Petition to DC Council for FY 2024 Charter School Budgets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I don’t think so. Tell your charter board to increase teacher salaries if you don’t like current pay structures. Charter teachers should unionize if they want the collective bargaining power that the WTU has. Why on earth should they benefit from the DCPS union’s efforts if they choose not to unionize (MV aside)?

Some context for anyone who’s trying to figure out what this is about: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1109459.page

This is silly. Salaries can't be increased independent of funding. The salaries of the unionized charter school are lower than the other charters. It isn't that the union isn't effective, they just can't raise salaries to compete with other charters (or DCPS) without getting equivalent funding.

Charters choose to pay their teachers lower salaries in many cases. They want to be independent and therefore they choose how to allocate their budgets. They choose their staffing numbers, salaries, etc. Advocate with your charter leaders to increase teacher pay in their budgeting.

Clearly math isn’t your forte. There is a per pupil funding amount that public schools receive. They budget within that. They can move money around but with educator salaries gerald being a larger percentage of school budgets increases are capped by the per pupil amount. Unfortunately, just cutting doesn’t yield enough for decent salary increases when there are fixed costs like mortgages and essential like utilities, food, etc have risen rapidly.

Charters have rich donors, some are part of vast organizations and some are for profit. You don’t think they could get more funding? No they’d rather have more tax payer dollars to do whatever they want at the school.

As do almost all W3 schools. And your point is...?

My point is billionaire donors to charters just write a check and charters can spend that money however they want. The PTA at Ward 3 can’t increase teacher salaries. But you knew that already.

Let's also be absolutely clear. DCPS gets just as much, if not more, money from Billionaire philanthropy. However, the Billionaires give to the DC Education Fund (https://dcedfund.org/) that was founded for the express purpose of accepting donations as a non-profit (so donors get their tax deduction) and funnel it to DCPS. It is literally the fundraising arm of DCPS- their offices are in the SAME SPACE as DCPS and have ~20M in revenue.

Here is the mission statement of the org: "The DC Public Education Fund was founded in 2007 to help DC Public Schools address its most pressing challenges through organized philanthropy. As an independent organization, our team raises significant private dollars that incubate cutting-edge start-up ideas for students. We are DCPS’ very own venture fund."

And some may find it interesting that the ED of the ED Fund made $207K in total compensation in 2020 (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/261607955/202141839349300024/full). Trust me, the people that work at DCPS know how to raise money. They just do it with public/private partnerships and charters can raise the funds directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

The law requiring equitable funding is at 38–2902. Applicability of Formula.

The two WTU increases since the passage of the SRA have gone through the formula, as required by law.

So, by your logic, if another LEA- let's say Mundo Verde were to negotiate a higher pay scale. Should the city pick up the tab for that increase? We have 50+ different LEAs, all of which could have a union and negotiate a different pay scale with management. Management isn't the city at these schools. It isn't PCSB either, each charter school is it's own district.

Equal funding was a feature of the School Reform Act. You may not like it or agree with it, but we have the system we have (at least for now). If we are going to have that system, it doesn't make sense to reward large increases of operating costs to one sector over the other. Why? Because in the end, if you don't, there are really bad consequences for kids. Especially those kids that need it the most.

Not asking anyone to agree that our current system works. But if we chip away at the finances of charter schools, our whole city will feel the impact. Even if you think DCPS could absorb all of the charter students. It wouldn't happen for years in which there would be serious weakness in early literacy at failing schools.

Let's not mess with the edges and stop doing things they way they have been done since the SRA. I suspect this Council has big plans to dig in to the education governance of our city- the SBOE just passed a big resolution and plan. The time is coming to have the public discussion. If change is needed, let's do it in a smart way.

Well, if I were to just make up a system, I suppose each charter or LEA could send a representative to negotiate as a group of charter schools with the city's designee. They could develop a contract or a la carte menu of deals that each school could opt in or out of. Yes this would be work, but so what? It seems worthwhile to me.

If having tons of little tiny charter schools is administratively inefficient, then maybe we don't need to have so many. I have never, ever understood why we're paying all this money for so many different schools that are barely passing review.

Interesting ideas- I agree that there are tons of ways one could reform our system. I welcome those conversations- I was really disappointed when the cross-sector task force that Bowser touted in her first term didn't produce any results.

However, we can't just say- "We aren't going to give you the funding as required by the law (and like we did 5 years ago and 9 years ago) because, now, we don't like the system. And if that means you can't afford to pay teachers the same way and you worry what that will do for kids? Too bad."

WE HAVE NO VAILD POLICY SOLUTION that can be implemented before next school year and creating pay inequities that negatively impact some schools is not a solution that best serves our kids.

DC Council and the Mayor could work together to craft a different system- they could close underperforming schools or increase accountability. I am actually supportive of all of those things. What I can't see is the logic of using the BSA and budget process as that tool. It is just too damaging for the students (who for too long have been left out of this conversation).

The discussion here about "leverage" over schools (which I don't think are from this PP) are, in my opinion, short sighted and very troubling.

