Thurgood Marshall Loses Title I Funding
Not that this is a surprise, since this possibility was discussed on this blog during the closure and consolidation discussions, but it's final now. Thurgood Marshall has lost several hundred thousands of dollars in Title I funding because the move of half of the APP program changed the demographics significantly.
Nina Shapiro writes about it in the Seattle Weekly:
Afluent Kids Come at a Cost
Nina Shapiro writes about it in the Seattle Weekly:
Afluent Kids Come at a Cost
Comments
WV weard
Can anybody explain why the MGJ made this change?
TM was just unlucky enough to collateral damage to this policy. 42% is what it is, NOT a bunch individual students with a variety of needs
Of course, that formulation could mean that the per student funding went down, but I think talking about the effects of just one pot of money is misleading.
Maybe...but is it fair to have parents' money pay for the things that used to be covered when the school was Title I—especially when the qualifying percentage was arbitrarily raised by the District?
I don't know. I haven't seen anything in the district docs that explicitly say why, but I assume it is to pay for all these new initiatives -- STEM, performance management, MAP testing.
Anyone know how many schools have lost monies because of this change?
BTW, the funds weren't lost because APP moved there. The funds were lost because the district raised the threshold from 40% to 55% last year to create a fund for strategic projects. TM is over 40%, so that threshold is the real culprit here. There was research a few years ago that there is a poverty 'tipping point' at a school, and IIRC, it was just under 40%.
I disagree, I don't think a schools budget, coming from the district should take PTA funding into account as SolvayGirl points out, Title 1 $$$ fund things that PTAs could never take on.
Here's a document outlining the reasoning behind the changing the threshold...
http://www.seattleschools.org/
area/m_news/gold_book_letter.pdf
Basically, SPS says it is to pay for mandated NCLB tutoring expenses which have grown substantially. And apparently the LAP allocation changed at the same time, so some schools lost Title I and gained LAP while the remaining Title I schools lost some LAP to compensate for what was given to the schools losing Title I
I'm not sure what the point of providing no comment is.
Helen Schinske
Can anyone find a record of that?
The "budget" people are talking about, the whole budget package, shouldn't be including PTSA funding (the article seems to say that PTSA $ were part of the mix...) So I think what people are talking about here is the whole budget picture not counting PTSA.
There are (or were) a variety of factors that go into a school's budget, and in the past the final budget was highly malleable: Extra funding from LAP. movement of funds around to support various district initiatives, "asks" from principals who can make a convincing argument...
But this year I think we're pretty close to just the baseline. There won't be nearly as much money moving around.
PTSA money should not go to make up any that deficit, but some will. Some PTAs use money to buy FTE in areas they feel need it. For that matter, ALL of the money a PTA raises and hands out should one would think, be beneficial and therefore a district responsibilty, but hey...One would would hope that the district covers ALL great enrichments etc, but it never will. But PTSAs should NOT be covering developmental things such as tutoring and remediation. That is absolutely a district responsibility.
It may well be lower. But, looking at one piece in isolation doesn't really tell you how life is going to change, or not change, at a particular school.
I'll look around. But we certainly did predict the Title I thing. My comment about it on a 2008 article by, guess who, Nina Shapiro, turns out to have made the Comment of the Week list back then: http://www.seattleweekly.com/slideshow/view/199881/6
"Thurgood Marshall and Hawthorne will lose Title I funding anyway if APP students move in — there will be too few students on free or reduced lunch for the schools to qualify as Title I sites. Neither APP nor the regular programs will have any room to grow under this proposal (neighborhood students will get forced out). Nor will any transportation savings be effected: if anything, busing costs will go up. I don't see that moving APP to Thurgood Marshall and Hawthorne even meets the stated objectives of the district, let alone the needs of the school communities affected. I am not against a split, which is needed anyway as Lowell is bursting at the seams; only against this version.)In addition, special education students are scheduled to be moved out of both Lowell and Meany, without any indication of where they're to go. Shouldn't the most vulnerable population's needs have been settled first? I am also worried about maintaining the condition of shuttered buildings: the last thing we need is a repeat of the Viewlands fiasco."
Does changing whether a school receives Title I funds or not affect the number of students who can receive tutoring services?
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/thurgood_marshall_elementary_l.php
Education
Thurgood Marshall Elementary Loses $200,000 as Affluent, "Gifted" Students Move In
By Nina Shapiro, Tuesday, Mar. 16 2010 @ 1:02PM
Comments (23)
Categories: Education
When the Seattle School District last fall moved some 200 students in its "highly gifted" program into Thurgood Marshall Elementary, which was populated largely by poor and minority children, everybody knew officials risked creating another divided school rife with resentment between the haves and have nots.
Now there's a new twist at Thurgood Marshall to deepen the resentment: the Central District school is losing more than $200,000 in annual federal funding because of the demographic change brought by students in the "Accelerated Progress Program."
The district distributes federal "Title I" funding, earmarked for poor kids, to schools that have more than 55 percent of students who receive free or reduced-price lunches. This year, Thurgood Marshall easily qualified for the funding. The district looks at the preceding year's demographics, and poor kids represented 83 percent of the population.
With the APP kids, however, only 42 percent of students qualify for free or discounted lunches (see pdf)--and the district in recent weeks has told parents and staff that they would receive no Title I funding at all next year. (The school also went from 6 percent to 37 percent white.)
"For the children in the regular education program, they're going to slip through the cracks again," says Rose Wallace-Croone, who has two children in that program and sits on the board of the school's PTSA. She notes that the federal money has been used for tutoring and after-school programs, related to both academics and the arts.
