Anonymous wrote:I dunno. In the middle of the city in particular, it's probably not the worst idea to hang onto well-located DCPS buildings for their use in the near-ish future as re-envisioned DCPS middle schools.

Your 3 year olds are going to be in middle and high school, you know this, right? And they can't all go to Deal.

Been waiting for years and years for DCPS to be "re-envisioned" and it hasn't happened. Tired of waiting. DCPS, and the mayor, need to either get their act together, NOW, not "some future vision" - or get out of the way and let charters do their thing - but with the SAME kinds of resources and funding that DCPS has been enjoying all these years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

No. The whole point of charters is not to have a gladiatorial death match, competing with local schools for students. The point of charters SHOULD BE to provide alternative methods of learning, because not every child thrives in the same environment. Another point of charters SHOULD be to bring communities together, by drawing students from all over the city. Those are positive goals. COMPETITION FOR FUNDING is bullshit. And not the point of education.

Now, granted, I've been known to rant myself on how DCPS seems to like lighting money on fire to build underground parking garages, but charters are no better in those circumstances. It's amazing how well-appointed so many of them are.

I'm the PP that you quoted. We may or may not agree about what *should be* the goals of our local educational institutions. But currently, charters are funded on a per student basis. They are competing with DCPS and other charters for students, and by extension, money. To act as though this does not affect the institutional interests of the players here is naïve. And I was so strident in my criticism of the Post's editorial board because they don't address this issue at all in their editorial.

I've got kids in a charter that's looking for space, so believe me, I wish there was a way they could pry away space from DCPS. But I don't expect DCPS to give away space that it may need in the future. The only way DCPS is going to agree to allow a charters to use its buildings is if they are required to do so. For the Post's editorial board to expect otherwise is mystifying to me.

I think the Post's editorial board was trying to pressure the CITY and the MAYOR to make it a priority to get some of those buildings for charters. Some are owned by DCPS, but some are under DGS control. Yes, DCPS won't happily part ways with them... but it is Bowser's responsibility to do what is in best interest of ALL the city's kids, not just DCPS kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

I think at the boundary review process, we were looking at projected DCPS growth - not charters. So charter schools will need to look for new buildings too. Why is that DCPS problem?

No, the boundary review process looked at the projected growth of school-aged children living in DC.

So, it might be pretty reasonable for DC to aim to give 6 of the 12 buildings to charters, and 6 to DCPS...? Agree that DCPS might want to open more schools in future, e.g. the new Urban Prep. So let's see the city give half to the charters - seems fair to me!

Also whoever said charters are not looking to rehab vacant/crumbling buildings - that's not true. Otherwise charters have to build a new site from scratch at $10-20 million at LEAST, or have to lease from a private facility which is generally not optimal (in terms of adequate space/design etc for student learning). If they can renovate a building, they are spending dramatically less - and a lot less than DCPS is spending on facilities rehab.

My guess is that many of these charters with very long waiting lists would be growing to 2nd sites, or middle school or high school, if they had a path to access public facilities.

Anonymous wrote:

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

No. The whole point of charters is not to have a gladiatorial death match, competing with local schools for students. The point of charters SHOULD BE to provide alternative methods of learning, because not every child thrives in the same environment. Another point of charters SHOULD be to bring communities together, by drawing students from all over the city. Those are positive goals. COMPETITION FOR FUNDING is bullshit. And not the point of education.

Now, granted, I've been known to rant myself on how DCPS seems to like lighting money on fire to build underground parking garages, but charters are no better in those circumstances. It's amazing how well-appointed so many of them are.

I'm the PP that you quoted. We may or may not agree about what *should be* the goals of our local educational institutions. But currently, charters are funded on a per student basis. They are competing with DCPS and other charters for students, and by extension, money. To act as though this does not affect the institutional interests of the players here is naïve. And I was so strident in my criticism of the Post's editorial board because they don't address this issue at all in their editorial.

I've got kids in a charter that's looking for space, so believe me, I wish there was a way they could pry away space from DCPS. But I don't expect DCPS to give away space that it may need in the future. The only way DCPS is going to agree to allow a charters to use its buildings is if they are required to do so. For the Post's editorial board to expect otherwise is mystifying to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, in DC they are nonprofits, not private companies. Some contract with a management company to provide some services but I think BASIS is the only one like that that is popular on DCUM. The others are strictly nonprofits.

OK, charters are private non-profit companies that run public schools (even Basis here is non-profit as that's DC law).

The sometimes shady arrangements with for profit management companies is another aspect, but they are all non-public companies. The point is that the public no longer owns them once a charter school does.

Just saying, just because something is publicly funded but privately run doesn't mean it is ineffective, and just because something is publicly/government-run doesn't mean it is effective at its purpose. I'm as liberal as they come but I'm not "anti-corporate" or "anti-private" on principle. For example, I'm a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, which is a "private nonprofit corporation." Doesn't mean it's evil...

