Charter school Financial Analysis Report is up

[Anonymous]

https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/fl/OzUR0ezAVa#folder-link/Published%20FARs?p=c58559a6-47d2-4516-bfc6-0989e99f4251

Also the agenda for the Monday Nov 18 PCSB meeting includes "Financial Oversight Discussion".

[Anonymous]

TL/DR give us the cliff notes

[Anonymous]

Of note:

Achievement Prep: "Declining financial health" but a lot of cash on hand.

Breakthrough: "Declining financial health" but still in okay shape.

Capital Village: Declining, red flags on all six indicators. On a corrective action plan and up for 5-year review this winter. A further enrollment decline is forecast for the current school year. Seems like occupancy cost relative to enrollment is the main problem.

CMI: Satisfactory despite their financial stuff being complicated.

Eagle Academy: Has an entry despite having closed, but no info we didn't already know.

Girls Global: "Declining financial health", enrollment not on target. Up for 5-year review this winter.

Harmony: Doing ok due to parent org subsidizing it, may be released from corrective action plan and then we'll see what happens.

Hope: Declining financial health, but not a total disaster. Enrollment low but stable. Occupancy is way too high. Twenty-year review this year and based on this and test scores I'm not optimistic.

Howard: Doing okay financially, although academic performance is concerning.

IDEA: Declining financial health, is on the financial monitoring list, 25-year review this winter. Had to write off half a million dollars due to federal grant expenses that weren't reimbursable, ouch.

KIPP: Some info about the employee fraud thing.

LAMB: "Improving financial health" by sorting out occupancy issues, but net assets are still decreasing. Enrollment is up.

LEARN: "Mixed financial health", complicated occupancy stuff, is on the monitoring list. 5-year review next winter.

Lee: "Mixed financial health". Low cash on hand, construction loan issues, on the monitoring list but expected to improve as the construction issues resolve and enrollment continues to grow.

Bethune: "Satisfactory" but enrollment is trending down. 20-year review this winter.

Paul: Most indicators look good but enrollment is down. 25-year review this winter.

Rocketship: Overall satisfactory but enrollment is down for several years in a row. Will be concerning if it continues much longer. 10-year review next winter.

Roots: Satisfactory but not as good as prior year. Enrollment declined but may stabilize this year.

SSMA: Doing better than last year, but enrollment decreases are concerning. "The LEA will need to further rightsize its operating expenses and implement an enrollment growth plan to maintain its strong liquidity and remain sustainable beyond FY 2025." So seems like sh*t's finally getting real. 15-year renewal hearing next winter. It also says the enrollment issue is mainly due to increased competition with other schools, which is interesting because there isn't a rationale offered for other schools with enrollment problems.

Social Justice: Doing okay on the official metrics, but had an enrollment decline and doesn't have a permanent facility. 5-year review this winter.

St. Coletta: "Declining", on the monitoring list, obviously a unique school and the city relies on it. Interesting to read about.

Thurgood Marshall: "Improving financial health", but enrollment is on a long-term decline.

Two Rivers: "Declining", enrollment has managed to stay strong but there are some occupancy cost issues and net assets are dropping. Overall not terrible but not great.

Yu Ying: "Satisfactory" but not as good as prior year, there's a discussion of their expansion financing.

[Anonymous]

How do some of these schools stay open with declining enrollment? DC has too many schools. The charter board needs to be more aggressive in closing some of these schools, especially since academic achievement is not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do some of these schools stay open with declining enrollment? DC has too many schools. The charter board needs to be more aggressive in closing some of these schools, especially since academic achievement is not good.

Well, either they right-size their space and their costs, or they don't.

I do think there are some very low performing schools up for review this winter and we may see a closure or two. Or the beginning of a closure process-- a corrective action plan and academic conditions-- which can take a year or two or three to play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do some of these schools stay open with declining enrollment? DC has too many schools. The charter board needs to be more aggressive in closing some of these schools, especially since academic achievement is not good.

Well, either they right-size their space and their costs, or they don't.

I do think there are some very low performing schools up for review this winter and we may see a closure or two. Or the beginning of a closure process-- a corrective action plan and academic conditions-- which can take a year or two or three to play out.

ITA - the answer is right-size or close. Too many of these reports mention that the school needs to work to increase enrollment as if enrollment increase is a likely thing to happen. It's not and schools need to be pushed to right-size faster. If the academics are low, they should be pushed to close. A school with poor academics that starts cutting expenses to right size has to make hard choices of cutting services to students, underpaying teachers etc which won't make academics or culture better.

Maybe some of these schools should get together and consolidate that at least would help with right-sizing space (assuming they can get out of current space).

[Anonymous]

Well, they do sometimes sort out their problems. Sometimes by closing a campus that is struggling if they have multiple campuses. Sometimes by moving to a smaller, cheaper space. The real solution is to address whatever's causing the enrollment decline, but that's hard too. Sometimes replacing the leadership works, but it's hard to find an effective leader who wants to take on a failing school. They get into a downward spiral of enrollment causing budget cuts which makes the school less appealing, further depressing enrollment.

I do think, and hope, that after the embarrassing debacle of Eagle Academy, that the PCSB may be more interventionist. They know they have egg on their face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, they do sometimes sort out their problems. Sometimes by closing a campus that is struggling if they have multiple campuses. Sometimes by moving to a smaller, cheaper space. The real solution is to address whatever's causing the enrollment decline, but that's hard too. Sometimes replacing the leadership works, but it's hard to find an effective leader who wants to take on a failing school. They get into a downward spiral of enrollment causing budget cuts which makes the school less appealing, further depressing enrollment.

