupil than Deal because it has a student population needing extra remediation, but less than every other MS because it has a student population less in need of extra remediation.

If you plotted these per pupil expenditures amounts on a map, I suspect you'd see a decreasing trend from SE to NW. The further north and west the school is located, the less per pupil funding it receives.