the question now would seem to be, who in management will be leaving? too many people with non-jobs and high pay still around...

It will be interesting to see if Ms Perkins-Cohen has changed her view on charter school funding now that she has control of the office that manages their contracts.

http://www2.citypaper.com/story.asp?id=9799

@OTT Thanks for digging that up!

jschool is on to something here. There are too many chiefs with non-jobs and high pay. What kind of "support" will these "integrated network teams" be providing? How will this help the kids? How will it help those of us on the front lines in the Baltimore City schools?

BS Paper @ Alonso "Macro Education Cabinet"

What will be the short/long term turn around impact study outcomes in the area of teaching and leaning to support increased academic achievement. For all students citywide in the Pre-K-12 classrooms? That is the measurement for any value added, to the central office reorganizations. YES or NO?

King Andreas has an inflated group of implied high education thinkers called a YES man cabinet.

Ms. Perkins-Cohen says of charters, in the article OTT links to, "Basically they’re saying they don’t want to pay their taxes. Well, I don’t really like paying taxes either, but you have to pay them." The fact is the Baltimore Curriculum Project (BCP) schools didn't, as she suggests, pay them.

Of all the charter schools, the conversion schools, of which all of the BCP schools were/are, benefited the most because they had full enrollment when they started as charters and they were in school system buildings and paid—and continue to pay—very low rent. Going charter was, no doubt, a big financial advantage to these schools. So, while Ms. Perkins-Cohen spoke forcefully about fairness and equity in funding in the City Paper article, her organization certainly never declined charter revenue nor has it given any back. No qualms here: They played by the rules. But they obviously said one thing (we really shouldn't be getting this money) and did another (they took it).

But many charter schools didn't and don't have the financial advantage that conversions had. Many charters are in non-public facilities and have much more difficult financial challenges. Additionally, many charters have no interest whatsoever in the services the district offers, or at least want only what is necessary by contract. That was the case then and certainly is the case now. Ms. Macdonald spoke eloquently about this back in 2005 and continues to do so today.

Many people look at the difference between the charter per pupil and the district's per-pupil and say, right away, that there is a disparity. Dr. Alonso himself did this back in the spring, which attracted a headline in this newspaper. What's really obvious, though, is that people who make this judgment don't realize, or choose not to, that charters pay for everything, including the facilities (and for those in non-public spaces this is often a heavy expense), the operational cost of the facility, bus tickets, the principal (it was the case that with district funding model the district picked up the cost of the principal; not sure if it still does), and everything else you can think of to run a school. That per pupil is the lifeline of most charters. People talking abut cutting it, and about how unfair it is, first should get their facts right and second should not be comparing apples to oranges. It’s fine to continue to debate the issue, but get the facts straight—and also keep in mind that the matter is settled law.

It will be interesting to see what policy positions Ms. Perkins-Cohen takes here in her new cabinet level job. One line of thought has it that the district is in need of funds and would like nothing more than to raise "taxes" on the charters by lowering the per-pupil. Perkins-Cohen, some say, has been brought in to try and do just that.

"School portfolio management" says it all. These dangerous clowns treat schools like pieces of property to be bought and sold, opened and closed. Whatever happened to the idea of simply recruiting, mentoring, and supporting strong principals and teachers?

Dear No-Taxes:

I agree that charters are on the hook for things that traditional (and this includes transformation) are not. Having said that the fact that charters "have to" pay for these things still leaves a wide disparity between per pupil funding for charters v non-charters. In the school that I worked in most recently that difference after all things that charters have to pay for was about 3/4 of a million dollars. That was the difference between having 50 teachers and having 60 teachers. It was the difference between having enough for our students and not enough. We were not a charter for some very specific reasons, but the money issue was real and measurable. Those who compare charters to non-charters and say they are comparing apples to apples need to do the math. When we would get complaints about why we didn't have enough staff, supplies, field trips and the like when people compared us to our charter friends the answer was easy.