APP parents have been upset too. "You feel like these kids are being hurt because we're here," says parent and PTSA boardmember Meg Diaz. Such parents did bring money with them. The PTSA at Capitol Hill's Lowell Elementary, where the APP students came from, split its budget when half its students left. Those going to Thurgood Marshall took nearly $100,000 with them--but that's still less than half of what the school received in federal funding.
The funding debacle adds to already heightened tensions between the two communities at the school. "The APP parents are the primary focus," says Wallace-Croone, adding that the two programs constitute "segregation in the truest form."
Diaz says that parents from both communities have been trying hard to work together but acknowledges that "it's been a rough year."
The district has not yet responded to a request for comment.
And does anyone know how Title I money was handled at Madrona? As I've posted before, I do think I remember reading that they argued for it being assigned by program FRL levels rather than the whole school.
Helen Schinske
seattle-ed2010 says:
Nina, could you please correct this inaccurate headline and stereotype? The APP families that were moved by the district from Lowell Elementary to Thurgood Marshall are not all "affluent."
The combined ratio of families that do not qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch at Thurgood Marshall Elementary has increased this past year, but that does not mean that all APP families are rich. This is another of the stereotypes that reporters and others should stop perpetuating.
It also perpetuates another noxious myth about the demographics of highly capable and "gifted" kids, when in fact these kids come from all socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds.
Secondly, Free or Reduced Lunch eligibility is defined as a family of four making $29,000 year (free lunch) or $41,000 year (reduced) (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/iegs/IEGs09-10.pdf).
That's still not a huge income, yet, if enough families make more than that amount, that is enough for a school to lose Title 1 funding.
There are definitely APP families that make less or not a whole lot more more than that.
And making more than $41,000 a year for a family of four hardly qualifies someone as "affluent."
Thirdly, I have heard that the school percentage requirement for FRL has been raised recently, so more families must qualify into this category before the school can be declared eligible for Title 1 funding. This makes it even harder for schools to qualify.
All of these factors are what added up to make Thurgood Marshall kids lose this money they need. All of this was predictable and predicted -- by APP families and others, by the way, who did not want to see this happen.
But ultimately the responsibility for this situation falls squarely at the feet of the district decision makers: the superintendent and the members of the school board who approved this destructive "capacity management" plan (directors Sundquist, Maier, Carr, DeBell and Chow) that consisted of these ill-conceived closures, mergers and splits.
The fact is, by breaking the elementary APP program in half, for reasons that remain specious, the district caused the Thurgood Marshall families to lose this much-needed source of funding.
Why did the district do that to the Thurgood Marshall kids?
Another important part of this story, by the way, is what happened to T.T. Minor Elementary, which the district closed in the same round. As a result, the T.T. Minor kids lost ALL of their Title 1 funding because their building was closed outright. They were assigned to Lowell to make up the new ALO population (but given no transportation to get there). These kids lost pretty much everything -- their school building, community, funding, and their before and after school care (the YMCA could not offer it at Lowell because the sprinkler-less building does not meet code). Their principal and some of their teachers followed them to Lowell, though. How was this a good change for those kids?
Meanwhile, the APP community at Lowell got cut in half, staff teams and classmates split up. How was this good change for these kids?
In the end, you have to wonder, who did these closures, splits and mergers help -- academically, financially, emotionally?
Which school or group of kids is better off now than they were a year ago? Thurgood Marshall? T.T. Minor? Lowell?
Seems like a lose-lose-lose situation all around. The only ones to blame for this are the school district decision-makers -- not the families and kids who got shuffled around against their will.
--sp.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 16 2010 @ 9:23PM
(continued)
Helen Schinske
seattle-ed2010 says:
I should clarify: my understanding is that Thurgood Marshall was allowed to keep its (c.$200k) Title 1 funding for one year (this year only) after the merger/split because its building remained open. Next year (2010/11), however, it will no longer receive these funds.
The T.T. Minor kids, however were dealt a worse deal: they lost their Title 1 funding immediately (i.e. this year), by virtue of the sad fact that their building was closed.
-- sp.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 16 2010 @ 9:39PM
Nina Shapiro says:
SP -- Of course, not all APP kids are affluent, but the simple demographic fact is that most are better off, financially, than their peers in Thurgood Marshall's regular program. Thanks for your other comments. It's true that the district used to give Title I funds to schools that had only 40 percent of students qualify for free or discounted lunches. Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson upped the criteria to 55 percent last year.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 16 2010 @ 10:29PM
Helen says:
Isn't there precedent for granting a program within a school Title I money? I thought Madrona used to get Title I for their regular program when APP was there. If I remember right they had to reapply and re-argue the case every year, but they got the funding. I'm still trying to find where I read this.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 8:06AM
Shannon Phillips says:
It seems like your article doesn't tell the whole picture when it leaves out any mention of the new Student Assignment Plan and its impact on the school. Because the APP program has been placed at the school, the zone for neighborhood attendance is necessarily smaller, and possibly less diverse than if the whole school were a "neighborhood school." (E.g., a larger zone might have reached to more affluent areas in Leschi and Mt. Baker.) But prior to the APP move, it's my understanding that the school population was not largely made up of kids who live in the immediate neighborhood. (The District's demographic data shows that in 08/09, only 39 of the 158 kids at the school had TM as a reference school: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/maps/08-09/attend0809.html] Therefore, even if APP hadn't been placed there, there likely would have been significant changes in demographics due to a new neighborhood zone and the lack of transportation for kids outside the zone who tried to attend. I offer this to express that it seems misleading to suggest that the APP program placement is the only cause of a significant shift in the school's FRL population (with funding consequences), when that very likely would have happened anyway.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 9:25AM
(continued)
If you look at Meg Diaz's worksheet (for elementary schools), it looks like the "total $ by school"/student is pretty linearly related to the FRL population -- R^2 of >0.9, at a value of $1000/FRL student. That calc isn't perfect, but it's a valid data point to think of.
