Mayor Plans to Underfund Charter Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Good schools" is usually just code for "schools with fewer poor students." I think DC should provide advanced classes for advanced students, in whatever numbers they exist at a particular school. If you have that, I don't know what really makes a "good" school other than not having poor kids dragging down your test scores.

This is a misinformed statement. Can we stop with the stereotypes? There are plenty of “good students” (academically gifted) who are “poor” (parents don’t have money). And there are wealthy students who are not good students.

What do you say about kids with learning disabilities? Do they create “bad schools?”

It’s faulty logic. Some students need more supports than others. Generalizing does nothing to help people. It only hurts (you included).

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote (or I expressed it poorly). I was making the point that when people talk about good schools and bad schools they are usually largely relying on metrics like test scores which are much more tightly correlated with socioeconomic status and parents’ education than they are with anything about the school. Many people opt out of perfectly good schools they deem “bad” because of low tests or other indicia that mostly come down to an “undesirable” student population. Frankly I think a lot of DC charter families fall into this trap.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly from someone who is at a "bad" school but has a smart kid, and thinks it's all fine.

I moved my kid from a "bad" DCPS school to a "good" DCPS school, and the painful truth is that the good school actually does teach them more. There is more instruction and more projects and my child is being pushed farther in math and ELA. The standards are higher.

Is it correlated with the student population? Probably it is. Because the average student is capable of more, so they can ask more of all of them.

THIS. The academic ability of the majority dictates where the teaching will be and the level of rigor. Full stop.

Some of this is true, but some is dependent on whether there are supports for both groups. If you have for example for intervention and acceleration teachers in subjects you can address both. They key is resources. Our school the kids had a half year of either reading acceleration or intervention to address both groups and allow them to either catch up or push forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't these all public schools? Shouldn't they all be funded the same way? I can understand funding schools differently if they serve a lot of at-risk kids, kids learning english, kids with disabilities, etc., but otherwise who cares if it is a charter school or a DCPS school. Schools are schools. Kids are kids. No?

They are not the same. The union issue is well established here. As is the special ed. But it really cannot be stated enough that charter schools simply do not have to serve the same population as DCPS. And they don't want to. Look at what happens at charters Nov. 1 after enrollment numbers for the year are finalized. Look at the requirements for teaching. Look at the marketing frankly.

DCPS schools are community hubs. Charter schools serve only their families and students. And they want the same city resources without contributing to the city in the same way.

I'm not demonizing parents who send their kids to charters, but a massive flaw in DC education is that charters have been given equal footing to community schools at the expense of those communities.

Tell me more about all the resources that DCPS is pouring into special education. "The US Dept of Education says in letter today that it has opened an investigation into DC Public Schools for “failing to meet the needs of students with special needs or disabilities.”

https://x.com/tomsherwood/status/1897448309926559982

And charter schools in DC serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities than DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't these all public schools? Shouldn't they all be funded the same way? I can understand funding schools differently if they serve a lot of at-risk kids, kids learning english, kids with disabilities, etc., but otherwise who cares if it is a charter school or a DCPS school. Schools are schools. Kids are kids. No?

They are not the same. The union issue is well established here. As is the special ed. But it really cannot be stated enough that charter schools simply do not have to serve the same population as DCPS. And they don't want to. Look at what happens at charters Nov. 1 after enrollment numbers for the year are finalized. Look at the requirements for teaching. Look at the marketing frankly.

DCPS schools are community hubs. Charter schools serve only their families and students. And they want the same city resources without contributing to the city in the same way.

I'm not demonizing parents who send their kids to charters, but a massive flaw in DC education is that charters have been given equal footing to community schools at the expense of those communities.

Tell me more about all the resources that DCPS is pouring into special education. "The US Dept of Education says in letter today that it has opened an investigation into DC Public Schools for “failing to meet the needs of students with special needs or disabilities.”

https://x.com/tomsherwood/status/1897448309926559982

And charter schools in DC serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities than DCPS.