I realize that there are other opinions on this and generally speaking holding dollars over entities is an effective a way to move policy. However, doing that with funds that support children in schools (especially right now when we are still recovering from HUGE learning loss) is unconscionable. Advocate all you want for a change to our laws and structure. But don't just chip away at it and allow certain schools to fail due to underinvestment. That isn't fair to kids and families that are relying on the city to live up to the rules it created (through a VERY robust) legislative process.

That is all...if it isn't persuasive then, I guess we just have to disagree.

Indeed, we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, the "leverage" idea is mine. You see, it's *because* I care about the children that I feel obligated to use every bit of "leverage" available to press for quality improvements, and I feel obligated to press for it now, this year, without delay. It is you who is short-sighted, focusing on maximizing next year's funding rather than on systemic change starting now. We absolutely can say "We aren't giving you money like we did before", if legislation to change the law is enacted.

To say "Oh, think of the children" when you really mean "give us lots of money with no strings attached" is unconscionable to me. There will *never* be a year when this kind of leverage is welcome. The charter sector will always argue against it. They will always say "think of the children" and "learning loss" -- but learning loss isn't going away anytime soon, due in part to the many poor quality charter schools in this city. They will never, ever say "Yes, force improvements on us, we have plenty of money." The students are not left out of the conversation-- "oh, think of the children" is the constant refrain of the charter sector and in their minds, justifies everything they want.

If anyone relied on the current funding structure staying the same, that was an error in judgment. And an error in judgment is not a reason to get lots of money with no strings attached. The COVID supplemental funding was always temporary and its completion should have been anticipated and planned for. This school system and its budget are constantly, constantly changing. If anyone was expecting it to stay the same, that's on them. The students will suffer for the poor decisions of adults, but isn't that how everything works in a school system?

I think you are missing the point...funding the two sectors in different ways in this budget doesn't change any of the systemic items you cite. It simply lowers the amount per-pupil that 48% of our schools receive. It will require schools to apply to OSSE to say they will use the funds to pay teachers, but still not close the actual gap. There won't be any legislative solution or changes to accountability (because neither OSSE, nor PCSB, can change the rules around most of the items you cite. Especially not in a couple of months for an application for charters to receive these funds.

I don't actually disagree with you that a wholesale conversation and change are needed. Using the budget process in this way is policy making with a gun to your head. How can that at all be in the best interest of our city?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

The law requiring equitable funding is at 38–2902. Applicability of Formula.

The two WTU increases since the passage of the SRA have gone through the formula, as required by law.

So, by your logic, if another LEA- let's say Mundo Verde were to negotiate a higher pay scale. Should the city pick up the tab for that increase? We have 50+ different LEAs, all of which could have a union and negotiate a different pay scale with management. Management isn't the city at these schools. It isn't PCSB either, each charter school is it's own district.

Equal funding was a feature of the School Reform Act. You may not like it or agree with it, but we have the system we have (at least for now). If we are going to have that system, it doesn't make sense to reward large increases of operating costs to one sector over the other. Why? Because in the end, if you don't, there are really bad consequences for kids. Especially those kids that need it the most.

Not asking anyone to agree that our current system works. But if we chip away at the finances of charter schools, our whole city will feel the impact. Even if you think DCPS could absorb all of the charter students. It wouldn't happen for years in which there would be serious weakness in early literacy at failing schools.

Let's not mess with the edges and stop doing things they way they have been done since the SRA. I suspect this Council has big plans to dig in to the education governance of our city- the SBOE just passed a big resolution and plan. The time is coming to have the public discussion. If change is needed, let's do it in a smart way.

Well, if I were to just make up a system, I suppose each charter or LEA could send a representative to negotiate as a group of charter schools with the city's designee. They could develop a contract or a la carte menu of deals that each school could opt in or out of. Yes this would be work, but so what? It seems worthwhile to me.

If having tons of little tiny charter schools is administratively inefficient, then maybe we don't need to have so many. I have never, ever understood why we're paying all this money for so many different schools that are barely passing review.

Interesting ideas- I agree that there are tons of ways one could reform our system. I welcome those conversations- I was really disappointed when the cross-sector task force that Bowser touted in her first term didn't produce any results.

However, we can't just say- "We aren't going to give you the funding as required by the law (and like we did 5 years ago and 9 years ago) because, now, we don't like the system. And if that means you can't afford to pay teachers the same way and you worry what that will do for kids? Too bad."

WE HAVE NO VAILD POLICY SOLUTION that can be implemented before next school year and creating pay inequities that negatively impact some schools is not a solution that best serves our kids.

DC Council and the Mayor could work together to craft a different system- they could close underperforming schools or increase accountability. I am actually supportive of all of those things. What I can't see is the logic of using the BSA and budget process as that tool. It is just too damaging for the students (who for too long have been left out of this conversation).

The discussion here about "leverage" over schools (which I don't think are from this PP) are, in my opinion, short sighted and very troubling.

