Charter school funding gap in FY27 budget
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The $160 million also included building the new wing for Ida B Wells Middle School to share the building. It's $160 million for a campus that houses nearly 1600 students. |
Anonymous
Why don't you have a look at Rocketship and nearby DCPS and get back to us. See also KIPP Northeast |
Anonymous
And they spend another $15 Million renovating the lunchroom. Your point is? I don't think you know. And I don't think you are making the point you think you are. $175 million/1600 students = $109k/student. Current funding formula is @$15k/student. So over a 7 year period DCPS is funding 2x as much per student to Coolidge/Ida as against Charters. Even if you extend that useful life to 17 years, DCPS is funding 50% more per student than for charters. You aren't grasping the discussion here. The point isn't that renovated schools suck or are all great. The point is that capital budgets for renos are significant. Which is why segregating facilities costs apart from capitated per student payments is illogical and unfair. A point you actually helped me make! Thanks, friend. |
Anonymous
And as has been explained to you, a per-pupil formula makes no sense in the DCPS context. I'm really perplexed why you chose 17 years as the useful life. |
Anonymous
Bolded is the crux of the argument. An argument you haven't actually made. Would love to hear it. Why would it not make sense for DCPS? Because they spend a lot of money? That's awfully circular. And. I didn't. It was a typo. Intended to double 7 (and the math so illustrates). |
Anonymous
| Why not look at the 2024 supplement to the MFP, Appendix 1 tab F. It shows that some schools have not been modernized in far more than 17 years. Barnard, for example, is getting an addition but its last real modernization was in 2003. Brightwood and Cleveland in 2004. Kelly Miller 2004. Malcolm X waited 19 years. Miner had a 21-year gap between renovations. So did Noyes. Oyster-Adams 23 years. So why choose 17 years as your divisor? |
Anonymous
My belief: The total budget and the amount actually spent on on-site construction, material, and labor are 2 different things. You know, the politics part -- the gifts to the developers and middlemen that never make it to the facility housing students and teachers. |
Anonymous
That's a thing for sure. But also, giving the school what the parents there want, because they have some advocacy ability. The localized nature of DCPS means it's easier to get your own council reps to pay attention. Also, historic building regulations add complexity. And the oldness and disrepair of the buildings can make the renovation harder. For example, asbestos-- a charter would simply not choose to rent or buy that building, but DCPS is pretty much stuck with it and has to actually remediate the problem, and that can be costly. I continue to think below-market charter leases are an off-the-books subsidy, but I don't know how to estimate the size of it. |
Anonymous
You've said this several times but it is not the thing you think it is. You continue to imply that charters took advantage of DCPS by stealing their buildings. There is no evidence of that. In fact, the requirement to allow charters right of first refusal was an offshoot of DCPS selling surplus buildings to developers in sweetheart deals that provided no long term benefit to DC students (or DC as a whole, really). *It has been 10+ years since a Charter school newly occupied a "surplus school" (Two Rivers in 2015) *"Subsidies" are illusory. The charter has to pay for 100% of the capital modernization costs. Using Two Rivers as an example, the reno costs were $33 million. A commercial arm's length lease would not require to tenant to cover buildout costs *The "subsidies" are not what you think. Charter leases are triple net leases. Unlike typical commercial leases the charters are on the hook for real estate Taxes, building insurance and ALL maintenance and utilities |
Anonymous
Last part first. As I explained, it was a typo. Should have said 14 years. And 14 was chosen to double the 7 that got us to $15k per student. Look at the math in my post - this is pretty and obvious. Not sure what you are arguing in the rest of your post. Ok...and? DCPS hasn't modernized all schools. They have modernized many of them and spent a ton of money to do so; money that isn't part of the per student calculations. Which is the point here. not sure if I am responding to one person who doesn't get it or many of you. |
Anonymous
Another, "ok...and?" post. In what way is that relevant the discussion of DCPS/PCSB funding formulas? Are you suggesting that capital improvements should be considered in the formula, but only the portion of the expense that was well spent? Make it make sense. |
Anonymous
This is an interesting point and one with which I think the charter community has not yet come to terms. Charters are coming up on the 15-20 year mark. Many of the schools are now facing increased maintenance and capital expenses. Construction and maintenance costs are WAY up, as are interest rates. Cost to borrow is through the roof. |
Anonymous
I actually do not think there was any "stealing". But I do think there may be below-market leases, or leases that once were market but have not kept up with market. But it's very hard to quantify this. |
Anonymous
But how many are that number of years in their original building? |
Anonymous
The point is you're cherry-picking Coolidge and using 14 years makes for a higher annual cost. 21 years would more accurately reflect DCPS patterns of renovation scheduling. |