Re #1: Yes, it is still an equity issue, I agree, but I believe that the district should be forthcoming about what they are funding and what they are not funding. Based on this chart, we have some idea of what programs exist at what schools, but we don’t know what kind of fund-raising, grant-writing, or other means they have used to get those programs. So when you wrote (and Peter repeated) “neither school is funding any FTE from outside grants,” you cannot be sure unless the principals have verified that. Furthermore, programs that are supported in that manner cannot be counted on from year to year; if the grant expires, if the fundraiser falls short, then the programs are gone, unless some other means of funding is found.

2) I believe you are correct about classified vs. certified. As far as I know, they are not counting volunteer activities, because there is no revenue stream attached, and volunteers cannot be counted as FTE.

3) My take on this? I think this chart is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign intended to mislead people into thinking that the promised “enrichment” is already in place, so now it’s time to give our attention to the buildings and pass that bond! That is why I feel so strongly about #1, esp. since so many schools get nothing from the Foundation and any little grants they get from other sources are short-lived.

Higher enrollment generally means more FTE to spend on non-classroom teachers, to a certain point. Of course, once a grade level rolls over and you have to bring in another classroom teacher, you take a little step back.

You got it on the “robbing Peter to pay Paul” comment.

What some might call “robbing Peter to Pay Paul.”

Steve R. – not following you on this one. So Arleta can offer more of the “extras” because it has a higher enrollment? What’s the relationship between higher enrollment and “extras” — more money per student, more students, so more money? Or is it something else?

The “robbing Peter to pay Paul” reference refers to giving “extras” but having large class sizes, correct?

Good to know about #2. Is it only library and technology that don’t need to be certified? Or are they counting the dad with a six string doing after school Grateful Dead sing-alongs as “music?”

As for #3, in what way is it inaccurate?

We need to let PPS know if they’re publishing inaccurate data.

Steve, I am familiar with this chart, and I am sorry to tell you three things about it:

1) It does NOT differentiate between district and grant funding. For example, it lists full-time PE at Winterhaven, which is true, but only .75 comes from the district; the other .25 is from a grant. I have also received confirmation from one of our mutual friends who has worked on this issue that PPS did not make this differentiation when compiling the chart.

2) It does not differentiate between certified and classified personnel filling the positions. For example, a .5 library or technology position may be filled by a full-time classified aide as opposed to a half-time teacher. This situation exists at quite a few schools.

3) It is not accurate.

New principal, maybe?

For example, compare Peninsula, with .75 P.E and .25 Technology, to Arleta with 1.25 P.E., 1 Music, .79 technology, .5 library and 1 counselor.

Arleta is slightly larger (369 vs. 301.5), but neither school is funding any FTE from outside grants. Arleta also has a higher FTE ratio (18.05 vs. 12.82), but still manages to offer the “extras,” most likely at the expense of class size.

What some might call “robbing Peter to Pay Paul.”