New DME master facilities plan released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posted this on the wrong thread - regarding charter vs DCPS facility conditions

From 2-13 of the executive summary

Of all the District-owned facilities (DCPS, public charter schools, and co-located schools), 85% (55 of 65) received a Good or Fair FCI score. Of the public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 71% received a Good or Fair FCI score.

For public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 29% received a Poor FCI score, while 12% of public charter schools in District-owned facilities scored Poor (see Appendix A.4 and Appendix A.5 for details on facility FCI scores).

Overall, the results of the SY2017-18 FCAs demonstrate that the District’s school facilities are in good to fair condition. Facility condition is clearly worse in non District-owned facilities than in District-owned facilities. One factor contributing to this finding is the significant level of investment that the District has made since 2008 in its owned and maintained school facilities. Another possible factor is that the funding distributed to public charter schools for facilities (facilities allotment) has been insufficient to maintain charter school facilities to the same standard that DGS maintains the District-owned school buildings.

Many public charter school representatives expressed this sentiment during the MFP study. Furthermore, many public charter schools lease their school facilities and do not have control over maintenance or investments. Section 4 recommends undertaking a facility cost study as a first step in considering how to promote equitable facility conditions across sectors. Section 4 also recommends more data transparency.

But guess what? Charters have no duty topiblicly account for what they do with the ~$3500/student they receive for facilities. And they are fighting any attempt to make the info accessible through FOIA.

You can’t beg for new facilities or upgrades until you acccount for how you spend what you already receive

Well the DME seems to disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

I’d give charters money to bring facilities up to modern if they could publicly prove that’s what they did with the money. The shocking thing now is that they want the money but not to prove they did what they get the money for. I don’t go for that even on kids’ chores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d give charters money to bring facilities up to modern if they could publicly prove that’s what they did with the money. The shocking thing now is that they want the money but not to prove they did what they get the money for. I don’t go for that even on kids’ chores.

And they currently get something like $3600 a head for facilities. Maybe not enough to build something new, but that's what - about $20k per classroom amortized across an entire facility? Tell me that ta lot of this money isn't going to consultants??!? DC taxpayers will never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d give charters money to bring facilities up to modern if they could publicly prove that’s what they did with the money. The shocking thing now is that they want the money but not to prove they did what they get the money for. I don’t go for that even on kids’ chores.

And they currently get something like $3600 a head for facilities. Maybe not enough to build something new, but that's what - about $20k per classroom amortized across an entire facility? Tell me that ta lot of this money isn't going to consultants??!? DC taxpayers will never know.

What is the fully amortized DCPS equivalent? Nobody knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posted this on the wrong thread - regarding charter vs DCPS facility conditions

From 2-13 of the executive summary

Of all the District-owned facilities (DCPS, public charter schools, and co-located schools), 85% (55 of 65) received a Good or Fair FCI score. Of the public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 71% received a Good or Fair FCI score.

For public charter schools in non-District-owned facilities, 29% received a Poor FCI score, while 12% of public charter schools in District-owned facilities scored Poor (see Appendix A.4 and Appendix A.5 for details on facility FCI scores).

Overall, the results of the SY2017-18 FCAs demonstrate that the District’s school facilities are in good to fair condition. Facility condition is clearly worse in non District-owned facilities than in District-owned facilities. One factor contributing to this finding is the significant level of investment that the District has made since 2008 in its owned and maintained school facilities. Another possible factor is that the funding distributed to public charter schools for facilities (facilities allotment) has been insufficient to maintain charter school facilities to the same standard that DGS maintains the District-owned school buildings.

Many public charter school representatives expressed this sentiment during the MFP study. Furthermore, many public charter schools lease their school facilities and do not have control over maintenance or investments. Section 4 recommends undertaking a facility cost study as a first step in considering how to promote equitable facility conditions across sectors. Section 4 also recommends more data transparency.

But guess what? Charters have no duty topiblicly account for what they do with the ~$3500/student they receive for facilities. And they are fighting any attempt to make the info accessible through FOIA.

You can’t beg for new facilities or upgrades until you acccount for how you spend what you already receive

Well the DME seems to disagree with you.

The DME office is exhibit A on the capability challenges facing urban government in certain cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d give charters money to bring facilities up to modern if they could publicly prove that’s what they did with the money. The shocking thing now is that they want the money but not to prove they did what they get the money for. I don’t go for that even on kids’ chores.

And they currently get something like $3600 a head for facilities. Maybe not enough to build something new, but that's what - about $20k per classroom amortized across an entire facility? Tell me that ta lot of this money isn't going to consultants??!? DC taxpayers will never know.

What is the fully amortized DCPS equivalent? Nobody knows.

+1.