I don't begrudge the charters for having more, I begrudge the system for short changing the rest of us. Considering that the system gets around 12 thousand per pupil and schools are being told to do with around 5 k per pupil one must ask where the other 7 k goes. As we continue to read about the expansion of central office staff - new cabinet members, new network members, new this and that inside 200 E North Ave - we must continually question why schools are doing with less and less. I realize the cost of living increases impact the bottom line, I realize that the new contract will cost more and hopefully get our kids better results. What I also realize is that small schools cannot survive on the funding offered.

One final note: The cost that facilities costs charters is partly up to them - some charters figure out existing school buildings to share or convert and some choose to look for buildings that need conversion. ConneXions, KIPP, MATHS and SWBC all exist in current System buildings. Others do not. Again, this seems like more of a choice. I am glad that the ones who are not in system buildings are happy where they are. I also know that they understand what they are paying for.

And as for J Bryce - I shutter to think about his management style as it relates to the networks. I also wonder what measurable impact these network folk will have. My guess - not much. I wonder if the results aren't there he will get the ax. Doubt it.

Dear Who am i now:
Your points make sense. Especially "I don't begrudge the charters for having more, I begrudge the system for short changing the rest of us." But here's what I want to know: What IS the fairest and most logical way to fix the equitable funding problem in City Schools? I get your point about the .75 million shortfall at your old school, but since your school had fewer kids, do you really think the fairest and most logical solution is for the system to kick in and pay that 3/4 million? As I read your argument, 200 E. North Ave should dump .75m worth of admin so that your under-enrolled school can meet its budget. Is that really the best way to fix this?

Dear Who am i now,
I'm confused. Aren't you teaching at a charter? I'm not sure whom you're referring to as " the rest of us."

@Let's get this blog cookin' again - Since the start of FSF there has been a parallel discussion within BCPSS on how they handle small schools. I think the number was less than 200 students. In the past there was a reserve amount held out of the budget to make sure that small schools did not suffer fatal cuts from FSF. With the increase in alternative schools came the increase in small schools and central strains to keep the small schools adequately funded. FSF is far from fair. In a logical world every school would offer the full menu of services that its student population needs. That is the part of the current equation that is missing. Under FSF it is sometimes defunding Peter to underpay Paul.

So what is the best way to fix this? reconsolidation and closings. This city cannot afford over 200 schools with a shrinking population and funding stream.

Anon: No, I am not at a charter. For the past 3 years I was at a transformation school - you must have me confused with someone else. Before that I was at another transitionally funded school. Before that... and before that... I am heading to one this coming year, maybe that's what you heard. And where might you be?

Let's Get (love the name BTW): We were not under-enrolled - we submitted what we knew we would have in terms of student population and we had almost that number. What I want is for the majority of funding to go to the schools, not the system. What I want is for 70% of the funding that the system gets to go to schools. Let's do the math. Currently I believe that schools are being told to make due with about $5200 per kid. The system gets around 12K per kid in raw numbers (round numbers work for me here - 1 billion total budget divided by 82 thousand students = a little over 12 k). Heck, let's take some money right off the top for things fun things that need to happen centrally so we can say that the system gets 10k per kid after this "stuff" which in round numbers is 2 k x 82000 = 164 million which used to be real money once upon a time. So if schools got 75% of that money that would be 7.5k per kid so a school with 450 kids would go from having 2,340,000 to having 3,375,000. Again, this assumes that the system is already getting 2 thousand per kid right off the top and leaves them with (again, round numbers here) an additional 205 million. Remember that schools already pay for things like custodial and some of those costs. That's a million more dollars for kids - extra RTI teachers, para professionals, field trips and so on. As for them "dumping" their admin staff costs so they can "kick in" what we need (Ps. this still doesn't equal what charters get which is somewhere slightly over 9k per kid which would bring our 450 student school up to slightly over 4 million), yeah, I guess I would ask that the "system" kicks in so that kids get better services. Crazy, no?