It needs to be acknowledged that there are disabilities that require more resources than others. DCPS has CES programs at many schools. The ratio of teacher to student is very low, there needs to be an aid and the teacher has specialized training. This is much more costly than kids with 504s or need extended time. DCPS serves the students in the city who need to most specialized support.

[Anonymous]

PP again and separately even if they gave charters more funding they wouldn’t spend it on teacher salary.

[Anonymous]

The numbers also depend on whether you're including adult education programs, which are almost entirely charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like the gist is that the WTU organized and got themselves a contracted increase.

Charter system advocates consider non-unionization a feature, not a bug, so their lack of organization and not getting pay increases should be considered part of their model of operations. If staff costs are the primary expense in DCPS and PCS and PCS aren't unionized, why should you expect parity?

WTU negotiates and somehow they are supposed to translate that into a gimme for PCS teachers they didn't work for?

This. They constantly sh*t-talk the union, but they want the raise the union negotiates. Having it both ways must be nice.

I'm in a charter and have never sh*t-talked the union. In fact, there are teachers that go back and forth between charters and the union. But I guess only unionized teachers should be treated well?? Besides, there are unionized charter teachers in two or three places in DC but with no additional funding they won't get any more even with the supposed power of negotiation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read OP's link and it says funding for charter schools is INCREASING

Did you miss this paragraph?

"Overall, Bowser’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would send $2.9 billion to public schools in the District — a $123 million increase over the 2025 budget. Her plan directs $75 million to D.C. Public Schools and $48 million to the city’s charter campuses."

Would you be OK with charter schools getting $75M more money while DCPS gets $48M?

DCPS has more students total, so yes.

I mean, DCPS has more students total, so obviously DCPS gets more.

But in this case DCPS is getting disproportionately more.

Again, compare percentages of SpEd and at-risk kids in DCPS schools to those in charters. Charters don't have to spend remotely the amount of money DCPS does on additional services for students. You don't understand how per-pupil spending works (hint: most individual pupils don't get the per-pupil amount -- they either get way less because they have no extra needs, or they get way more because they do have extra needs).

DCPS needs more money than charters because it does a lot more for a tougher population of children. The end.

There are 30% sped kids in my charter high school. Monument charter is 51% special ed. DCPS has 8200 sped students out of 51000 students = 16%. Charters have 7500 sped students out of 47000 = 16%. There are a wide range of charters but please continue to be ignorant and spout nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it sounds like the gist is that the WTU organized and got themselves a contracted increase.

Charter system advocates consider non-unionization a feature, not a bug, so their lack of organization and not getting pay increases should be considered part of their model of operations. If staff costs are the primary expense in DCPS and PCS and PCS aren't unionized, why should you expect parity?

WTU negotiates and somehow they are supposed to translate that into a gimme for PCS teachers they didn't work for?

This. They constantly sh*t-talk the union, but they want the raise the union negotiates. Having it both ways must be nice.

I'm in a charter and have never sh*t-talked the union. In fact, there are teachers that go back and forth between charters and the union. But I guess only unionized teachers should be treated well?? Besides, there are unionized charter teachers in two or three places in DC but with no additional funding they won't get any more even with the supposed power of negotiation.

Then you need to unionize with sufficient power to negotiate for what WTU has. You can’t expect a union to negotiate on behalf of non- union members or management to offer better terms for an entirely separate workforce out of the goodness of it’s heart.

- Management who doesn’t get the union negotiated raises my staff get until the pay discrepancy becomes too big to ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Good schools" is usually just code for "schools with fewer poor students." I think DC should provide advanced classes for advanced students, in whatever numbers they exist at a particular school. If you have that, I don't know what really makes a "good" school other than not having poor kids dragging down your test scores.

This is a misinformed statement. Can we stop with the stereotypes? There are plenty of “good students” (academically gifted) who are “poor” (parents don’t have money). And there are wealthy students who are not good students.

What do you say about kids with learning disabilities? Do they create “bad schools?”

It’s faulty logic. Some students need more supports than others. Generalizing does nothing to help people. It only hurts (you included).