The number of falling DCPS schools getting $100M+ buildings while successful ones have trailers is truly insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d give charters money to bring facilities up to modern if they could publicly prove that’s what they did with the money. The shocking thing now is that they want the money but not to prove they did what they get the money for. I don’t go for that even on kids’ chores.

And they currently get something like $3600 a head for facilities. Maybe not enough to build something new, but that's what - about $20k per classroom amortized across an entire facility? Tell me that ta lot of this money isn't going to consultants??!? DC taxpayers will never know.

What is the fully amortized DCPS equivalent? Nobody knows.

+1.

The number of falling DCPS schools getting $100M+ buildings while successful ones have trailers is truly insane.

Yes. Case in point: all this LAMB bickering, SSMA problems. The policy is to leave us to fight over scraps and destroy schools rather than ensure charters which are succeeding have decent facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the lobbyists were successful in keeping the Old Hardy school out of the report.

Isn't that building still under lease until 2023?

Why would the city have factored it in for planning purposes? The Ward 3 overcrowding issue is much, much bigger than booting out a special education school with a max occupancy of 90 kids in a rundown building with very demanding neighbors who would fight any increase in traffic.

Let...it...go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the lobbyists were successful in keeping the Old Hardy school out of the report.

Isn't that building still under lease until 2023?

Why would the city have factored it in for planning purposes? The Ward 3 overcrowding issue is much, much bigger than booting out a special education school with a max occupancy of 90 kids in a rundown building with very demanding neighbors who would fight any increase in traffic.

Let...it...go.

You left out "private" in your description of the current tenant.

2023 is well within the planning horizon of the master facilities plan. And shouldn't it be 2022 anyway? The original lease was for 25 years starting January 1998 so 25 year would be December, 2022. So they'd have to be out by June 2022 -- which is three school years away.

The building is exactly the same as the main parts of Key, Mann and Stoddert, they were all built at the same time from the same plans. The city-owned plot at Hardy is much larger than any of those.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have a copy or link to a draft version of this report that was at one of the public meetings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the lobbyists were successful in keeping the Old Hardy school out of the report.

Isn't that building still under lease until 2023?

Why would the city have factored it in for planning purposes? The Ward 3 overcrowding issue is much, much bigger than booting out a special education school with a max occupancy of 90 kids in a rundown building with very demanding neighbors who would fight any increase in traffic.

Let...it...go.

You left out "private" in your description of the current tenant.

2023 is well within the planning horizon of the master facilities plan. And shouldn't it be 2022 anyway? The original lease was for 25 years starting January 1998 so 25 year would be December, 2022. So they'd have to be out by June 2022 -- which is three school years away.

The building is exactly the same as the main parts of Key, Mann and Stoddert, they were all built at the same time from the same plans. The city-owned plot at Hardy is much larger than any of those.

Lab School is private but it's not like Sidwell or Maret. It's for special ed and has a few DC-funded kids not being served by DC public and charters. The city is awful at serving kids with disabilities. Historically, Lab had a higher amount of DC kids. Randomly cutting funding hurt DC families who couldn't afford tuition upfront and lawyers to sue for reimbursement. Meanwhile, there are a lot of DC kids who are suffering unnecessarily in DCPS public and charter schools. These kids legally deserve a free education, just like yours.

How about pressuring DCPS to serve more kids with disabilities instead of continuing to selfishly covet a space with zero likelihood of physically expanding thanks to NIMBYism.

Is there any evidence that Old Hardy is a viable option for solving the bigger problems of overcrowding? There will likely be increases in kids with learning disabilities along with the general population. Do those of you who covet the Old Hardy space for a neighborhood school have any ideas on how to serve the current and future students with disabilities?

[Anonymous]

^^ This argument is a red herring based on very outdated data.

The Lab School has 350 students from DC, MD and VA. In 2017-18 only 33 Lab students have their tuition being paid for by OSSE (see link below)

There is no reason to think that if Lab lost the old Hardy bldg that these students would either end up in a traditional public school, or if they did, would all be IB for a Wilson feeder.

https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/SY17-18%20Annual%20Enrollment%20Audit%20Report_02152018.xlsx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the lobbyists were successful in keeping the Old Hardy school out of the report.

Isn't that building still under lease until 2023?

Why would the city have factored it in for planning purposes? The Ward 3 overcrowding issue is much, much bigger than booting out a special education school with a max occupancy of 90 kids in a rundown building with very demanding neighbors who would fight any increase in traffic.

Let...it...go.

You left out "private" in your description of the current tenant.

2023 is well within the planning horizon of the master facilities plan. And shouldn't it be 2022 anyway? The original lease was for 25 years starting January 1998 so 25 year would be December, 2022. So they'd have to be out by June 2022 -- which is three school years away.

