The Power Point refers to "Principal Guidelines for School Based Decisions" on slide 14 and says it's on the BCPSS website. Can anyone find it? It sounds like this will explain how schools will be judged as "sucessful". That's something I'd like to know.

I'd also like to know how schools are going to be able to plan and implement decent Gifted and Talented programs in less than 6 months so they can fairly spend their additional funds on those students as opposed to generally spending the money. And will parents be told that their student is considered advanced? Clearly magnet programs will hurt non-magnet schools budgets. How's that going to work out?

I can answer one of the parent's questions: Parents are supposed to receive their children's Stanford 10 and MSA scores indicating if they scored basic, proficient or advanced. Those in the advanced category in both reading and math in elementary school will qualify for the $2,200 in extra per pupil funding; in middle and high schools, they need to score advanced in only one subject or the other. However... the system is calculating funding for the advanced weights, as well as the weights for struggling students, based on the performance of first graders (for elementary schools), fifth graders (for middle schools) and eighth graders (for high schools), then applying those numbers across the entire school. The point is not to penalize schools for progress over time.
I couldn't find the principal guidelines on the Web site, either. However, I know there will another document that the board will have to vote on specifically outlining the accountability metrics.

Sara - Any chance you can find out if the charters will get the enrichment and/or remediation money? I know their funding formula is different, but somehow it seems like if the funding follows they child, they should get this extra money...

I can’t stop thinking about this idea of $2,200 per head for kids scoring in the advanced level on standardized tests. The more I think about this the more worried I get. Gifted and Talented (G & T) programs typically segregate kids and even without a lot of extra funding I’ve seen conflicts between kids in and not in these programs (and parents for that matter). Now you’re giving decent amounts of money tied to these “advanced” kids. If that money gets to be used for general needs of the school (e.g. everybody in the school would benefit if the copier worked or even if we had more classical music assemblies) at least some parents of G&T kids can be expected to be angry that the money that their kids are contributing to the school is not getting used on G & T curriculum and materials. On the other hand if the money is set aside for segregated G & T classes parents of non-“advanced” kids are going to be angry that their kids aren’t getting the best the school has to offer because of a few points on some standardized test. The same thing goes for city-wide magnet programs. If admittance is based on doing well on standardized tests this should mean that these schools get more money. If I was running a non-magnet school I would be screaming foul that the magnet schools are stealing the kids that would give us the money that we need to improve our school.

Michelle: I asked an administrator this morning, and learned that, no, charters will not get the student "weights" for enrichment, remediation and poverty on top of their base per pupil. The per pupil amount for charters will be the same as this year, $9,115. Keep in mind that the regular schools are getting the weights on top of a discretionary pot of about $5,000 per pupil (though they also get non-discretionary money for things like special education on top of that). The system says the average per pupil, including the weights, will be around the same amount as the charters are receiving.

Thank you for the follow up, Sara.

I sort of see that reasoning, but the flaw in the logic seems to be that as I understand it, the per pupil that was figured out for all charter students ($9115) was based on what was being spent per pupil system-wide (minus some services still being provided by the system - like the charter office). If the system is now saying some students are needier (enrichment, remediation, poverty) and deserve more money for specialized programs, it would seem that the charter allotment should also include weights for those 3 categories rather than just having one amount for every charter student.

Right now, equally-sized charters with 80% free/reduced lunch are getting the same funding as a charter with 30% free/reduced lunch - which again, doesn't quite seem to fit with the spirit of what Alonso is saying - that some students are needier?

It will be interesting to see if the charters leave this alone, or push for a re-evaluation of the funding formula.