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote (or I expressed it poorly). I was making the point that when people talk about good schools and bad schools they are usually largely relying on metrics like test scores which are much more tightly correlated with socioeconomic status and parents’ education than they are with anything about the school. Many people opt out of perfectly good schools they deem “bad” because of low tests or other indicia that mostly come down to an “undesirable” student population. Frankly I think a lot of DC charter families fall into this trap.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly from someone who is at a "bad" school but has a smart kid, and thinks it's all fine.

I moved my kid from a "bad" DCPS school to a "good" DCPS school, and the painful truth is that the good school actually does teach them more. There is more instruction and more projects and my child is being pushed farther in math and ELA. The standards are higher.

Is it correlated with the student population? Probably it is. Because the average student is capable of more, so they can ask more of all of them.

THIS. The academic ability of the majority dictates where the teaching will be and the level of rigor. Full stop.

Some of this is true, but some is dependent on whether there are supports for both groups. If you have for example for intervention and acceleration teachers in subjects you can address both. They key is resources. Our school the kids had a half year of either reading acceleration or intervention to address both groups and allow them to either catch up or push forward.

This is where DC fails and why we have to deal with this ridiculous lottery and parallel school system. Tracking is vital to make sure kids who are ready for more rigorous work can pursue it. If tracking and advanced/accelerated classes are available, it would give people the freedom to stay at their neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Good schools" is usually just code for "schools with fewer poor students." I think DC should provide advanced classes for advanced students, in whatever numbers they exist at a particular school. If you have that, I don't know what really makes a "good" school other than not having poor kids dragging down your test scores.

This is a misinformed statement. Can we stop with the stereotypes? There are plenty of “good students” (academically gifted) who are “poor” (parents don’t have money). And there are wealthy students who are not good students.

What do you say about kids with learning disabilities? Do they create “bad schools?”

It’s faulty logic. Some students need more supports than others. Generalizing does nothing to help people. It only hurts (you included).

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote (or I expressed it poorly). I was making the point that when people talk about good schools and bad schools they are usually largely relying on metrics like test scores which are much more tightly correlated with socioeconomic status and parents’ education than they are with anything about the school. Many people opt out of perfectly good schools they deem “bad” because of low tests or other indicia that mostly come down to an “undesirable” student population. Frankly I think a lot of DC charter families fall into this trap.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly from someone who is at a "bad" school but has a smart kid, and thinks it's all fine.

I moved my kid from a "bad" DCPS school to a "good" DCPS school, and the painful truth is that the good school actually does teach them more. There is more instruction and more projects and my child is being pushed farther in math and ELA. The standards are higher.

Is it correlated with the student population? Probably it is. Because the average student is capable of more, so they can ask more of all of them.

THIS. The academic ability of the majority dictates where the teaching will be and the level of rigor. Full stop.

Some of this is true, but some is dependent on whether there are supports for both groups. If you have for example for intervention and acceleration teachers in subjects you can address both. They key is resources. Our school the kids had a half year of either reading acceleration or intervention to address both groups and allow them to either catch up or push forward.

This is where DC fails and why we have to deal with this ridiculous lottery and parallel school system. Tracking is vital to make sure kids who are ready for more rigorous work can pursue it. If tracking and advanced/accelerated classes are available, it would give people the freedom to stay at their neighborhood schools.

Most charter schools don’t track either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Good schools" is usually just code for "schools with fewer poor students." I think DC should provide advanced classes for advanced students, in whatever numbers they exist at a particular school. If you have that, I don't know what really makes a "good" school other than not having poor kids dragging down your test scores.

This is a misinformed statement. Can we stop with the stereotypes? There are plenty of “good students” (academically gifted) who are “poor” (parents don’t have money). And there are wealthy students who are not good students.

What do you say about kids with learning disabilities? Do they create “bad schools?”

It’s faulty logic. Some students need more supports than others. Generalizing does nothing to help people. It only hurts (you included).