I realize that there are other opinions on this and generally speaking holding dollars over entities is an effective a way to move policy. However, doing that with funds that support children in schools (especially right now when we are still recovering from HUGE learning loss) is unconscionable. Advocate all you want for a change to our laws and structure. But don't just chip away at it and allow certain schools to fail due to underinvestment. That isn't fair to kids and families that are relying on the city to live up to the rules it created (through a VERY robust) legislative process.

That is all...if it isn't persuasive then, I guess we just have to disagree.

Indeed, we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, the "leverage" idea is mine. You see, it's *because* I care about the children that I feel obligated to use every bit of "leverage" available to press for quality improvements, and I feel obligated to press for it now, this year, without delay. It is you who is short-sighted, focusing on maximizing next year's funding rather than on systemic change starting now. We absolutely can say "We aren't giving you money like we did before", if legislation to change the law is enacted.

To say "Oh, think of the children" when you really mean "give us lots of money with no strings attached" is unconscionable to me. There will *never* be a year when this kind of leverage is welcome. The charter sector will always argue against it. They will always say "think of the children" and "learning loss" -- but learning loss isn't going away anytime soon, due in part to the many poor quality charter schools in this city. They will never, ever say "Yes, force improvements on us, we have plenty of money." The students are not left out of the conversation-- "oh, think of the children" is the constant refrain of the charter sector and in their minds, justifies everything they want.

If anyone relied on the current funding structure staying the same, that was an error in judgment. And an error in judgment is not a reason to get lots of money with no strings attached. The COVID supplemental funding was always temporary and its completion should have been anticipated and planned for. This school system and its budget are constantly, constantly changing. If anyone was expecting it to stay the same, that's on them. The students will suffer for the poor decisions of adults, but isn't that how everything works in a school system?

I think you are missing the point...funding the two sectors in different ways in this budget doesn't change any of the systemic items you cite. It simply lowers the amount per-pupil that 48% of our schools receive. It will require schools to apply to OSSE to say they will use the funds to pay teachers, but still not close the actual gap. There won't be any legislative solution or changes to accountability (because neither OSSE, nor PCSB, can change the rules around most of the items you cite. Especially not in a couple of months for an application for charters to receive these funds.

I don't actually disagree with you that a wholesale conversation and change are needed. Using the budget process in this way is policy making with a gun to your head. How can that at all be in the best interest of our city?

Financial leverage is the only thing that will work. Using the budget process to make policy change is normal and appropriate and happens every year.

[Anonymous]

Charters do not deserve more money and petition all you want, they will not get it. That is the price for privatization of public education. It is the choice of individual schools to pay teachers that way.
They receive the SAME per pupil funding. DC is not paying for charters habit of spending less on teacher than dcps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charters do not deserve more money and petition all you want, they will not get it. That is the price for privatization of public education. It is the choice of individual schools to pay teachers that way.
They receive the SAME per pupil funding. DC is not paying for charters habit of spending less on teacher than dcps.

Why do you not want to retain teachers? Why don't you support paying teachers more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters do not deserve more money and petition all you want, they will not get it. That is the price for privatization of public education. It is the choice of individual schools to pay teachers that way.
They receive the SAME per pupil funding. DC is not paying for charters habit of spending less on teacher than dcps.

Why do you not want to retain teachers? Why don't you support paying teachers more?

If we didn't have so many half-full, half-failing charters, the remaining schools could operate more efficiently and then it would be easy to pay teachers more. Cull the herd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters do not deserve more money and petition all you want, they will not get it. That is the price for privatization of public education. It is the choice of individual schools to pay teachers that way.
They receive the SAME per pupil funding. DC is not paying for charters habit of spending less on teacher than dcps.

Why do you not want to retain teachers? Why don't you support paying teachers more?

NP but the money is not guaranteed to go to teachers. And the charters want autonomy and to be independent LEAs. There are pluses and minuses to that. One is that they have to figure out how to budget appropriate teacher salaries.

Also please note the new thread about KIPP over site by the PCBS (which actually does very little to provide over site to charters).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters do not deserve more money and petition all you want, they will not get it. That is the price for privatization of public education. It is the choice of individual schools to pay teachers that way.
They receive the SAME per pupil funding. DC is not paying for charters habit of spending less on teacher than dcps.

Why do you not want to retain teachers? Why don't you support paying teachers more?

I AM a teacher, who used to work at a charter. Ultimately having no union just so the school could kick ‘difficult’ kids out whenever doesn’t work. And before you cry, yes not all charters are bad.
Those teachers have the choice to move. No union, no higher salary. And with all this teacher hate, dislike, blame on this forum please don’t act like you care about teacher salary. They COULD pay their teachers more and charters choose not to.
They choose to use it for corrupt purposes or choose to have more staff. Individual DCPS schools do not get that luxury, if they want more staff they have to beg or if you are at a school with donors perhaps you can afford a few paras or a teacher or 2. (The latter is also not unique to DCPS.)

My charter colleagues do deserve to be paid more, how about you tell your charter to pony up the money? They do not get extra funds just for being a charter, if that’s the case it’d show clear favoritism for charters.