Gray Proposes Reallocation of $100MM of DCPS Capital Modernization Funds

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI lost out because a ruling was made that the grant money it was going to get could not legally be spent on it. That's legal inflexibility, not mayoral impropriety.

That's bullshit. How is funding a public school for DC children NOT legal? Charter or not. Charters are entitled to public funds, they are public schools.

Yes, the law can be BS and yet somehow remain the law.

No, the interpretation of the law is what's at issue. BS interpretation is BS interpretation.

There is nothing new about this interpretation is there? As far as I know, every charter school has been responsible for its own capital fund. I don't think any of them have received public money for their buildings.

Isn't there something wrong with that? I mean - these are public school children. My child is not at one of the DCI feeder schools, but I still don't understand why public tax dollars can't be used to upgrade the public buildings that are used to educate public school (yes, public charter school) children. If I'm not seeing the issue, I'd be happy to have it explained to me.

[Anonymous]

Some charters are for profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI lost out because a ruling was made that the grant money it was going to get could not legally be spent on it. That's legal inflexibility, not mayoral impropriety.

That's bullshit. How is funding a public school for DC children NOT legal? Charter or not. Charters are entitled to public funds, they are public schools.

Yes, the law can be BS and yet somehow remain the law.

No, the interpretation of the law is what's at issue. BS interpretation is BS interpretation.

There is nothing new about this interpretation is there? As far as I know, every charter school has been responsible for its own capital fund. I don't think any of them have received public money for their buildings.

Clearly Charters get lots of funds from the city. I'm not saying the DCI decision was right, but it is complicated: I believe it was related to the funds coming from the capital budget (i.e. raised by bonds) and then also related to the disposition/ownership of the property.

Isn't there something wrong with that? I mean - these are public school children. My child is not at one of the DCI feeder schools, but I still don't understand why public tax dollars can't be used to upgrade the public buildings that are used to educate public school (yes, public charter school) children. If I'm not seeing the issue, I'd be happy to have it explained to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI lost out because a ruling was made that the grant money it was going to get could not legally be spent on it. That's legal inflexibility, not mayoral impropriety.

That's bullshit. How is funding a public school for DC children NOT legal? Charter or not. Charters are entitled to public funds, they are public schools.

DP, Why DCI and not Latin, or Basis, or KIPP, or Two Rivers, etc., etc. Who at DCI had connections to pull that string from the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI lost out because a ruling was made that the grant money it was going to get could not legally be spent on it. That's legal inflexibility, not mayoral impropriety.

That's bullshit. How is funding a public school for DC children NOT legal? Charter or not. Charters are entitled to public funds, they are public schools.

Yes, the law can be BS and yet somehow remain the law.

No, the interpretation of the law is what's at issue. BS interpretation is BS interpretation.

There is nothing new about this interpretation is there? As far as I know, every charter school has been responsible for its own capital fund. I don't think any of them have received public money for their buildings.

Clearly Charters get lots of funds from the city. I'm not saying the DCI decision was right, but it is complicated: I believe it was related to the funds coming from the capital budget (i.e. raised by bonds) and then also related to the disposition/ownership of the property.

Isn't there something wrong with that? I mean - these are public school children. My child is not at one of the DCI feeder schools, but I still don't understand why public tax dollars can't be used to upgrade the public buildings that are used to educate public school (yes, public charter school) children. If I'm not seeing the issue, I'd be happy to have it explained to me.

Ah - I'd love to see the actual opinion (if it was published). But, I haven't been able to find it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI lost out because a ruling was made that the grant money it was going to get could not legally be spent on it. That's legal inflexibility, not mayoral impropriety.

That's bullshit. How is funding a public school for DC children NOT legal? Charter or not. Charters are entitled to public funds, they are public schools.

DP, Why DCI and not Latin, or Basis, or KIPP, or Two Rivers, etc., etc. Who at DCI had connections to pull that string from the beginning.

It really probably depends on the color of the money (as someone who deals with federal budgets - I can assure you money is not all the same). However, the Mayor should have clarified from the begining the response vs. just come out with a "we are no longer funding this" - or maybe with a good budget officer, he could have transfered the funds from another pot that would have allowed him to use these funds. This isn't really may area (local budgets) - but I can't seem to find any sort of explaination that makes this seem rational.