I do think, and hope, that after the embarrassing debacle of Eagle Academy, that the PCSB may be more interventionist. They know they have egg on their face.

True. For the few that did sort it out, those were different times in terms of enrollment. Hope is an example, they off-loaded one campus a few years ago because of declining enrollment and high facility costs which initially helped them be much more solvent. Now they are down to only one campus but the struggle continues in terms of academics and facility costs. Chavez too closed locations and seems to have come back stronger. The concern for schools today though seems different because part of what's driving enrollment declines now are lower birth rates and shifting demographics. Some are saying there are simply too many schools. If what's causing the enrollment decline is lower birth rates or too few available students, schools (or the PCSB) have to be realistic and absolutely "interventionist". This is obviously one of the jobs of the PCSB but all of these charter school board members have a responsibility too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I do think, and hope, that after the embarrassing debacle of Eagle Academy, that the PCSB may be more interventionist. They know they have egg on their face.

But do they? All public statements from the board have taken zero responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I do think, and hope, that after the embarrassing debacle of Eagle Academy, that the PCSB may be more interventionist. They know they have egg on their face.

But do they? All public statements from the board have taken zero responsibility.

I think so, I would never expect that they would actually say it. They intervened too late, their intervention was ineffective, and while they're not the only entity at fault, being the authorizer means you own it. The hearing Monday will be interesting, and I notice the FAR was two weeks late which may be related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, they do sometimes sort out their problems. Sometimes by closing a campus that is struggling if they have multiple campuses. Sometimes by moving to a smaller, cheaper space. The real solution is to address whatever's causing the enrollment decline, but that's hard too. Sometimes replacing the leadership works, but it's hard to find an effective leader who wants to take on a failing school. They get into a downward spiral of enrollment causing budget cuts which makes the school less appealing, further depressing enrollment.

I do think, and hope, that after the embarrassing debacle of Eagle Academy, that the PCSB may be more interventionist. They know they have egg on their face.

True. For the few that did sort it out, those were different times in terms of enrollment. Hope is an example, they off-loaded one campus a few years ago because of declining enrollment and high facility costs which initially helped them be much more solvent. Now they are down to only one campus but the struggle continues in terms of academics and facility costs. Chavez too closed locations and seems to have come back stronger. The concern for schools today though seems different because part of what's driving enrollment declines now are lower birth rates and shifting demographics. Some are saying there are simply too many schools. If what's causing the enrollment decline is lower birth rates or too few available students, schools (or the PCSB) have to be realistic and absolutely "interventionist". This is obviously one of the jobs of the PCSB but all of these charter school board members have a responsibility too.

A big part of the problem is people making over-optimistic real estate choices and doing real estate transactions without enough background in the field IMO.

And yes, declining enrollment, but also things like DCPS opening MacArthur, Wells Middle doing okay, some DCPS elementaries being better than they were, and stronger charters opening or replicating such as Latin, is definitely culling the herd of poorly managed schools. Definitely a situation of when the tide goes out...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, they do sometimes sort out their problems. Sometimes by closing a campus that is struggling if they have multiple campuses. Sometimes by moving to a smaller, cheaper space. The real solution is to address whatever's causing the enrollment decline, but that's hard too. Sometimes replacing the leadership works, but it's hard to find an effective leader who wants to take on a failing school. They get into a downward spiral of enrollment causing budget cuts which makes the school less appealing, further depressing enrollment.

I do think, and hope, that after the embarrassing debacle of Eagle Academy, that the PCSB may be more interventionist. They know they have egg on their face.

True. For the few that did sort it out, those were different times in terms of enrollment. Hope is an example, they off-loaded one campus a few years ago because of declining enrollment and high facility costs which initially helped them be much more solvent. Now they are down to only one campus but the struggle continues in terms of academics and facility costs. Chavez too closed locations and seems to have come back stronger. The concern for schools today though seems different because part of what's driving enrollment declines now are lower birth rates and shifting demographics. Some are saying there are simply too many schools. If what's causing the enrollment decline is lower birth rates or too few available students, schools (or the PCSB) have to be realistic and absolutely "interventionist". This is obviously one of the jobs of the PCSB but all of these charter school board members have a responsibility too.

A big part of the problem is people making over-optimistic real estate choices and doing real estate transactions without enough background in the field IMO.

And yes, declining enrollment, but also things like DCPS opening MacArthur, Wells Middle doing okay, some DCPS elementaries being better than they were, and stronger charters opening or replicating such as Latin, is definitely culling the herd of poorly managed schools. Definitely a situation of when the tide goes out...

+1

It is clear there aren’t enough students for all of these schools. For various reasons. Time to close some and consolidate resources. As someone unthread pointed out, it isn’t good for a school to cut so many costs that they are unable to fairly support their students.

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind that these are FY23 reports - they're now more than a year out of date from what's currently happening (FY23 ended June 30, 2023).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind that these are FY23 reports - they're now more than a year out of date from what's currently happening (FY23 ended June 30, 2023).

But sometimes FY24 and FY25 enrollment is mentioned in the text, where it's relevant.

[Anonymous]

FY24 enrollment data is here:

https://osse.dc.gov/node/1720871