interesting DCI and Washington Latin news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should Latin get $2M in cap fund direct from the city and not DC Prep? Or my favorite nonprofit?

This is a fair point. Seems that all charters should all have a crack at capital funds or none. I think there should be a way to do it -- a competitive process to apply and the City owns the buildings (charters get a long term lease). Would be interesting to see who could deliver school construction projects more effectively (on time, on budget, high quality).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with Bowser on this. Charter schools are either nonprofits or for profit corporations, not government entities. They should not receive funding for capital improvements.

If that's the case, we can do whatever we want with the rest of the public funding and how we run our programming? It's all or nothing on this concept.

You're responding to my post. Who is "we" and what are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Latin get $2M in cap fund direct from the city and not DC Prep? Or my favorite nonprofit?

This is a fair point. Seems that all charters should all have a crack at capital funds or none. I think there should be a way to do it -- a competitive process to apply and the City owns the buildings (charters get a long term lease). Would be interesting to see who could deliver school construction projects more effectively (on time, on budget, high quality).

This would put the council/mayor/whoever judges the "competitive process" in charge of charter-development decisions, which would severely compromise charter independence. Right now charters get a per pupil facilities allotment in addition to regular per-pupil funding. That's the only way to leave each charter in control of its own facilities decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Latin get $2M in cap fund direct from the city and not DC Prep? Or my favorite nonprofit?

This is a fair point. Seems that all charters should all have a crack at capital funds or none. I think there should be a way to do it -- a competitive process to apply and the City owns the buildings (charters get a long term lease). Would be interesting to see who could deliver school construction projects more effectively (on time, on budget, high quality).

This would put the council/mayor/whoever judges the "competitive process" in charge of charter-development decisions, which would severely compromise charter independence. Right now charters get a per pupil facilities allotment in addition to regular per-pupil funding. That's the only way to leave each charter in control of its own facilities decisions.

That's a good counter argument but the District is really the one in charge. DC Government has the buildings, the permits, and the rent credits.

[Anonymous]

The Shaw Middle School has been sitting vacant for years and is an eyesore. Can't this be transferred to an MS/HS charter school?

[Anonymous]

As someone whose child is in a feeder and has a vested interest in it coming to fruition,

My understanding is that DCI was offered a building fully renovated, but that they insisted on the location they want that needs a renovation. This was stupid, and I agree, they shouldn't get the funding. They should have taken a ready building that needs to be occupied...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone whose child is in a feeder and has a vested interest in it coming to fruition,

My understanding is that DCI was offered a building fully renovated, but that they insisted on the location they want that needs a renovation. This was stupid, and I agree, they shouldn't get the funding. They should have taken a ready building that needs to be occupied...

Nothing in the above statement is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone whose child is in a feeder and has a vested interest in it coming to fruition,

My understanding is that DCI was offered a building fully renovated, but that they insisted on the location they want that needs a renovation. This was stupid, and I agree, they shouldn't get the funding. They should have taken a ready building that needs to be occupied...

Ever heard location, location, location?

A nice building in the middle of nowhere is a failed proposition. I trust the leaders of a new school to know best the location they need to make it all work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone whose child is in a feeder and has a vested interest in it coming to fruition,

My understanding is that DCI was offered a building fully renovated, but that they insisted on the location they want that needs a renovation. This was stupid, and I agree, they shouldn't get the funding. They should have taken a ready building that needs to be occupied...

Ever heard location, location, location?

A nice building in the middle of nowhere is a failed proposition. I trust the leaders of a new school to know best the location they need to make it all work.

Walter Reed is in the middle of nowhere, no?

[Anonymous]

Why did I think DC had a huge budget surplus??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone whose child is in a feeder and has a vested interest in it coming to fruition,

My understanding is that DCI was offered a building fully renovated, but that they insisted on the location they want that needs a renovation. This was stupid, and I agree, they shouldn't get the funding. They should have taken a ready building that needs to be occupied...

Ever heard location, location, location?

A nice building in the middle of nowhere is a failed proposition. I trust the leaders of a new school to know best the location they need to make it all work.

Walter Reed is in the middle of nowhere, no?

I was just thinking the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Don't all charters that move into buildings need to fund it on their own? Did IT or CMI or MV - recent or soon-to-be moved schools - receive money directly from the dc government?

[Anonymous]

Maybe they can convince DC to allow them to use/lease Meyer once Duke Ellington moves out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone whose child is in a feeder and has a vested interest in it coming to fruition,

My understanding is that DCI was offered a building fully renovated, but that they insisted on the location they want that needs a renovation. This was stupid, and I agree, they shouldn't get the funding. They should have taken a ready building that needs to be occupied...

Ever heard location, location, location?

A nice building in the middle of nowhere is a failed proposition. I trust the leaders of a new school to know best the location they need to make it all work.

Walter Reed is in the middle of nowhere, no?

Perhaps yes, perhaps not. What matters is the plan by the charter school to attract and retain students. Walter Reed is pretty convenient from upper NW and upper/ mid NE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone whose child is in a feeder and has a vested interest in it coming to fruition,

My understanding is that DCI was offered a building fully renovated, but that they insisted on the location they want that needs a renovation. This was stupid, and I agree, they shouldn't get the funding. They should have taken a ready building that needs to be occupied...

Ever heard location, location, location?

A nice building in the middle of nowhere is a failed proposition. I trust the leaders of a new school to know best the location they need to make it all work.

Walter Reed is in the middle of nowhere, no?

Perhaps yes, perhaps not. What matters is the plan by the charter school to attract and retain students. Walter Reed is pretty convenient from upper NW and upper/ mid NE.

We need to find a candidate who supports education with more than words.