The building is exactly the same as the main parts of Key, Mann and Stoddert, they were all built at the same time from the same plans. The city-owned plot at Hardy is much larger than any of those.

Lab School is private but it's not like Sidwell or Maret. It's for special ed and has a few DC-funded kids not being served by DC public and charters. The city is awful at serving kids with disabilities. Historically, Lab had a higher amount of DC kids. Randomly cutting funding hurt DC families who couldn't afford tuition upfront and lawyers to sue for reimbursement. Meanwhile, there are a lot of DC kids who are suffering unnecessarily in DCPS public and charter schools. These kids legally deserve a free education, just like yours.

How about pressuring DCPS to serve more kids with disabilities instead of continuing to selfishly covet a space with zero likelihood of physically expanding thanks to NIMBYism.

Is there any evidence that Old Hardy is a viable option for solving the bigger problems of overcrowding? There will likely be increases in kids with learning disabilities along with the general population. Do those of you who covet the Old Hardy space for a neighborhood school have any ideas on how to serve the current and future students with disabilities?

Just under 10% of the kids at Lab come from DCPS. Lab only has 65 kids at that site. DCPS averages 14% special ed kids, so a a DCPS school at that site would serve far more DC kids than Lab does currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the lobbyists were successful in keeping the Old Hardy school out of the report.

Isn't that building still under lease until 2023?

Why would the city have factored it in for planning purposes? The Ward 3 overcrowding issue is much, much bigger than booting out a special education school with a max occupancy of 90 kids in a rundown building with very demanding neighbors who would fight any increase in traffic.

Let...it...go.

You left out "private" in your description of the current tenant.

2023 is well within the planning horizon of the master facilities plan. And shouldn't it be 2022 anyway? The original lease was for 25 years starting January 1998 so 25 year would be December, 2022. So they'd have to be out by June 2022 -- which is three school years away.

The building is exactly the same as the main parts of Key, Mann and Stoddert, they were all built at the same time from the same plans. The city-owned plot at Hardy is much larger than any of those.

Lab School is private but it's not like Sidwell or Maret. It's for special ed and has a few DC-funded kids not being served by DC public and charters. The city is awful at serving kids with disabilities. Historically, Lab had a higher amount of DC kids. Randomly cutting funding hurt DC families who couldn't afford tuition upfront and lawyers to sue for reimbursement. Meanwhile, there are a lot of DC kids who are suffering unnecessarily in DCPS public and charter schools. These kids legally deserve a free education, just like yours.

How about pressuring DCPS to serve more kids with disabilities instead of continuing to selfishly covet a space with zero likelihood of physically expanding thanks to NIMBYism.

Is there any evidence that Old Hardy is a viable option for solving the bigger problems of overcrowding? There will likely be increases in kids with learning disabilities along with the general population. Do those of you who covet the Old Hardy space for a neighborhood school have any ideas on how to serve the current and future students with disabilities?

DC decided when Vincent Gray was elected to end the model of writing blank checks to private schools to address special ed. Sure there are issues, but those days are done. Lab needs to move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the lobbyists were successful in keeping the Old Hardy school out of the report.

Isn't that building still under lease until 2023?

Why would the city have factored it in for planning purposes? The Ward 3 overcrowding issue is much, much bigger than booting out a special education school with a max occupancy of 90 kids in a rundown building with very demanding neighbors who would fight any increase in traffic.

Let...it...go.

You left out "private" in your description of the current tenant.

2023 is well within the planning horizon of the master facilities plan. And shouldn't it be 2022 anyway? The original lease was for 25 years starting January 1998 so 25 year would be December, 2022. So they'd have to be out by June 2022 -- which is three school years away.

The building is exactly the same as the main parts of Key, Mann and Stoddert, they were all built at the same time from the same plans. The city-owned plot at Hardy is much larger than any of those.

Lab School is private but it's not like Sidwell or Maret. It's for special ed and has a few DC-funded kids not being served by DC public and charters. The city is awful at serving kids with disabilities. Historically, Lab had a higher amount of DC kids. Randomly cutting funding hurt DC families who couldn't afford tuition upfront and lawyers to sue for reimbursement. Meanwhile, there are a lot of DC kids who are suffering unnecessarily in DCPS public and charter schools. These kids legally deserve a free education, just like yours.

How about pressuring DCPS to serve more kids with disabilities instead of continuing to selfishly covet a space with zero likelihood of physically expanding thanks to NIMBYism.

Is there any evidence that Old Hardy is a viable option for solving the bigger problems of overcrowding? There will likely be increases in kids with learning disabilities along with the general population. Do those of you who covet the Old Hardy space for a neighborhood school have any ideas on how to serve the current and future students with disabilities?

Many private schools also serve special-ed kids. It wouldn't surprise me if Sidwell serves more special-ed DC residents than Lab does.