Future of KIPP Baltimore charters uncertain
A story in today's paper explained how a threat that KIPP Baltimore made last year to leave Maryland may come to fruition on June 30.
The highly regarded charter organization, which runs 99 schools in 20 states, has set the June deadline for the Baltimore Teachers Union to commit to a long-term agreement that would allow the school to have a 9 1/2 day without having to pay its teachers a large premium, determined through negotiations every year. The school is also looking to invest in a school building in Baltimore, a commitment it doesn't want to make without full autonomy to implement its model.
But the BTU holds fast to its mission to represent all teachers in the district, ensuring that educators are compensated fully and fairly for their time and energy. On the heels of ratifying an innovative teachers contract--designed to pay city educators more for their work and results--union officials say they will not take any steps that would undermine what they rightfully bargained.
The conflict has even made it to the editorial pages of The Washington Post.
But, this issue is not black and white. There is a shade of gray. Her name is Sonya Moss.
I wanted Sonya's background and voice to serve as the bookends for this story, not as a forced anecdote, but because the KIPP Ujima 7th grader could possibly be a voice of reason in what is making for a hostile debate.
The debate appears to have come down to two questions: Is the union driving one of the best schools in MD? Or, is a successful school seeking to circumvent a contract that every other charter school in Baltimore has to adhere to?
Sonya didn't know. Sonya didn't care.
All she knows is that on June 30, her world could change, along with the prospects for her education. She just hopes that when her school's operators meet with union officials to discuss KIPP's future in the district, they also take her future into consideration.
Baltimoresun.com's 
Comments
Is it not one of the major flaws in the charter reform method that some of the most successful models use methods that are not sustainable when the funding for a district is under siege? Baltimore was an easy target years ago but the continued budget cuts will take its toll.
BCPSS has done more than enough for KIPP. This is a private business decision. So the question becomes, if KIPP doesn't care about Sonya why should we?
Better yet, do some homework. Talk to the people at BDJ and determine how they operate on an extended day without having the issues that KIPP is having.
Posted by: OverTheTop | March 3, 2011 11:34 AM
I don't understand why this is a conflict between the BTU and KIPP. It should be a conflict between KIPP and the district, and ultimately, the district and the city that allows corporations and high-income home-owners to get away with starving our children.
KIPP is offering substantially more services than the average school, and the district should be giving KIPP a larger budget to pay for them. The fact that Alonso has avoided any discussion of this points to his real allegiance here.
Meanwhile, during the worst recession since the Great Depression, property taxes in Baltimore are at the lowest rate they have been since 1972. (Which is a bragging point, apparently, for our lovely corporate-baby mayor) What does she have to brag about? Forty years of falling property taxes has not brought jobs to our city as promised. What it really means is one of the worst school systems in the country, and a percentage of our city's budget that goes to schools which is at an embarrassing low-point as well.
But rather than have a real conversation about decent funding for a decent school program, we trot out poor little Sonya, who needs a good education, and blame the Teachers Unions for demanding that her teachers get paid properly for providing that program.
Why is this article about BTU instead of the fact we we just offered Walmart Tax Incremented Financing to come to Baltimore with 1000 minimum wage jobs?
Do we really want to starve our children and their parents at the same time while taking a swipe at the salaries of their teachers too?
Once again, we scapegoat the teacher's unions when Sonya's problem really lies in corporate accountability and community support for good education.
Posted by: Robin Bingham | March 3, 2011 12:00 PM
ERICA: Was there any reason you neglected to also mention mandatory summer school?
So the union will not allow its members, i.e. teachers at KIPP, to have a voice in the matter? Sounds like a great union!!!
Posted by: correction | March 3, 2011 12:08 PM
I wonder what's costing KIPP more, needing to pay for a few more hours a day or the 5,000 office staff employees they have.
Posted by: Brandon | March 3, 2011 1:10 PM
ERICA:
By neglecting summer school you are confusing people like Overthetop into making comments that only mention the longer school day.
Please make sure that your reporting is more accurate in the future.
Brandon: The layers of office staff. Too bad the Sun can't do the research to make sense of Kipp's budget... what a GREAT newspaper.
Posted by: To OvertheTop | March 4, 2011 8:16 AM
@ Correction and @To OvertheTop
As Liz and I reported out the story, we were informed the conflict was over the 9 1/2 hour day, as evidenced by the sources in our story. There was no intentional neglect to leave out summer school, and I will double check to make sure that's also part of the deal that KIPP is trying to make.
I also don't know that describing the article as "inaccurate" is appropriate, because there is no "inaccurate" information in there.
But, if I've left something pertinent out in this article then I'd be more than happy to do a follow up.
Thanks,
Erica
Posted by: Erica Green | March 4, 2011 8:39 AM
Fair enough. You can see how many of the comments were jumping to conclusions by being unaware of the summer school policy and coming to erroneous conclusions.
Yeah, KIPP teachers have longer years and longer school days.
That's how you arrive at the pro-rata number the union demands. Without the summer school, the pro-rata numbers you mention don't make any sense.
Not sure why your sources didn't mention that?
Also, why not disassemble the KIPP budget and follow the money? It'll make for an interesting story. Perhaps the money to pay pro-rata is actually there?
Posted by: correction | March 4, 2011 12:52 PM