Techymom -- the numbers for total $ for school for TG (from Meg's spreadhseet) go down from approximately 400K to 188K. But, this number doesn't include the increase in the budget because of the doubling of TG's enrollment.
My read on TG is that T1 funds helped to compensate for their under-enrolled status. Now, they're no longer under-enrolled, and there's a loss of T1 funding. Last year was an anomaly, in which enrollment was up & T1 funds were high.
I generally find the use of PTA funds to pay for FTE's out of my realm of experience and understanding (and I'm not even sure how it works), so I don't have a lot to say about that.
wseadawg says:
Nina: Cite the sources for your "simple demographic fact" and read the dictionary definition of "affluent" while you're at it. ("Plentiful, abundant; wealthy, properous, rich.") You are irresponsibly spreading myths that privilege, social status and connectedness are benefiting one group at the expense of another. That does no good as it isn't true. That APP has middle class parents who don't receive federal aid does not make them "affluent." When did not receiving free or reduced lunch make someone "affluent?" Be fair and accurate.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 9:57AM
Nina Shapiro says:
Wseadawg -- The word affluence was not meant as a slur, and generally encompasses people in the middle as well as upper class. Again, it's all relative. But yes, I agree, people in the APP program are not all rich.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 10:10AM
wseadawg says:
Who said "affluence" was a slur? I wish I were. But by Websters definition, which I gave to you, I'm not. Neither are my neighbors and friends in APP, but for a select few. Not most, as you repeatedly insinuate.
You're right, "it's all relative." Hence the need for objectivity and facts, in order to be fair and accurate.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 10:41AM
wseadawg says:
Who said "affluence" was a slur? I wish I were. But by Websters definition, which I gave to you, I'm not. Neither are my neighbors and friends in APP, but for a select few. Not most, as you repeatedly insinuate.
You're right, "it's all relative." Hence the need for objectivity and facts, in order to be fair and accurate.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 10:42AM
Lori says:
Nina Shapiro wrote in the comments: "It's true that the district used to give Title I funds to schools that had only 40 percent of students qualify for free or discounted lunches. Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson upped the criteria to 55 percent last year."
So... according to your article, TM has an FRL rate of 42% this year, which would have qualified it for Title I funds except that the Superintendent change the threshold!
Perhaps a more accurate, less antagonistic headline would have been "TM Elementary Loses Title 1 Funds Thanks to Superintendent's Decision". Right?
And why is the word "gifted" in quotes in the headlines? Putting it next to the word "affluent" makes the whole thing sound like the APP cohort is a refuge for spoiled wealthy people with elitist attitudes. In reality, APP is a program for children with special needs who may be unable to make adequate academic progress in heterogeneous classrooms. No one complains when other children require special education, yet when it's someone who learns quickly and needs more challenge, suddenly that's elitist and subject to derision. I don't get it.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 11:12AM
Last year Title 1 + LAP equaled about $240,000, this year it equals about $53,000.
I'm concerned also about the snarky misuse of quotation marks. Putting "gifted" in quotation marks and not "affluent" is like saying that you know they're rich, but you're not so sure they're unusually smart. That's not only nasty, it draws away attention from the actual problem that the article is about.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 11:34AM
a mom says:
Agree that this headline is really snarky, and journalistically irresponsible. It makes it seem like the APP program wanted to move into TM to displace the ALO students and take over the school -- my impression is that this is far from the truth.
Both academic groups (APP and ALO students) were victims in this split. Please be more objective in your reporting.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 11:48AM
Beth says:
The facts aren’t wrong here, but perhaps the spin is. Clearly, the district is at fault for this debacle, not the families in either program.
However, APP parents, do you really think your kids aren't privileged, especially compared to the kids in the ALO program at Thurgood Marshall? Really? There are simple demographics at work here, as Nina pointed out—why did Free and Reduced lunch rates drop so dramatically with the switch if the APP and ALO kids are in the same economic bracket? And the PTA raised $100,000? How much money was the Marshall PTA raising in past years? I’m willing to bet it wasn’t anywhere near that much. Of course raising money for your kids isn’t a bad thing, but clearly it isn’t something everyone has the capacity to do. Many schools in the Central District don’t even have PTAs. I’m not saying privilege is bad, but not recognizing it can be.
Also, I always put the term “gifted” in quotes when referring to the APP program, though I agree the headline is snarky. All kids are gifted, not only the kids in APP programs. The term itself is problematic and divisive.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 12:55PM
dorainseattle says:
I teach an outside class to students grade 3 through high school. These students come from different backgrounds; private school, public school, home school, APP, alternative and option schools and the APP students who I have are no better off than other students financially in my classes.
To categorize these children in terms of their economic status is an inaccurate way to depict this population.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 1:15PM
Lori says:
The point of the article should be the fact that the entire school is losing a significant amount of money thanks to district decisions, including both the APP split AND the Superintendent raising the threshold for Title 1 funds eligibility. If the threshold were still 40%, TM would still be getting those funds.
Trying to lay the blame on a group of families who did not all go along with the decision to split APP in the first place is unnecessarily divisive and ends up only furthering the resentments that Ms. Shapiro discusses. Do you think the APP families at TM (and we are not one of them, fwiw) are happy about the situation? Do you think they like being scape-goated for district mismanagment?
Why couldn't this article have talked about the school as one new community that faces significant challenges for 2010/2011 due to circumstances wholly outside their control? Why does it have to be set up as a fight between "haves" and "have-nots"? I'm not denying what Beth calls "demographic realities." I just don't think the concept of relative privilege is unique to this situation or is really at the heart of the matter.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 17 2010 @ 1:21PM
(OK, these comments are longer than I realized! To read the rest, go to: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/thurgood_marshall_elementary_l.php)
"Does anyone know if Thurgood Marshall's students are still eligible for NCLB related tutoring services this year or next?
