Petition to DC Council for FY 2024 Charter School Budgets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how much people argue over pennies in the budget.

Let the charter teachers get paid. Teaching is not easy, doesnt matter where you are.

+1 charter teachers are responsible for teaching almost 50% of the kids in DC.

This is misleading. To get to the “almost 50%” number you have to include adult ed, where the charter sector dominates. People enrolled in adult ed are not “kids.”

Not true. Adults are just 1% of total charter students.

https://dcpcsb.org/student-enrollment

[Anonymous]

It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Honestly, I don't really care about the long-term impacts. Even though I'm a charter parent, it's fine with me if charter schools fade away and DCPS needs to open new schools to replace them. If DCPS out-competes charters, that's what should happen. Yes it would be an adjustment, but it seems fine in the long run. I really don't understand why one set of teachers should bargain and agree to various tradeoffs in exchange for a raise, and another set of teachers should get that same raise for nothing. Doesn't that make DCPS teachers second-class citizens, because they had to bargain for what charter teachers are now obtaining for free? If that happened year over year, wouldn't the concessions of DCPS teachers compound, while charter teachers make no concessions, creating a growing inequality?

1) Which law, do you have a cite?
2) I'm not sure what your second point means at all. Specifically what law? Things don't have to stay the same every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

The law requiring equitable funding is at 38–2902. Applicability of Formula.

The two WTU increases since the passage of the SRA have gone through the formula, as required by law.

So, by your logic, if another LEA- let's say Mundo Verde were to negotiate a higher pay scale. Should the city pick up the tab for that increase? We have 50+ different LEAs, all of which could have a union and negotiate a different pay scale with management. Management isn't the city at these schools. It isn't PCSB either, each charter school is it's own district.

Equal funding was a feature of the School Reform Act. You may not like it or agree with it, but we have the system we have (at least for now). If we are going to have that system, it doesn't make sense to reward large increases of operating costs to one sector over the other. Why? Because in the end, if you don't, there are really bad consequences for kids. Especially those kids that need it the most.

Not asking anyone to agree that our current system works. But if we chip away at the finances of charter schools, our whole city will feel the impact. Even if you think DCPS could absorb all of the charter students. It wouldn't happen for years in which there would be serious weakness in early literacy at failing schools.

Let's not mess with the edges and stop doing things they way they have been done since the SRA. I suspect this Council has big plans to dig in to the education governance of our city- the SBOE just passed a big resolution and plan. The time is coming to have the public discussion. If change is needed, let's do it in a smart way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

The law requiring equitable funding is at 38–2902. Applicability of Formula.

The two WTU increases since the passage of the SRA have gone through the formula, as required by law.

So, by your logic, if another LEA- let's say Mundo Verde were to negotiate a higher pay scale. Should the city pick up the tab for that increase? We have 50+ different LEAs, all of which could have a union and negotiate a different pay scale with management. Management isn't the city at these schools. It isn't PCSB either, each charter school is it's own district.

Equal funding was a feature of the School Reform Act. You may not like it or agree with it, but we have the system we have (at least for now). If we are going to have that system, it doesn't make sense to reward large increases of operating costs to one sector over the other. Why? Because in the end, if you don't, there are really bad consequences for kids. Especially those kids that need it the most.

Not asking anyone to agree that our current system works. But if we chip away at the finances of charter schools, our whole city will feel the impact. Even if you think DCPS could absorb all of the charter students. It wouldn't happen for years in which there would be serious weakness in early literacy at failing schools.

Let's not mess with the edges and stop doing things they way they have been done since the SRA. I suspect this Council has big plans to dig in to the education governance of our city- the SBOE just passed a big resolution and plan. The time is coming to have the public discussion. If change is needed, let's do it in a smart way.

There is already serious weakness in early literacy (and lots of other things) at failing schools.

This just feels like a stickup. Oh, give us money for no concessions, because we're hard to negotiate with (on purpose), or the kids will suffer. Come on.

[Anonymous]

All these people crying "it's the law", well, isn't the Mayor basically just proposing a change in the law, and that's okay? Proposing changes in law is a normal thing for a mayor to do. You don't have to like it, but nobody is entitled to keep the law the same forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Honestly, I don't really care about the long-term impacts. Even though I'm a charter parent, it's fine with me if charter schools fade away and DCPS needs to open new schools to replace them. If DCPS out-competes charters, that's what should happen. Yes it would be an adjustment, but it seems fine in the long run. I really don't understand why one set of teachers should bargain and agree to various tradeoffs in exchange for a raise, and another set of teachers should get that same raise for nothing. Doesn't that make DCPS teachers second-class citizens, because they had to bargain for what charter teachers are now obtaining for free? If that happened year over year, wouldn't the concessions of DCPS teachers compound, while charter teachers make no concessions, creating a growing inequality?

