Reply to Petition to DC Council for FY 2024 Charter School Budgets

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Petition to DC Council for FY 2024 Charter School Budgets"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics