Petition to DC Council for FY 2024 Charter School Budgets

[Anonymous]

Looking at this testimony, I suppose the reason is funding provided outside the UPSFF. https://www.dccharters.org/testimony-budget-education-agencies-fy24/

OP, do charter teachers want to be subject to IMPACT or a similar rating system? I can't really support a funding increase without something to make sure it goes to the best teachers doing the hardest jobs. What do you propose?

The testimonly only accounts for $148 million of the alleged gap. What about the rest of the money. OP? Anyone?

[Anonymous]

My understanding is as it stands now in the city budget, charter schools will get approx $3500 less per student - which seems unfair to me (a taxpayer who pays for public - including charter - schools). Per student allocation from the city should be the same, whether DCPS or Charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is as it stands now in the city budget, charter schools will get approx $3500 less per student - which seems unfair to me (a taxpayer who pays for public - including charter - schools). Per student allocation from the city should be the same, whether DCPS or Charter.

I have no idea if that dollar amount is true, but no, the SCHOOLS aren’t getting less. Rather, DCPS TEACHERS are getting retro compensation per the WTU collective bargaining agreement. Charter teachers do not have a collective bargaining agreement, nor do charter schools have a requirement to spend additional funds on teacher compensation. So it’s really apples to oranges unless you want to argue that the WTU agreement should apply to non-unionized charter teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is as it stands now in the city budget, charter schools will get approx $3500 less per student - which seems unfair to me (a taxpayer who pays for public - including charter - schools). Per student allocation from the city should be the same, whether DCPS or Charter.

It is the same in the UPSFF. DCPS gets more because of IMPACT, and as a buffer to cover mid-year arrivals. Then there's facilities funding, you can look up that lawsuit if you want.

Bottom line, if charters want to do a performance system, take kids mid-year, do Early Stages, and have bigger class sizes, then their funding would change. And charter teachers are welcome to form unions if they like. Go right ahead. But don't reject the union and then want the benefits without doing the work.

Charter parents, FYI-- adding just one kid to each class would mean you could give your teachers a raise. It's up to you!

[Anonymous]

When charters stop taking kids in 5th grade, ripping lifelong friendships apart for no good reason, then maybe I'll consider signing something to "help", but right now, all charters are on my naughty list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When charters stop taking kids in 5th grade, ripping lifelong friendships apart for no good reason, then maybe I'll consider signing something to "help", but right now, all charters are on my naughty list.

Yes it's way less traumatic to rip them apart in 6th. Come on.

[Anonymous]

This is not directed to the OPs ask but it’s worth mentioning that it’s easy to be “anti-charter” at the elementary school level or if you live in bounds for a DCPS school where some decent amount of the student body is at or above grade level. I would bet that describes many of the PPs and those on DCUM. Until DCPS improves its middle and high school options EOTP families with reasonable educational standards will continue to opt for charters instead of neighborhood schools. The funding per pupil should be the same regardless and perhaps it does remain the same under the new deal but that it was just misconstrued. I think this is the important issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not directed to the OPs ask but it’s worth mentioning that it’s easy to be “anti-charter” at the elementary school level or if you live in bounds for a DCPS school where some decent amount of the student body is at or above grade level. I would bet that describes many of the PPs and those on DCUM. Until DCPS improves its middle and high school options EOTP families with reasonable educational standards will continue to opt for charters instead of neighborhood schools. The funding per pupil should be the same regardless and perhaps it does remain the same under the new deal but that it was just misconstrued. I think this is the important issue.

This has nothing to do with what the OP is asking. Find another thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When charters stop taking kids in 5th grade, ripping lifelong friendships apart for no good reason, then maybe I'll consider signing something to "help", but right now, all charters are on my naughty list.

Is this sarcasm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not directed to the OPs ask but it’s worth mentioning that it’s easy to be “anti-charter” at the elementary school level or if you live in bounds for a DCPS school where some decent amount of the student body is at or above grade level. I would bet that describes many of the PPs and those on DCUM. Until DCPS improves its middle and high school options EOTP families with reasonable educational standards will continue to opt for charters instead of neighborhood schools. The funding per pupil should be the same regardless and perhaps it does remain the same under the new deal but that it was just misconstrued. I think this is the important issue.

This has nothing to do with what the OP is asking. Find another thread.

Why is this different? Can you explain it?

[Anonymous]

It’s complicated. I’m pretty sure the funding per student is the same. Charters just have less oversight and generally pay teachers less (by choice - sometimes due to things like facilities expenses but also because they are sometimes paying out to a for-profit management arm etc.). OP might mean well but this post also implies take more money away from the traditional public school system and give it to charters with zero assurance it actually goes to charter school staffing.

[Anonymous]

Nope..Charters are independent businesses and function as such. They work until you have a major issue. All power resides with each Board and most are just self-serving trash. They could care less about the real education and well-being of the kids. If DCPCSB had any real oversight ability, it would really help.

[Anonymous]

So what is the extra $185 million that is going to DCPS outside of the UPSFF meant for? That is going against the legal requirement for equitable funding with the UPSFF, so can someone explain why DCPS can get this and not charters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the extra $185 million that is going to DCPS outside of the UPSFF meant for? That is going against the legal requirement for equitable funding with the UPSFF, so can someone explain why DCPS can get this and not charters?

PP again - and if this is for the retroactive pay, isn't this increasing the per-pupil spending at DCPS while not increasing it at charter schools? Unless I misunderstand how salaries factor into the per-pupil spending, doesn't it include salaries, among other items? Because this is retroactive, it really means the per-pupil spending for DCPS should be recalculated for the years considered retroactive. If the DCPS teachers had received that raise right off the bat, their per-pupil funding would rise. And charters' should have risen with it. Next year, those increased salaries will be calculated as per-pupil spending, not a special carve out. Sure, I agree that charters should spend any increase on salaries. But at the end of the day, isn't it about equitable per-pupil funding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When charters stop taking kids in 5th grade, ripping lifelong friendships apart for no good reason, then maybe I'll consider signing something to "help", but right now, all charters are on my naughty list.

What? Your kids aren’t owed any particular friends or classmates.

Do understand that if there were no charters in DC, the families who currently have kids in them would homeschool, attend private or move to the suburbs. The local public wasn’t and isn’t an option.