1) Which law, do you have a cite?
2) I'm not sure what your second point means at all. Specifically what law? Things don't have to stay the same every year.

+1

And don’t forget teachers PAY for these union negotiations. Every paycheck teachers have funds deducted to be a part of the union. So not only are posters on this thread arguing that DCPS teachers should have to bargain for this contract (which they did, these pay increases don’t just come for free) but also pay money for this representation that now charter school teachers get for free? Meanwhile charters can continue to do whatever they want while DCPS teachers are beholden to the contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how much people argue over pennies in the budget.

Let the charter teachers get paid. Teaching is not easy, doesnt matter where you are.

+1 charter teachers are responsible for teaching almost 50% of the kids in DC.

+1000 and a majority of those kids are low income…

Wow, following this thread and guess adults on here don’t care about the kids in this city. It’s about me, politics, and whatever else.

Not only are almost 1/2 of the kids in charters but over 70% of all these charter kids are black (much higher percentage than DCPS) and almost 50% at risk.

And you wonder why the academic achievements in the city are so abysmal……nobody places them first in this game the adults are playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how much people argue over pennies in the budget.

Let the charter teachers get paid. Teaching is not easy, doesnt matter where you are.

+1 charter teachers are responsible for teaching almost 50% of the kids in DC.

+1000 and a majority of those kids are low income…

Wow, following this thread and guess adults on here don’t care about the kids in this city. It’s about me, politics, and whatever else.

Not only are almost 1/2 of the kids in charters but over 70% of all these charter kids are black (much higher percentage than DCPS) and almost 50% at risk.

And you wonder why the academic achievements in the city are so abysmal……nobody places them first in this game the adults are playing.

+1
Plus, aren't we supposed to be FOR teachers getting more money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how much people argue over pennies in the budget.

Let the charter teachers get paid. Teaching is not easy, doesnt matter where you are.

+1 charter teachers are responsible for teaching almost 50% of the kids in DC.

+1000 and a majority of those kids are low income…

Wow, following this thread and guess adults on here don’t care about the kids in this city. It’s about me, politics, and whatever else.

Not only are almost 1/2 of the kids in charters but over 70% of all these charter kids are black (much higher percentage than DCPS) and almost 50% at risk.

And you wonder why the academic achievements in the city are so abysmal……nobody places them first in this game the adults are playing.

Quite the contrary, it's because I care so much about low income kids that I support more accountability for the charter sector. (I also support reform for DCPS but that's a different set of proposals). There are several charters circling the drain, others that have been given a pass by a lax authorizer for too many years. I am a charter parent myself, but looking at the city overall, we need to acknowledge the performance of many charter schools is not good-- and when it is good, that's because of easier demographics. The charter sector is badly in need of reform, and that is why I cannot support any increase in funding without policy changes along with it. I do think teachers should be paid more, but this is the leverage we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

The law requiring equitable funding is at 38–2902. Applicability of Formula.

The two WTU increases since the passage of the SRA have gone through the formula, as required by law.

So, by your logic, if another LEA- let's say Mundo Verde were to negotiate a higher pay scale. Should the city pick up the tab for that increase? We have 50+ different LEAs, all of which could have a union and negotiate a different pay scale with management. Management isn't the city at these schools. It isn't PCSB either, each charter school is it's own district.

Equal funding was a feature of the School Reform Act. You may not like it or agree with it, but we have the system we have (at least for now). If we are going to have that system, it doesn't make sense to reward large increases of operating costs to one sector over the other. Why? Because in the end, if you don't, there are really bad consequences for kids. Especially those kids that need it the most.

Not asking anyone to agree that our current system works. But if we chip away at the finances of charter schools, our whole city will feel the impact. Even if you think DCPS could absorb all of the charter students. It wouldn't happen for years in which there would be serious weakness in early literacy at failing schools.

Let's not mess with the edges and stop doing things they way they have been done since the SRA. I suspect this Council has big plans to dig in to the education governance of our city- the SBOE just passed a big resolution and plan. The time is coming to have the public discussion. If change is needed, let's do it in a smart way.

Well, if I were to just make up a system, I suppose each charter or LEA could send a representative to negotiate as a group of charter schools with the city's designee. They could develop a contract or a la carte menu of deals that each school could opt in or out of. Yes this would be work, but so what? It seems worthwhile to me.

If having tons of little tiny charter schools is administratively inefficient, then maybe we don't need to have so many. I have never, ever understood why we're paying all this money for so many different schools that are barely passing review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

The law requiring equitable funding is at 38–2902. Applicability of Formula.

The two WTU increases since the passage of the SRA have gone through the formula, as required by law.

So, by your logic, if another LEA- let's say Mundo Verde were to negotiate a higher pay scale. Should the city pick up the tab for that increase? We have 50+ different LEAs, all of which could have a union and negotiate a different pay scale with management. Management isn't the city at these schools. It isn't PCSB either, each charter school is it's own district.

Equal funding was a feature of the School Reform Act. You may not like it or agree with it, but we have the system we have (at least for now). If we are going to have that system, it doesn't make sense to reward large increases of operating costs to one sector over the other. Why? Because in the end, if you don't, there are really bad consequences for kids. Especially those kids that need it the most.

Not asking anyone to agree that our current system works. But if we chip away at the finances of charter schools, our whole city will feel the impact. Even if you think DCPS could absorb all of the charter students. It wouldn't happen for years in which there would be serious weakness in early literacy at failing schools.

Let's not mess with the edges and stop doing things they way they have been done since the SRA. I suspect this Council has big plans to dig in to the education governance of our city- the SBOE just passed a big resolution and plan. The time is coming to have the public discussion. If change is needed, let's do it in a smart way.

Well, if I were to just make up a system, I suppose each charter or LEA could send a representative to negotiate as a group of charter schools with the city's designee. They could develop a contract or a la carte menu of deals that each school could opt in or out of. Yes this would be work, but so what? It seems worthwhile to me.

If having tons of little tiny charter schools is administratively inefficient, then maybe we don't need to have so many. I have never, ever understood why we're paying all this money for so many different schools that are barely passing review.

Interesting ideas- I agree that there are tons of ways one could reform our system. I welcome those conversations- I was really disappointed when the cross-sector task force that Bowser touted in her first term didn't produce any results.

However, we can't just say- "We aren't going to give you the funding as required by the law (and like we did 5 years ago and 9 years ago) because, now, we don't like the system. And if that means you can't afford to pay teachers the same way and you worry what that will do for kids? Too bad."

WE HAVE NO VAILD POLICY SOLUTION that can be implemented before next school year and creating pay inequities that negatively impact some schools is not a solution that best serves our kids.

DC Council and the Mayor could work together to craft a different system- they could close underperforming schools or increase accountability. I am actually supportive of all of those things. What I can't see is the logic of using the BSA and budget process as that tool. It is just too damaging for the students (who for too long have been left out of this conversation).

The discussion here about "leverage" over schools (which I don't think are from this PP) are, in my opinion, short sighted and very troubling.

I realize that there are other opinions on this and generally speaking holding dollars over entities is an effective a way to move policy. However, doing that with funds that support children in schools (especially right now when we are still recovering from HUGE learning loss) is unconscionable. Advocate all you want for a change to our laws and structure. But don't just chip away at it and allow certain schools to fail due to underinvestment. That isn't fair to kids and families that are relying on the city to live up to the rules it created (through a VERY robust) legislative process.

That is all...if it isn't persuasive then, I guess we just have to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so perplexing to me that after WTU teachers negotiate and bargain for pay *in exchange for agreeing to other things*, charter teachers feel free to demand the same pay without making any of the tradeoffs, sh*t-talking the union all the while.

Perhaps because you are thinking about it in the context of this one decision. However, there is a cascading impact when increases to support things like teachers, text books, and other operating expenses are not equal across sectors (especially in a city like ours with so many of our students in charters). Let's say that charters don't get the pay increase. When compounded over several years, those small pay increases (or back pay) are a much larger inequity and charters can't keep pace with that and still provide children with a quality education.

I don't think you have to believe that they system we have is perfect (or even functional) to understand that having two systems that serve roughly the same amount of students should be in a position where they can't spend the same on teacher salaries. I know this happens in some places still, but I think you would find that most folks that could get a job teaching in DCPS (meaning degreed/certified educators) are paid very near what they would earn at DCPS when they choose a charter.

I have nearly a decade of experience hiring teachers in charter schools...we absolutely put every possible dollar in to recruiting and retaining the best teachers we can. Not all of the boogy-man stories you hear about charter schools are true (or even close to the truth).

So, I guess, your position is just as perplexing to me given the long term impacts of these types of inequities.

Oh, and let's not forget:

1) The law requires operating funds (and there is absolutely no way to say salaries and personnel expenses are not operating) go through the UPSFF.
2) There is president for charters relying on these funds coming through the UPSFF- why the change when the law is very clear?

Because you're arguing that the school system should give charter teachers a raise in exchange for nothing. With the WTU, it's a bargaining package, and the raise is in the context of other things the teachers agreed to, which the city government thinks will improve the school system. Giving charter teachers the same raise without any bargaining would mean the city is giving up the opportunity to negotiate for improvements. That is why it's a bad thing to do. DCPS teachers and charter teachers are not similarly situated in their relationship with the city, and to treat them equitably does not require treating them the same.