Does changing whether a school receives Title I funds or not affect the number of students who can receive tutoring services?"
My understanding is that ONLY Title One schools fall under the purview of NCLB. I could be wrong. If so, then if a school was no longer receiving T1 funding, I s'pose it wouldn't be a T1 school, ergo, the feds couldn't make it do tutoring, transfers etc, the things schools have to offer if they are not making AYP
hmmm....
But, what's the comparison point? The school was severely under-enrolled. Without the entry of the new population, presumably it would have been a candidate for closure. Or, alternatively, one of the other equally poor schools in the area would have been. Are people arguing that would have been better for the population?
Are people arguing that it's *better* for poor children to be concentrated in one school?
I've always seen the concentration of poor children in a school as a unfortunate result of our residential socioeconomic concentration, that we try to mitigate as best as we can (with Title I funds, or otherwise), not a desirable end point.
hmmm....
Yeah, so if the district has a problem with a rapidly growing tutoring expense then redirecting Title I money away from specific schools not only a way to pay for tutoring, it's a way to reduce the number of kids eligible for tutoring.
The structure of the school means that few real resources available to the 'affluent' (Nina Shapiro's word not mine) kids can be shared day to day with the poor kids. (and by 'resources' I guess I mean the advantage that comes with having half a class show up ready to learn--this is related to the tipping point thing that Techymom referred to above) The only fungible resources that came with the APP kids was that $100,000 in PTSA money and a certain amount of volunteer time.
where were the budgets? I've downloaded them in the past, but don't have the link any more.
...and advocacy. It doesn't sound like TM was the only school to lose funds when the Title I threshold was raised, but TM is the only one showing up in a Weekly article. TM is the only one being discussed here. Who even knows what other schools lost funds this year?
Van Asselt, Brighton, Emerson, Gatzert, Concord, Wing Luke, Dunlap, Highland Park, Maple, Dearborn Park, Beacon Hill. plus Madrona and TM (largest at 220,259)
From what I hear Van Asselt and Maple in particular are doing a fantastic job with poor kids.
Is Nina Shapiro reading along?
http://www.seattleschools.org/
area/m_news/gold_book_letter.pdf
it's going to NCLB tutoring.
$2.1M projected for this year.
$1.2M was spent on this last year.
$175,000 was spent on this 2 years ago.
Van Asselt, Brighton, Emerson, Gatzert, Concord, Wing Luke, Dunlap, Highland Park, Maple, Dearborn Park, Beacon Hill. plus Madrona and TM (largest at 220,259)
We should also count schools like T.T. Minor which lost ALL its Title 1 funding this year. The building may be closed, but the kids are still in the system, still have needs that those funds addressed, and are not getting all those funds anymore.
I also wonder about the Cooper kids. Did Cooper get Title 1 funds in 2008-09? Now that Pathfinder is there, does the school no longer qualify for those funds?
Moreover, are the Cooper kids who were booted from Cooper and have now been disbursed throughout West Seattle able to get Title 1 funds at the schools they have been sent to?
And what about the African American Academy kids and the Meany kids? Did they lose funding too?
That's really the key issue here, in my opinion -- which kids have lost crucial resources as a result of Supt GJ and District's machinations -- not just which buildings. That statistic might be harder to track because so many of those kids have been disbursed by the closures/mergers mess.
Also, if it is true that the District sat on some Title 1 funding last year and did not disburse it to the needy kids, and now the number of schools that qualify has been curtailed by District manipulations of student groupings and T1 thresholds, does that mean that the District now has undistributed T1 funding that it can redirect to other projects, say, STEM at Cleveland? Or the costly ($48 million) plan to reopen 5 schools?
I mean, why would the District purposely reconfigure schools so that kids no longer get money they still need? Is there a secret incentive to do this? If so, it sounds like it may help SPS bookkeeping, but it's at the unconscionable expense of the District's neediest kids.
It this just a superficial shell game by the District that allows it to think it has bragging rights to say "On our watch, the number of Title 1 schools decreased. Ergo, we closed the achievement gap. Hooray for us!"
That can't be right, can it?
I knew that he moved APP out of Madrona because of the inequity of the two programs there, but I did not know that he did the same thing MGJ is thrashed for doing-kicking out an existing student body (Lowell K-5) to house a different one (APP). He also closed schools, and proposed closing many others. He also moved a full third of the district's principals around in just one year as Superintendent. MGJ hasn't moved anywhere near that many, yet she's pilloried for moving those she has.
And as much as MGJ is attacked for bringning businesses into the schools, the Sloan Foundation got involved with the district (TT Minor and the New School) on yup-Standford's watch. A syrupy Times article refers to there being more business influences than ever in the schools, thanks to Standford's work.
He also proposed replicating successful programs by moving some of those principals around, including at attempts at creating a second TOPS at Madrona. Isn't that kind of thing something widely renounced when it's been tried since?
He was a big supporter of standarized testing for student promotion and possibly graduation.
He also proposed that parent donations fund some programs because the district couldn't do it all. Hasn't this blog lately been full of criticism of the district for even NEEDING parent dollars?
Stanford didn't want to just close a few schools-he believed the city needed only 75 of the 100 schools open and operating in his day.
He was also a BIG fan of charter schools-during the last vote on charters, he proposed that ALL of Seattle schools become charters, to keep Seattle parents of affluent communities in the district.
He also believed that neighborhood schools were best, and saw no problem with the fact that it would result in some segregated schools. He went so far as to say,I don't see that being in a racially isolated neighborhood limited my capacity to learn."