I used to wonder about the reforms that have gone on down at 200 E N Ave. Every so often someone new would come in to drive the bus and say they were clearing house, getting rid of waste, trimming central office. I used to believe them. Then I would try and get a parking space at 200 E N Ave. At first it would be easy to do - hey, I would say to myself, maybe they really did clear some staff out of here. But alas, within a few months parking would become more and more difficult to find until, wham, right back where we started. With the addition of new "Network" people I imagine this trend will only continue. Maybe the answer is building a new parking lot. Hey, isn't there a school right behind 200 E N Ave? Let's close it in favor of building a new parking lot...

If the system believes in what it approves (smaller schools which is often what they do approve in either charter or transformation or whatever the flavor of the day is) it needs to take into account that there are some real costs associated with those schools. Let's add one more piece to that puzzle (heck, if you have read this far I might as well push my luck) - schools that are in their first 4 years have some costs associated with them that existing schools do no. For example, there are the first batch of transformation schools which came on line 3 years ago with grades 6 and 9. Those schools are going to have 12th graders for the first time this coming year. Getting lab materials, textbooks and other materials that those students need is a new cost that a place like Mervo doesn't have.

Look, I know how hard it is - I have been teaching or in schools since 1992 - a majority of that time right here is Charm City. I know that the tax base shrinks and schools get the short end. I know that Baltimore has the oldest buildings that have the greatest need in terms of maintenance costs and let's not even talk about central air or consistent heat. I also believe that we have a bloated central office that leaves schools wanting which teaching and learning has smart boards (in their waiting area no less). I also get that schools need to show better results and constantly play the "we're so poor we can't do better" card. We all need to take a look at the part we play in the equation. All I am saying is that when a system gets 12 k and gives only 43% to the schools something is wrong.

Thanks for reading all the way through

Does anyone in the public KNOW the exact numbers? It seems we are all guessing. Shouldn't these numbers-- the line by line budgets for schools, both charters and otherwise, be completely public? If they are, can someone please share how I can have access to them? Those, and the North Avenue line-by-line budget.

If all of this was completely public, line-by-line, there would be no discussion here. We would be able to see for ourselves who is getting what and why. It is true that the public schools where I've taught over the last 5 years have been more and more starved and the lack of funding has become more and more critical and cut deeper and deeper to the bone.

What I don't like is the idea that schools are fighting amongst ourselves for funding, rather than making a case for full funding for education across the board. What is disingenuous is to push the idea that charters are better before we know a. whether it's true or not, and b. whether it might only be true due to unequal funding. If b. is true, the minute all the public schools close down, the charters will start to fail because they'll be stuck with the same pie.

To clearly make the case, for whatever we want to say here, we need some transparency, but we also need to be clear: we all are in this together, and the CEOs on Wall Street definitely have air conditioning in May, enough secretaries to take care of the paperwork, and good lunch in their cafeterias.

@Robin:
Many schools, especially those with the standard City Schools websites, post their budget only a few clicks deep off their main page.

Budget transparency has been one of the big underreported improvements recently. The catch is this: if school leaders are required to get input on budget choices, how do we know if they're actually doing it?

Campbell: It's a mixed bag. Schools usually make an honest attempt to engage the public in the budget process, but they're often given little to no time to effect this engagement (as in, "here are your numbers, go meet with parents and get back to us by Friday"). So it often comes down to how effective the school's communication network is. If they make good use of their website (most don't), email, Global Connect (the robo-call thing), and maybe even a few posters around the school's entrance, and--AND--the administrative team maintains good relationships with the parents and the community, they're going to see more participants at these meetings.

Si/Campbell--

Principals are getting input the same way they always did-- the ubiquitous "wish list" which no one ever sees again. Everyone asks for the moon and in the end gets some pencils...