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote (or I expressed it poorly). I was making the point that when people talk about good schools and bad schools they are usually largely relying on metrics like test scores which are much more tightly correlated with socioeconomic status and parents’ education than they are with anything about the school. Many people opt out of perfectly good schools they deem “bad” because of low tests or other indicia that mostly come down to an “undesirable” student population. Frankly I think a lot of DC charter families fall into this trap.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly from someone who is at a "bad" school but has a smart kid, and thinks it's all fine.

I moved my kid from a "bad" DCPS school to a "good" DCPS school, and the painful truth is that the good school actually does teach them more. There is more instruction and more projects and my child is being pushed farther in math and ELA. The standards are higher.

Is it correlated with the student population? Probably it is. Because the average student is capable of more, so they can ask more of all of them.

THIS. The academic ability of the majority dictates where the teaching will be and the level of rigor. Full stop.

Some of this is true, but some is dependent on whether there are supports for both groups. If you have for example for intervention and acceleration teachers in subjects you can address both. They key is resources. Our school the kids had a half year of either reading acceleration or intervention to address both groups and allow them to either catch up or push forward.

This is where DC fails and why we have to deal with this ridiculous lottery and parallel school system. Tracking is vital to make sure kids who are ready for more rigorous work can pursue it. If tracking and advanced/accelerated classes are available, it would give people the freedom to stay at their neighborhood schools.

Most charter schools don’t track either.

Some of them kind of act as tracking -- I've heard education reps say that the fact that BASIS exists takes the pressure off of their need to track/offer advanced classes in DCPS middle school. Which is not great, since 1. It's a lottery and 2. It's a weird and imperfect school (and we are there and staying, bc my kids need advanced classes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Good schools" is usually just code for "schools with fewer poor students." I think DC should provide advanced classes for advanced students, in whatever numbers they exist at a particular school. If you have that, I don't know what really makes a "good" school other than not having poor kids dragging down your test scores.

This is a misinformed statement. Can we stop with the stereotypes? There are plenty of “good students” (academically gifted) who are “poor” (parents don’t have money). And there are wealthy students who are not good students.

What do you say about kids with learning disabilities? Do they create “bad schools?”

It’s faulty logic. Some students need more supports than others. Generalizing does nothing to help people. It only hurts (you included).

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote (or I expressed it poorly). I was making the point that when people talk about good schools and bad schools they are usually largely relying on metrics like test scores which are much more tightly correlated with socioeconomic status and parents’ education than they are with anything about the school. Many people opt out of perfectly good schools they deem “bad” because of low tests or other indicia that mostly come down to an “undesirable” student population. Frankly I think a lot of DC charter families fall into this trap.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly from someone who is at a "bad" school but has a smart kid, and thinks it's all fine.

I moved my kid from a "bad" DCPS school to a "good" DCPS school, and the painful truth is that the good school actually does teach them more. There is more instruction and more projects and my child is being pushed farther in math and ELA. The standards are higher.

Is it correlated with the student population? Probably it is. Because the average student is capable of more, so they can ask more of all of them.

THIS. The academic ability of the majority dictates where the teaching will be and the level of rigor. Full stop.

Some of this is true, but some is dependent on whether there are supports for both groups. If you have for example for intervention and acceleration teachers in subjects you can address both. They key is resources. Our school the kids had a half year of either reading acceleration or intervention to address both groups and allow them to either catch up or push forward.

This is where DC fails and why we have to deal with this ridiculous lottery and parallel school system. Tracking is vital to make sure kids who are ready for more rigorous work can pursue it. If tracking and advanced/accelerated classes are available, it would give people the freedom to stay at their neighborhood schools.

Most charter schools don’t track either.

Some of them kind of act as tracking -- I've heard education reps say that the fact that BASIS exists takes the pressure off of their need to track/offer advanced classes in DCPS middle school. Which is not great, since 1. It's a lottery and 2. It's a weird and imperfect school (and we are there and staying, bc my kids need advanced classes).