WOW. I had no idea! It seems like MGJ is doing many of the same things, only on a smaller scale than Stanford did or was proposing. So I have to ask those of you long timers-have people just forgotten all the things Stanford was doing and wanted to do before his life was cut short, or did he do it in a way that left a better taste in people's mouths?
I've been reading about the alternative schools feeling he didn't care about them, parents feeling unheard, "cohorts" being ripped apart-you know, the same stuff I see on this blog every day.
I'm not supporting MGJ here, but I'm genuinely curious about the MGJ hate vs. St. John Standford love. Seems he was just the military male version of MGJ's style of operation.
I realize this is somewhat off-topicl but he comes up in every discussion about APP and the move out of Madrona, as with this one. It's been a real education reading the old Times stories about his legacy.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to hire more teachers and lower class sizes? Am I missing something obvious?
So, the first point to remember is that loss of Title 1 funds doesn't mean simple loss of the funds, since they are offset by LAP funds (all schools receive one or the other). Title 1 funds are "larger" than LAP funds, on a per capita FRL child basis, so there is a loss of funds based on where the cutoff is set. But, to get a bottom line estimate of the lost Title 1 funds for TG, we can compare then to another school with a comparable number of FRL students: Sanislo.
Sanislo will receive 75K in Title 1 funds, instead of the 55K that TM will receive in LAP funds. So I think that's the loss that TM should be thinking of, when it considers the effect of loss of Title 1 funds. This smaller amount lost might seem puzzling, compared to the old budgets, but that's because every school is loosing Title 1 funding in this new scheme -- it's not a loss of what was available last year.
The switch from LAP to Title 1 funding occurs between Graham Hill (at 51.2% FRL) and South Shore (at 52.0% FRL). That doesn't comport perfectly with the 55% threshold we've been hearing about, so I'm puzzled by that. Using proportion FRL, a more reasonable break would have been between Graham Hill (51.2%) and BF Day (42.2%) -- where there's a step change.
So numbers wise, I see 2 concerns I have yet answered
1) why is there so much less title 1 money?
2) why was the threshold set where it was (though changing it won't result in as much extra money as people hope).
And, what's the scoop with South Shore? Why does it get a higher per student amount (per student) & a higher FRL amount (Per student) & get Title 1 funds even though it's FRL population is less than 55%? I know it's a special school of some sort, but is there somewhere where I can find out how it's special?
I don't know much about Stanford at all, so I can't speak to your other points, but surely the criticism has been that the district HAS NOT replicated successful programs such as TOPS? I didn't know he'd even tried that.
Helen Schinske
So yes, he might have been on a similar path we are on now, but my memory is that he really showed teachers that he valued them and was responsible for an overall morale lifting in the district. At least that's the legend as I understand it.
I am not one to deify Stanford; I, too, was concerned over some of his ideas even as people loved his charisma. I was just pointing out that he was considered very smart and yet the district went ahead and split APP.
"...including at attempts at creating a second TOPS at Madrona. Isn't that kind of thing something widely renounced when it's been tried since?"
No, people have plead for a second TOPS forever; I can't believe there would be any pushback from such a move.
ZB, I don't know why or how a comment could have gotten deleted.
To read up on South Shore, go to the New School Foundation website and you can read about it. South Shore gets some pretty great treatment (and more money than I thought - I thought it was $1M but it's over that).
Yup, yup, and more yup. If a school is not Title I they do not get government funded tutoring. And, families can't opt out of a failing school unless it is Title I. So TM not only loses its Title I funding, it loses it's government funded tutoring for all FRL students, and parents can't opt out (under NCLB) of the school any longer.
Of course, admin reasons aren't exactly always lining up with "what is best for students" at a particular school.
1) He deigned to talk to parents 1:1.
2) He looked you in the eye when doing so.
3) He had discussions, not lectures.
4) He saw merit in site-based management.
In summary: Maybe he wasn't always singing a happy tune to parents, but at least when he sang, he wasn't tone deaf.
Their FRL is 42%. They also have free all day K -- a privilege otherwise reserved for Title 1 schools. AND they have free pre K (and other stuff I assume) paid for by the Foundation. It's a great school--but really, private AND federal money? Why not Maple or Van Asselt or ......Is it in their MOU?
I want an MOU for my school!!
zb, where did you get your FRL rate for South Shore? My # is from the most recent annual report posted. Amazing that it has increased 10% in one year!
One thing I feel the need to harp on is that TM is more like two schools housed under one roof. Even if their FRL rate is the same as South Shore's their poverty is much more concentrated in practice and I think deserves an exception if any school does.
The same thing could be true of other schools, like Graham Hill or Beacon or any of the Spectrum schools if poor kids are isolated from middle class kids within the building.
From Meg's spreadsheet, which I did not independently verify. They're drawing the line between South Shore & Graham Hill. South Shore also gets more FRL & per student money (per capita).
I know the Title 1 money doesn't come from the New School Foundation. Does the other money come from them? The other theory I had was that K-8's get a different amount of money in those two categories. South Shore is listed as being a K-8 in some places, but as an elementary in others.
I get that there's an experiment being tried at South Shore. But now I'm confused about who is paying for it.
I found the "individul school summary" docs (08, 09) to support the 42% and 52% FRL numbers. It's pretty amazing (to me!). In 08-09 total enrollment was 387 with 162 FRL. In 09-10 enrollment went up to 521 and of the 134 new kids, 109 of them were FRL! I wonder if that reflects the neighborhood or if there is recruiting going on?
I'll admit that I have been paying more attention to the New School since I noticed that they only offered ONE tour this year and it was at the beginning of February--well before Open Enrollment (maybe not a big deal for a neighborhood school-but they are supposed to be the Option school for all of the SE students).