If you'd like to pay your charter teachers more, you can consider going up to DCPS-level class sizes. Or negotiate with the city like the WTU does. Agree to a rating system, agree to a payscale that accounts for harder jobs, whatever. Then there could be a deal. But it's gross to demand a raise for nothing in exchange.

The law requiring equitable funding is at 38–2902. Applicability of Formula.

The two WTU increases since the passage of the SRA have gone through the formula, as required by law.

So, by your logic, if another LEA- let's say Mundo Verde were to negotiate a higher pay scale. Should the city pick up the tab for that increase? We have 50+ different LEAs, all of which could have a union and negotiate a different pay scale with management. Management isn't the city at these schools. It isn't PCSB either, each charter school is it's own district.

Equal funding was a feature of the School Reform Act. You may not like it or agree with it, but we have the system we have (at least for now). If we are going to have that system, it doesn't make sense to reward large increases of operating costs to one sector over the other. Why? Because in the end, if you don't, there are really bad consequences for kids. Especially those kids that need it the most.

Not asking anyone to agree that our current system works. But if we chip away at the finances of charter schools, our whole city will feel the impact. Even if you think DCPS could absorb all of the charter students. It wouldn't happen for years in which there would be serious weakness in early literacy at failing schools.

Let's not mess with the edges and stop doing things they way they have been done since the SRA. I suspect this Council has big plans to dig in to the education governance of our city- the SBOE just passed a big resolution and plan. The time is coming to have the public discussion. If change is needed, let's do it in a smart way.

Well, if I were to just make up a system, I suppose each charter or LEA could send a representative to negotiate as a group of charter schools with the city's designee. They could develop a contract or a la carte menu of deals that each school could opt in or out of. Yes this would be work, but so what? It seems worthwhile to me.

If having tons of little tiny charter schools is administratively inefficient, then maybe we don't need to have so many. I have never, ever understood why we're paying all this money for so many different schools that are barely passing review.

Interesting ideas- I agree that there are tons of ways one could reform our system. I welcome those conversations- I was really disappointed when the cross-sector task force that Bowser touted in her first term didn't produce any results.

However, we can't just say- "We aren't going to give you the funding as required by the law (and like we did 5 years ago and 9 years ago) because, now, we don't like the system. And if that means you can't afford to pay teachers the same way and you worry what that will do for kids? Too bad."

WE HAVE NO VAILD POLICY SOLUTION that can be implemented before next school year and creating pay inequities that negatively impact some schools is not a solution that best serves our kids.

DC Council and the Mayor could work together to craft a different system- they could close underperforming schools or increase accountability. I am actually supportive of all of those things. What I can't see is the logic of using the BSA and budget process as that tool. It is just too damaging for the students (who for too long have been left out of this conversation).

The discussion here about "leverage" over schools (which I don't think are from this PP) are, in my opinion, short sighted and very troubling.

I realize that there are other opinions on this and generally speaking holding dollars over entities is an effective a way to move policy. However, doing that with funds that support children in schools (especially right now when we are still recovering from HUGE learning loss) is unconscionable. Advocate all you want for a change to our laws and structure. But don't just chip away at it and allow certain schools to fail due to underinvestment. That isn't fair to kids and families that are relying on the city to live up to the rules it created (through a VERY robust) legislative process.

That is all...if it isn't persuasive then, I guess we just have to disagree.

Indeed, we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, the "leverage" idea is mine. You see, it's *because* I care about the children that I feel obligated to use every bit of "leverage" available to press for quality improvements, and I feel obligated to press for it now, this year, without delay. It is you who is short-sighted, focusing on maximizing next year's funding rather than on systemic change starting now. We absolutely can say "We aren't giving you money like we did before", if legislation to change the law is enacted.

To say "Oh, think of the children" when you really mean "give us lots of money with no strings attached" is unconscionable to me. There will *never* be a year when this kind of leverage is welcome. The charter sector will always argue against it. They will always say "think of the children" and "learning loss" -- but learning loss isn't going away anytime soon, due in part to the many poor quality charter schools in this city. They will never, ever say "Yes, force improvements on us, we have plenty of money." The students are not left out of the conversation-- "oh, think of the children" is the constant refrain of the charter sector and in their minds, justifies everything they want.

If anyone relied on the current funding structure staying the same, that was an error in judgment. And an error in judgment is not a reason to get lots of money with no strings attached. The COVID supplemental funding was always temporary and its completion should have been anticipated and planned for. This school system and its budget are constantly, constantly changing. If anyone was expecting it to stay the same, that's on them. The students will suffer for the poor decisions of adults, but isn't that how everything works in a school system?