Sure, but BASIS is not a “parallel school system” educating nearly half the publicly-educated students in DC. It looms large at a handful of elementary schools on the Hill, but in terms of citywide school policy it’s a rounding error that slipped through the cracks.

[Anonymous]

There are two school systems in DC. Neither one is going anywhere. They both have strengths and weaknesses and parents get to choose what works for their families.

We have bigger problems as a country and as a city right now. These fights are petty. Split education funding at the same ratio as the enrollment and be done with it. This should not be controversial or complicated.

The Department of Education is getting shut down today. If we don't act right, Trump will be looking at our school system as the next thing that needs fixing.

Stop being messy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Good schools" is usually just code for "schools with fewer poor students." I think DC should provide advanced classes for advanced students, in whatever numbers they exist at a particular school. If you have that, I don't know what really makes a "good" school other than not having poor kids dragging down your test scores.

This is a misinformed statement. Can we stop with the stereotypes? There are plenty of “good students” (academically gifted) who are “poor” (parents don’t have money). And there are wealthy students who are not good students.

What do you say about kids with learning disabilities? Do they create “bad schools?”

It’s faulty logic. Some students need more supports than others. Generalizing does nothing to help people. It only hurts (you included).

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote (or I expressed it poorly). I was making the point that when people talk about good schools and bad schools they are usually largely relying on metrics like test scores which are much more tightly correlated with socioeconomic status and parents’ education than they are with anything about the school. Many people opt out of perfectly good schools they deem “bad” because of low tests or other indicia that mostly come down to an “undesirable” student population. Frankly I think a lot of DC charter families fall into this trap.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly from someone who is at a "bad" school but has a smart kid, and thinks it's all fine.

I moved my kid from a "bad" DCPS school to a "good" DCPS school, and the painful truth is that the good school actually does teach them more. There is more instruction and more projects and my child is being pushed farther in math and ELA. The standards are higher.

Is it correlated with the student population? Probably it is. Because the average student is capable of more, so they can ask more of all of them.

THIS. The academic ability of the majority dictates where the teaching will be and the level of rigor. Full stop.

Some of this is true, but some is dependent on whether there are supports for both groups. If you have for example for intervention and acceleration teachers in subjects you can address both. They key is resources. Our school the kids had a half year of either reading acceleration or intervention to address both groups and allow them to either catch up or push forward.

This is where DC fails and why we have to deal with this ridiculous lottery and parallel school system. Tracking is vital to make sure kids who are ready for more rigorous work can pursue it. If tracking and advanced/accelerated classes are available, it would give people the freedom to stay at their neighborhood schools.

Most charter schools don’t track either.

Some of them kind of act as tracking -- I've heard education reps say that the fact that BASIS exists takes the pressure off of their need to track/offer advanced classes in DCPS middle school. Which is not great, since 1. It's a lottery and 2. It's a weird and imperfect school (and we are there and staying, bc my kids need advanced classes).

This. The existence of some of these schools basically acts as tracking. Either kids are able to go to local MSs with tracking (outside of Ward 3 I know Wells tracks) or they have to fight the lottery to go somewhere that does. And then simply because those charters offer something their DCPS doesn't there's very little accountability on the charters.

It's a bad system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two school systems in DC. Neither one is going anywhere. They both have strengths and weaknesses and parents get to choose what works for their families.

We have bigger problems as a country and as a city right now. These fights are petty. Split education funding at the same ratio as the enrollment and be done with it. This should not be controversial or complicated.

The Department of Education is getting shut down today. If we don't act right, Trump will be looking at our school system as the next thing that needs fixing.

Stop being messy.

The very existence of separate school systems is a huge problem. I have no doubt charters are here to stay especially with the WH's love of all things privatized but let's be clear that a) parents don't really get to choose, it's a lottery and most of the good charters are still located in areas with good DCPS and higher earning families, and b) it's not working and it can't be split evenly when as stated 800x DCPS has to pay teachers more. If charters want more the city can mandate that they have to pay on par with DCPS and provide the same benefits and allow charter teachers into unions. Until charters accept that it cannot be split evenly.