Actually, Supt. Goodloe-Johnson has moved around nearly a third of the principals in this past year alone. Are you sure Supt. Stanford did this too?
Principal shuffles on Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson’s watch:
May 2009: Roy Merca from Summit (closed) to AS1, Ernie Severs from AS1 to Sanislo, Debbie Nelson from Sanislo to Jane Addams, Chris Carter from African American Academy (closed) to Jane Addams to Hamilton Middle School, Dewanda Cook-Weaver from Lowell to McGilvra Elem., Jo Shapiro from McGilvra Elem. to assistant principal at Hamilton Middle School, Wayne Floyd from John Stanford Center central office to Loyal Heights, Cashel Toner from Loyal Heights to Leschi Elem., Jo Lute-Ervin from Leschi to TOPS, Linda Robinson from Bryant to Whittier, Cothron McMillian from Whittier to Brighton, Beverly Raines from Brighton Elem. to Lawton Elem., Gregory King from TT Minor (closed) to Lowell, Julie Briedenbach from Lowell Elem. to Thurgood Marshall Elem., Winifred Todd from Thurgood Marshall to Dunlap, Greg Imel from Dunlap to Bailey Gatzert, Norma Zavala from Bailey Gatzert to Concord, Sandra Scott from Concord to Hawthorne, Stacey McCrath-Smith was moved from Meany.
July 2009: Jill Hudson to Nathan Hale High School, Henterson Carlisle assigned interim principal of Madison Middle School.
Jan 2010: Kaaren Andrews from Madrona K-8 to the Interagency School, Cheryl Grinager from Green Lake Elementary to McDonald Elem. (to be reopened), David Elliott from Coe Elem to Old Hay (to be reopened)
Dan Warren from John Hay to Sand Point (to be reopened).
Feb/March 2010: DeWanda Cook-Weaver from McGilvra, Beverly Raines from Lawton.
(of these, I believe only one replaced a retiring principal, Clara Scott from TOPS, and one who went on leave on her own accord, Katie Cryan Learie from Hamilton, and then two who may have been forced out: D. Cook-Weaver and B. Raines)
Sources: Seattle Times, Seattle Public Schools, and Seattle Public Schools Community Blog.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008726291&zsection_id=2003749464&slug=webprincipals09m&date=20090209
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/news/0910/20100111_principal_appointments.pdf
As for the changes in enrollment, that could be a result of their having more space after moving back into their own building (South Shore) after having been at their interim site or it could be the result of adding another grade.
1) He deigned to talk to parents 1:1.
2) He looked you in the eye when doing so.
3) He had discussions, not lectures.
4) He saw merit in site-based management.
In summary: Maybe he wasn't always singing a happy tune to parents, but at least when he sang, he wasn't tone deaf."
Spot on in all respects. AND, partly because of these things, he was OF the community, and collaborated with it.
Dr. Goodloe Johnson is NOT of the community, brings a whole pre-planned package with her, does not seem to involve the community in planning...
If we are to look at the workplace model, which is better:
Telling your employees what to do, follow your instructions to the letter;
OR: tell your employees to bring their skills to work, use their brains and experience to work with new information on the ground, innovate in the moment and long term, bring their suggestions to the table and expect respectful interaction and discussion on them...
Now imagine "employees" in that scenario are not just staff but also the parent/guardian and other supporters...
Who, as the employee, would you hold in higher esteem? Top-down or respectful collaboration for the good of the "company"?
Which system works better? I would prefer to feel that I am contributing, not just clocking in, checking boxes, and keeping my head low.
"In the spirit of balance and even handedness.."
mean?
My daughter was in a Title 1 classroom at Summit- maybe in 7th gd? They used the money to hire a teacher that gave instruction similar to SPED pullout ( but different in some way)-
PTA money should not have to pay for basics like maintenance, lunches or classroom instruction.
If the district can't afford to do those things for all schools, then perhaps some of their pet projects need to be scaled back.
A girl can dream.
For the evidence, follow the link below and scroll down for examples of the evidence that was ignored, both quantitative and qualitative.
saveissaquahmath.blogspot.com/
Or read the many posts on Cliff Mass's blog, or the many posts from the very informed Dan Dempsey on this blog.
I guess those considering a move to the eastside for a better math education for their child will have to choose carefully.
Hello? Is this thing on? (Tap, tap)
I agree with you. That is exactly what is already happening at Lowell. Now, I don't know the TM reference area all that well, but I do know a couple of middle class (and more affluent) people with preschoolers who live there, and are planning to send their kids to TM.
There has been a lot of gentrification in the area since the 2000 census, so it's hard to get accurate info about the demographics. The 2010 census, and the makeup of next year's K class will tell us a lot about TM's future demographics, but it's pretty hard to get a good picture just yet.
The parent population across the district seems to be close to 99% anti-Discovering, so it's no surprise that this blog has the same inclinations.
Dorothy said: "Rosie? Even handedness and fairness to whom? Seattle Times? Discovery Math? Issaquah"
This is a better question. Let's see if she replies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/nyregion/24waiting.html?ref=education
The perils of inflexible boundaries we will surely encounter at some point.
I agree that the area around TM will change the demographics of Thurgood Marshall - eventually.
However, comparing it to Lowell is comparing apples to oranges. There are only 45-50 (?) ALO students at Lowell compared to around 250 ALO students at TM - no comparison in needs.
The majority of TT Minor students assigned to Lowell with the transition didn't go - did they end up at Madrona or Leschi? Most likely, and therefore have maintained their services.
The TM ALO students are at the school until they "graduate" out - so the transition will be slow starting with the Kindergarten this year.
What are the current ALO population of kids supposed to do until that happens? Go without tutoring etc? They will fall through the cracks and the district gets to ignore them.
I think the transition may have started with this year's K class at TM, too. However, I can't find any info on the demographic makeup of the K class there, though I'm pretty sure I've seen it before.
Even with program-based allocation, as Helen said Madrona used to have, this problem will return in a few years, once several grades are neighborhood kids with less concentration of poverty. Lowell's ALO probably wouldn't qualify this year, and certainly won't next year, as the K-1 population will be quite a bit larger than the 2-5 population.
Taking the long term view of this, reducing concentrations of poverty is a good thing. What can be done to ease the transition? Maybe allocating Title 1 based on program and grade for a few years, until this years first graders graduate?
The district seems to be taking a pull-off-the-bandaid-quickly approach. Perhaps they're hoping some of these kids will move to other programs, closer to home?
Techymom and Mercermom,
I agree that the area around TM will change the demographics of Thurgood Marshall - eventually.
However, comparing it to Lowell is comparing apples to oranges. There are only 45-50 (?) ALO students at Lowell compared to around 250 ALO students at TM - no comparison in needs.
No, there are more ALO kids at Lowell than that. I believe there are about 90.
TM is more like 200/200 APP/ALO.
(to the best of my knowledge.)
Title I money is supposed to be used for things a school wouldn't normally get. A nurse IS something a school in SPS would get (even if only once a week). I don't know if Title I money specifically forbids a school nurse or not, but there is a rational argument for why that money wouldn't extend to a school nurse, just as there's a rational argument for why it should. Anyway, your questions:
1) The district has, in the past, distributed funds to middle schools as well (mostly Aki). I'm not sure why high schools have not been part of their Title I funding, but that's an issue that's at their discretion. There's likely an acceptable argument for and against taking Title I money for high schools.
2) There are set-asides for the following items. a) 10% for professional development b) 1% for family involvement c) 20% for supplemental education services (tutoring companies; and if a company is on OSPI's approved list, SPS is obliged to pay them for working with an eligible student. I'll add, having received many calls from them, that the tutoring companies are incredibly predatory) and d) transportation. This year the district has budgeted about $500K for transportation. I don't know what the top % is that CAN be used for transportation.
3) I don't know what the baseline per-student funding is. I do know some of the variables involved that will affect what the ultimate $ per student funding is at any given school. a) FRL %, b) SpEd (and there are a number of variables that affect SpEd funding) c) grants, d) "other" (no idea what could be in this pot. Maybe PTA money?) and there may be an "e" and "f" I don't know about. Are you calculating Gatzert and Bryant based on total school budget divided by enrollment? Gatzert has a really FRL%; that alone should ratchet their per-student funding way up. The district is required to distribute Title I funds to schools with an FRL% over 75%; Gatzert is well above 75%.
If you add up the Title I numbers with all the set-asides, you'll find there's still some that's not being disbursed to schools and not a required set-aside. I can only speculate what it's being used for. It's possible that there are additional set-asides.
Only districts that have at least 40% FRL-qualified students overall are eligible to receive Federal Title-1 funds. SPS just barely meets this threshold.
Title-1 Schools versus Title-1 Qualified Schools.
A "Title-1 school" is a school that receives Title-1 money. A "Title-1 qualified school" includes all schools that are eleigible to, but do not, receive Title 1 funds.
All of SPS' middle schools and high schools and a few of SPS' elementary schools are Title-1 qualified.
Four allowed uses of Federal title-1 dollars.
1. Targetted Assistance:
+Schools with less than 40% FRL do not get any Title I dollars - not even for T-A.
+Only FRL-qualified students are eligible for T-A;
+T-A Programs can be funded ONLY by title I dollars: means that the Federal law really favors school wide programs.
+Quote from http://www.k12.wa.us/
TitleI/schoolwide.aspx:
"Title I funds support targeted assistance for eligible students. Eligibility identified in targeted assistance building plan. The eligible population includes (1) children not older than 21 who are entitled to free and public education through grade 12, and (2) children who are not yet at the appropriate grade level for free and appropriate education (Early Childhood). Eligible children are children identified by the school as students who do not meet, or most at risk of not meeting the State’s challenging student academic achievement standards on the basis of multiple, educationally related, objective criteria established by the local educational agency, except children from preschool through grade 2 shall be selected solely on the basis of such criteria as teacher judgment, interviews with parents, and developmentally appropriate measures."
+http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleI/schoolwide.aspx; click on the first doc: to a comparison of school-wide and targetted assistance programs
Four allowed uses of Federal title-1 dollars.
2. School-wide program (SWP)
+Schools with less than 40% FRL do not get any title I dollars.
+Schools with 75% FRL MUST use their Title-1 allocation for an SWP.
+Schools with FRL between 40% and 75% can have blended programs, if the District allows.
+The District is free to set a lower threshold than 75% at which the Title-1 schools must use their Title-1 money ONLY for SWP. District's can set the threshold as low as 40%.
+Federal Title 1 allows an SWP to be supported not only by Title-I monies, but by monies from many sources, including local funds (I guess this means tax levy funds and philanthropic grants to the school district).
+http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleI
/schoolwide.aspx: click on the first doc: to a comparison of school-wide and targetted assistance programs
+Federal law (NCLB?) requires that when Title I money is being used to pay for a SWP, it must be used to pay for cost of what I characterize as rigidly enforced teach-to-the test, data-driven, accountability regime, and which includes instructional coaches (implementation enforcers?) paid out of Title I budget.
3. Blended Programs:
+A school has a blended program if it uses some of its title 1 funds for T-A, and some for an SWP.
+Schools with less than 40% FRL do not get any title I dollars - not even for Targetted Assistance.