I feel for the parents of the future students of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think this is political pandering from Gray. I couldn't puzzle it out but the idea of kowtowing to Bowser's potential supporters and screwing Evans and Wells sounds like a possibility. We are six weeks out from the primary. I am sure he's trying to send a message to someone.

There are quite a lot of Ward 4 residents who will never be supporters of Bowser's mayoral run (myself included) because we haven't seen anything of true merit from her so putting money into Ward 4 schools doesn't pull my vote away from her whatsoever. She never had it in the first place.

[Anonymous]

This has to be political, otherwise there would have been an explanation. For all the "communication efforts" this was just a surprise for people.

[Anonymous]

I don't really understand why more public resources should go to support the operations of charter schools (including capital improvements).

Charter schools receive a really generous per-student allotment, AND do hefty private fundraising on top of it, AND often get to use public buildings. Why should we pay for the renovations of those buildings instead of the renovations of traditional public schools that often don't have the flexibility to access more funding? (and, end up serving a lot of students that charters boot out without the benefit of the per-student allotment if students are expelled late enough in the school year)

I'm really honestly open to others' (civil) points of view on this because I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think this is political pandering from Gray. I couldn't puzzle it out but the idea of kowtowing to Bowser's potential supporters and screwing Evans and Wells sounds like a possibility. We are six weeks out from the primary. I am sure he's trying to send a message to someone.

There are quite a lot of Ward 4 residents who will never be supporters of Bowser's mayoral run (myself included) because we haven't seen anything of true merit from her so putting money into Ward 4 schools doesn't pull my vote away from her whatsoever. She never had it in the first place.

Same here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is never an explanation on what and why DCPS do what they do.

Your feelings about DCPS aside, this decision came out of the Mayor's office, not DCPS

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think this is political pandering from Gray. I couldn't puzzle it out but the idea of kowtowing to Bowser's potential supporters and screwing Evans and Wells sounds like a possibility. We are six weeks out from the primary. I am sure he's trying to send a message to someone.

There are quite a lot of Ward 4 residents who will never be supporters of Bowser's mayoral run (myself included) because we haven't seen anything of true merit from her so putting money into Ward 4 schools doesn't pull my vote away from her whatsoever. She never had it in the first place.

Same here.

If there is a political motive behind the Powell funding -- and I don't know that there is because the school has lately been a favorite of a number of Council members -- perhaps it was not aimed at Ward 4 voters, but the Latino community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand why more public resources should go to support the operations of charter schools (including capital improvements).

Charter schools receive a really generous per-student allotment, AND do hefty private fundraising on top of it, AND often get to use public buildings. Why should we pay for the renovations of those buildings instead of the renovations of traditional public schools that often don't have the flexibility to access more funding? (and, end up serving a lot of students that charters boot out without the benefit of the per-student allotment if students are expelled late enough in the school year)

I'm really honestly open to others' (civil) points of view on this because I don't get it.

But charters actually get a lot fewer per pupil dollars than the public schools, so why not chip in with capital improvements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand why more public resources should go to support the operations of charter schools (including capital improvements).

Charter schools receive a really generous per-student allotment, AND do hefty private fundraising on top of it, AND often get to use public buildings. Why should we pay for the renovations of those buildings instead of the renovations of traditional public schools that often don't have the flexibility to access more funding? (and, end up serving a lot of students that charters boot out without the benefit of the per-student allotment if students are expelled late enough in the school year)

I'm really honestly open to others' (civil) points of view on this because I don't get it.

But charters actually get a lot fewer per pupil dollars than the public schools, so why not chip in with capital improvements?

Probably because publci schools cannot go to the Waltons and Gates for private funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand why more public resources should go to support the operations of charter schools (including capital improvements).

Charter schools receive a really generous per-student allotment, AND do hefty private fundraising on top of it, AND often get to use public buildings. Why should we pay for the renovations of those buildings instead of the renovations of traditional public schools that often don't have the flexibility to access more funding? (and, end up serving a lot of students that charters boot out without the benefit of the per-student allotment if students are expelled late enough in the school year)

I'm really honestly open to others' (civil) points of view on this because I don't get it.

But charters actually get a lot fewer per pupil dollars than the public schools, so why not chip in with capital improvements?

Probably because publci schools cannot go to the Waltons and Gates for private funding.

You mean like the $25 million DCPS got from the Walton Foundation, part of $65 million for teacher raises?

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/04/06/dcps-teacher-contract-to-be-unveiled-big-raises-funded-by-65m-in-private-money/