Honestly I get a little tired of the "charter schools are evil corporations trying to profit off kids" rhetoric. Yes in SOME states with bad charter oversight there are shady for-profit companies, and we had the Kent Amos scandal here in DC, but I don't think it's far-out to say that *by and large* charters here in DC are run by non-profits with ethical principals and boards, with educators who are trying to do right by kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

I think at the boundary review process, we were looking at projected DCPS growth - not charters. So charter schools will need to look for new buildings too. Why is that DCPS problem?

No, the boundary review process looked at the projected growth of school-aged children living in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

No. The whole point of charters is not to have a gladiatorial death match, competing with local schools for students. The point of charters SHOULD BE to provide alternative methods of learning, because not every child thrives in the same environment. Another point of charters SHOULD be to bring communities together, by drawing students from all over the city. Those are positive goals. COMPETITION FOR FUNDING is bullshit. And not the point of education.

Now, granted, I've been known to rant myself on how DCPS seems to like lighting money on fire to build underground parking garages, but charters are no better in those circumstances. It's amazing how well-appointed so many of them are.

Please tell us which charters are so well-appointed. I have never been in a charter that has anything like any of the newly built or rehabbed DCPS buildings.

Yu Ying.

Yu Ying is nice. They bought that building, which was not a surplussed DCPS building. Meridian is another nice one. There are way more crappy ones, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, in DC they are nonprofits, not private companies. Some contract with a management company to provide some services but I think BASIS is the only one like that that is popular on DCUM. The others are strictly nonprofits.

OK, charters are private non-profit companies that run public schools (even Basis here is non-profit as that's DC law).

The sometimes shady arrangements with for profit management companies is another aspect, but they are all non-public companies. The point is that the public no longer owns them once a charter school does.

Since you don't even know anything about how charter schools are owned/operated. Maybe you should just talk about something else?

Seriously. The public certainly has less control over what happens to the buildings, and that is by design, to give the schools flexibility and shield them from bureaucracy and the political winds of the day. But in the long run the public still has fundamental control over the buildings- either through the ground leases that currently the way DGS disposes of the property, or through the more roundabout way that had to be done with CAPCS. There, because the land was owned by the charter (DC used to actually sell the property to the charters, they don't do that anymore), threatening to take away the charter itself, and thus the only way to pay debt, was a strong enough stick to get CAPCS to essentially give itself up and let its constituent schools be taken over.

Oh, and those old schools which were sold to developers and rehabbed as condos and apartments? The public really has no control over those.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, in DC they are nonprofits, not private companies. Some contract with a management company to provide some services but I think BASIS is the only one like that that is popular on DCUM. The others are strictly nonprofits.

OK, charters are private non-profit companies that run public schools (even Basis here is non-profit as that's DC law).

The sometimes shady arrangements with for profit management companies is another aspect, but they are all non-public companies. The point is that the public no longer owns them once a charter school does.

Since you don't even know anything about how charter schools are owned/operated. Maybe you should just talk about something else?

Anonymous wrote:No, in DC they are nonprofits, not private companies. Some contract with a management company to provide some services but I think BASIS is the only one like that that is popular on DCUM. The others are strictly nonprofits.

OK, charters are private non-profit companies that run public schools (even Basis here is non-profit as that's DC law).

The sometimes shady arrangements with for profit management companies is another aspect, but they are all non-public companies. The point is that the public no longer owns them once a charter school does.

No, in DC they are nonprofits, not private companies. Some contract with a management company to provide some services but I think BASIS is the only one like that that is popular on DCUM. The others are strictly nonprofits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

I think at the boundary review process, we were looking at projected DCPS growth - not charters. So charter schools will need to look for new buildings too. Why is that DCPS problem?

Ew. So what you are saying is you don't care about educating all kids. You just care about educating kids as long as they choose DCPS?

You are just gross.

I care about having buildings for public schools. I don't care about giving buildings to private companies.

Nice try with the extrapolation BTW.

Charter schools are public schools.

Charter schools are private companies that run public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

I think at the boundary review process, we were looking at projected DCPS growth - not charters. So charter schools will need to look for new buildings too. Why is that DCPS problem?

Ew. So what you are saying is you don't care about educating all kids. You just care about educating kids as long as they choose DCPS?

You are just gross.

I care about having buildings for public schools. I don't care about giving buildings to private companies.

Nice try with the extrapolation BTW.

Charter schools are public schools.

My school just recently found it's perm home. It was very stressful. For families, for kids and I know for the administration.

We were lucky to find a great and wonderful location that worked for a majority of our families. I hope that other schools are able to do so. The experience that we went through has made me extremely angry at DC government since I drive by at least two empty city buildings (one a school) on the way to my new school location.

Hopefully, DC can do a better job for all of our kids. Doubtful - but here is to believing they will try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

I think at the boundary review process, we were looking at projected DCPS growth - not charters. So charter schools will need to look for new buildings too. Why is that DCPS problem?

Ew. So what you are saying is you don't care about educating all kids. You just care about educating kids as long as they choose DCPS?

You are just gross.

I care about having buildings for public schools. I don't care about giving buildings to private companies.

Nice try with the extrapolation BTW.