+Schools with 75% FRL or more must use all of their Title-1 allocation for an SWP.
4. Supplemental Education Services (SES) (up to 20% of district allocation)
+http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleI
/TitleI/SES.aspx ...
+http://www.k1.wa.us/TitleI/TitleI/
pubdocs/
SESNon-RegulatoryGuidance.pdf
+From page 14 of the 2nd citation: "Eligible students are all students from low-income families who attend Title I schools that are in their second year of school improvement, in corrective action, or in restructuring. Eligibility is not dependent on whether a student is a member of a subgroup that did not make AYP or whether a student is in a grade that takes the statewide assessments required by Section 1111 of the ESEA.
If the funds available are insufficient to provide SES to each eligible student whose parent requests those services, an LEA must give priority to the lowest-achieving eligible students."
5. Professional Development (minimum 10% of Title 1 funds that go to a school).
+Quote from page 11 of http://www.seattleschools.org/area/
budget/goldbook/10/sec2.pdf:
"Schools in Steps 2-5 of not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) must set aside a minimum of 10% of their Title 1 allocation for professional development.
+This use of Title-1 funds is called "Professional Development set aside." Federal Title-1 Law allows the PD-set aside to be used to pay for PD services from private sources.
+Quote from page 11 of http://www.seattleschools.org/area/
budget/goldbook/10/sec2.pdf:
"SPS ensures set-aside compliance by spending the 10% set-aside in hiring instructional and content-area coaches to support teachers." I was told by SPS staff that these coaches only serve the Title-1 schools, and that these coaches are separate from the coaches covered by othe baseline budget, which I think means the District's operating budget.
+I think what SPS is doing is taking 10% of the entire allocation (i.e., $1.4M of the $14M from the State) and using this to pay for salaries of intructional coaches. If I am right, this means, SPS is using more than is required for this set-aside, since not all of our Title-1 schools are in Step-2-5.
6. Family Involvement programs (1% of the Title-1 school's allocation)
Learning Assistance Program [LAP]
LAP are similar to Title 1 Targetted Assistance funds but these come from the State. What I have seen is that our Superintendent gives LAP funds to schools that are Title-1 eligible (i.e., have at least 40% FRL), but which are not receiving any Title 1 money.
The perstudent allocation for LAP is relatively small compared to the Title-1 perstudent allocation.
[source of following:http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleI/LAP.aspx]
The Learning Assistance Program (LAP) is a state-funded program that provides additional academic support to eligible students. Eligible students are those achieving below grade level on the state’s assessment, and 11th and 12th grade students at risk of not graduating. Achievement on district assessment of basic skills may also be considered.
LAP funds are available to support programs in grades K-12 in reading, writing, mathematics, and readiness for those subjects.
Accelerated Student Learning Plans are required for LAP-served students.
Examples of Accelerated Student Learning Plans may be found in LAP Bulletin 047-08: Special Programs & Federal Accountability (Word).
Source Doc: Most recent annual schools reports from SPS website, and section three of the goldbook:
http://www.seattleschools.org/
area/budget/goldbook/10/sec3.pdf
Each School in SPS receive either LAP (Learning Assistance Program) funds from the State, or Title-I funds from the Federal Government, but not both.
The LAP funds don't amount to much for each eligible student. LAP funds are used only for Targetted Assistance. Title-1 schools use Title-1 funds for targetted assistance and school-wide programs.
The District Title I Allotment is $14M.
The goldbook shows that the total Title-I spending in District school is $5.996M.
[In a subsequent posting I will document what I know about how the Central District uses the $8M that it does not distributed to school buildings.]
There are about 33 elementary schools that meet the 40% FRL threshold. Only 23 of these Title-1-eligible elementary schools are receiving Title-1 funds. All the schools in SPS that are receiving Title 1 funds are elementary schools. There are eight Title-1 eligible middle schools and high schools, but none of these schools are receiving Title-1 funds. There are 5513 FRL students at these 18 schools in the District that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title 1 funds.
There are a total of 6129 FRL-qualifed students enrolled at the 23 Title-1 schools in SPS. This means that only about 1/3 of the FRL students in the district are enrolled in schools that are receiving Title I funds. The average title-I allocation per FRL student to these 23 schools is $978. At some schools, it is slightly higher than $1000/student.
It looks like schools with the lowest percentage populatios of ELL, special needs, and FRL students get about $6000/student for the 2009-2010 school year. Bailey-Gatzeart has a very high proportion of FRL-qualified students. Its funding is about $9000 per student.
Disclaimer: I don't know if I am absolutely right on every point. I put a question mark in brackets "[?]" where I have any uncertainty.
From OSPI website: "OSPI calculates district allocations; districts determine the formula for distributing their schools’ per-pupil allocations."
Just barely 40% of SPS Students are FRL qualified. FRL means free-and reduced price lunch qualified; being qualified for FRL makes the student Title-I qualified). 40% of 46,0000 is just about 18.5K students. Only about 1/3 of SPS' FRL-eligible students are enrolled in Title-1 schools.
This SPS document has a full accounting of how the Title-1 funds can and cannot be used: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/budget/goldbook/10/sec2.pdf - see pages 11 and following.
This year, only elementary schools with at least 55% FRL are getting Title 1 funds. Last year the District was giving Title-1 funds to all eligible elementary schools. This year no Title-1-eligible middle and high schools are getting Title I funds.
Unanswered Q: Has it long been the case that SPS Title-1-eligible middle and high schools have been getting no Title 1 funds? Is it legal for the District to give no Title-1 funds to schools with 75% or more FRL-qualified students?
SPS' Title-1 allocation this year is about 14 Million.
The district is keeping about $8 Million of its allocation centrally, and sending about $6M of its allocation to school buildings.