Cross post taken from APP Blog
This was a comment posted on the APP Blog by Meg Diaz. People need to read this, so I'm just stealing it. Hey, it's on a blog, it's in the public domain, there's no copyright protection and information wants to be free.
Thurgood Marshall is getting eviscerated. The ALO program will take the worst of it.
The ALO program is somewhere over 85% FRL. The influx of the APP program has reduced the "school" FRL to 44%. SPS, starting in 2009-10, said that 1) schools can receive EITHER Title or LAP money, not both, and 2) that a school needs to be above 55% FRL to receive Title money (side note: both Title and LAP funds are intended to help kids who are living in poverty, performing below grade level or both). As a result of this brilliant policy change, Thurgood Marshall will lose nearly $200K in Title money, and yet the ALO population that was there before APP flooded into the building does not need the resources any less than they did before. The loss of title money also leaves the school at a disadvantage in gaining scholarships for things like field trips and other donations.
Thurgood Marshall's staffing reductions will hit the ALO program hardest. Pull-outs for math and reading? Over. FRL population receiving tutoring from tutoring companies that are paid with title money? Over. Bussing for before-school programs for kids qualified for FRL? Gone. A classroom teacher? Buh-bye.
In 2008-09, enrollment at Thurgood Mrshall was 264. Total FTEs were at 32.1. For 2010, the district projected some 440 kids (relatively stable from this year), and 33.6 FTEs. 180 extra kids in the building merit... 1.5 additional staffers and almost $200k LESS in additional funds.
Last year during the closure process, multiple APP parents posited to the board that moving APP into the Thurgood Marshall building would put the kids already in the building at risk, because it would very likely cause the school to lose massive amounts of funding and resources that those children really, really needed, simply because the FRL % for the building would be changed. The board insisted that this would not be the case, that they would look after these kids and that, in fact, having APP in the building could benefit them. Diversity! Enrichment! Access and equity! Unicorns and rainbows!
Just as predicted, the neediest kids in the building have lost huge amounts of resources because of the influx of a program with very different demographics into the building.
I would be very curious to learn what the benefit is to screwing over a struggling kid living in poverty.
Comments
This doens't take funding away from STEM; this takes it away from other schools. And this funding is independent of STEM's ability to recruit.
I don't know if Title I requires that districts use a threshold concentration of students living in poverty for distributing the funding. I do know that the District sets the threshold each year.
The practice undeniably provides financial rewards for economically segregated schools.
$200k is far more than Lowell ever raised intact - so planning $200k for half the program is completely unrealistic and perpetuating the erroneous belief that APP parents are all independently wealthy.
I'm sure there are many other schools in this district that face this every year.
The fact that it is happening "cold turkey" at TM as a direct result of closure decisions last year is unfortunate for those kids directly affected (although it was accurately predicted during the process by many parents).
TM and Lowell are structured , to some extent, as two separate schools within one building--half the classroom will have 30 kids, 90% of them poor, and the other half will have 30 kids, only 10% poor. The APP kids mask the concentration of poverty. The classroom level needs are the same as they were before the split.
Aside--does TM even have an auction? I thought 1-5 APP only had a direct appeal--and that proceeds were down significantly this year.
I believe the District's 'master plan' (or should I say 'plot'?) here is for Thurgood to eventually become an entirely APP school.
Director DeBell said as much last spring.
So the loss of Title 1 funds for TM doesn't concern the District that much.
TM at least got to keep its T-1 funding for one year after the closures. T.T. Minor kids immediately lost all of theirs.
And their before- and after-school care. And transportation. And, of course, their entire school.
I also agree that there is no way Thurgood or Lowell will raise $200k this year. It didn't happen before the split and sure as heck won't happen now and in this economy.
One last thought: many signs are indicating that the APP/ALO cohousing at Thurgood is not working. Serious tensions and problems abound. In other words, the District has indeed created a Madrona situation of incompatability all over again -- which many of us warned them about, and which former School Supt. John Stanford warned never to do again. (http://community.seattletimes.
nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990810&slug=2976509)
It's a bad situation for all the kids in the school.
Nice work, SPS.
It's time to put elementary APP back together again, and give the ALO kids at Thurgood (and the former T.T. Minor kids) the resources they need.
Helen Schinske
Kudos to the parents who predicted all this and told the district/board about it last year. Shame on the district and the board for not listening.
But as we move to more neighborhood schools, we will see this stratification of PTAs and the ability to fund many things. It increases the divide between well-supported schools and under-supported schools. It's not good for anyone.
Some schools fund an FTE. For an elementary school that could lower class size. Or they fund music or art or foreign language. Or even worse, they fund building projects. The district loves this because it lets them off the hook. I think it is coming to a boil now because of pay for K and class size and all the other things spinning out of control.
I wonder how much the Mayor and the City Council are aware of how the lid on the boiling pot is starting to rumble.
(I know from hearing from a few people as well as from Roosevelt that many schools are struggling to get donations. Part of me doesn't believe it is just the economy - it was bad last year as well - but it may be a strike against the district or school. Kind of "okay, don't listen to us, we don't have to fund you." Is the frustration level that high? I don't know.)
Not to mention the APP review, which the district paid for, and then ignored . . . actually, worse than ignored . . . specifically went a different direction.
stu
Even smaller middle income schools raise almost 100K. I know Thornton Creek does, and even tiny Sacajewea's auction brings in 75K or so.
I'm surprised Lowell doesn
t raise much at their auctions.
Not saying it's right to count on auction dollars to fulfill district responsibility.....
It has a direct appeal.
The target was $65K, I think. Anyone?
I have no idea of the fundraising goals at TM but cannot imagine them being more than that.
30K.
Thurgood Marshall is different (at least, <em>I</em> think so) because the change in its FRL is entirely due to a decision the board made, which was actively questioned by parents (and the change in FRL and its effects on the ALO program was an issue that was raised). The board and staffers insisted that the kids in the ALO program would not suffer as a result of placing APP in the building. And it's just not the case. The demographics in the ALO program didn't change in the last year, even though the demographics in the building did. Those kids need help just as much as they did one year ago, and as a direct consequence of moving APP into the building, their education will be harmed. And as Maureen points out, in a building with a single program, 44% FRL means the classrooms are mixed that way. At Thurgood Marshall, it's not the case. Still, you're absolutely right that there are schools that don't get desperately needed funding because they barely miss the FRL % threshold, and I think you have a point about there being a financial incentive for segregation.
Joe- Thurgood Marshall doesn't have an auction. And while it would be fabulous (and would solve a couple of major problems) if we raised $200k, we come nowhere near.
And generally- Thurgood Marshall lost over $200k in funding, not $180k. I apparently don't do math so well when I'm really mad.
Doesn't the Title 1 money pay for things that parent money isn't even allowed to pay for?
Does anyone know of any other schools likely to lose or gain Title 1 money due to the changes this fall?
The 2 don't follow. When we put an end to south end white flight, we will see a better balance in all the schools... The district's neighborhood preference will definitely put a damper on that flight. Seattle's neighborhoods are pretty diverse, certainly more diverse than the choice driven schools. When more people are actually in their neighborhood schools, the stratification should be reduced not increased. There probably will be a few exceptions.
Is this to avoid losing money because of NCLB?
I thought the federal threshold for this kind of money was lower -- something like 40%. Is this true no matter what threshold the district sets? That is, does the district still get dollars for schools because they have high poverty, but they just don't give those schools any of the money?
What are LAP funds?