Charters nervous about de Blasio

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was a staunch and vocal advocate of charter schools. Charters proliferated during the Bloomberg years, aided by the guidance of former schools Chancellor Joel Klein and a change in state laws that raised the cap on the schools in New York.

Teachers, parents, politicians, and school officials across the country have been watching the Bloomberg-Klein approach to education reform, especially their commitment to charter schools. But New York City’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, has pressed the pause button on the city’s charter school momentum, and this could be a sign of more changes to come.

Mayor de Blasio says he may divert $210 million away from charter schools to help fund his plan to provide 41,000 city students with full-day prekindergarten. Charter school advocates are nervous that de Blasio is not only sidelining charters’ needs, but could be sending a negative message to government and education officials nationwide.

While de Blasio’s campaign was often portrayed as anti-charter, the issue he is confronting has more to do with the public school system’s finances and stability. These are same issues almost every major urban school district leader is facing, including Rochester’s Bolgen Vargas. For example, De Blasio’s plan to use the $210 million is partly a result of a confrontation with Governor Andrew Cuomo over how to pay for universal full day pre-K.

De Blasio is technically diverting money from charter expansion, according to a recent article in the New York Times, and not away from current operations. But de Blasio has also indicated that he won’t allow new charters to co-locate with traditional public schools, and may even charge some existing charters rent.

All of this has sent chills through the charter school community. They see him tugging a thread that could pull apart the whole movement. But it’s about much more than de Blasio’s stance on charters. De Blasio is challenging the idea of charter growth at the expense of destabilizing the rest of the public school system.

This article appears in Feb 5-11, 2014.

While de Blasio is certainly rattling some cages in the NYC charter school community, it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that his proposals could “pull apart the whole movement” or have some parallel to Rochester’s situation.

The issue in NYC is about SPACE, not district finances or stability. Unlike district schools, charters in NYS do not receive public funding for capital expenses (i.e. buildings). In a city with extraordinary real estate costs such as NYC, the facility barrier is magnified for charters. In an effort to encourage charter growth, the previous Bloomberg administration made excess space in district buildings available to many charter schools rent free. While the space was often far from ideal, it mitigated one of the biggest logistical hurdles to opening a charter in NYC (and eliminated the need for funding from billionaire hedge fund managers). Now de Blasio is examining whether new charter schools (not existing charters) should pay rent for district space or if the district space should be made available at all in some cases. The $210 million he wants to divert to pre-K would come from planned improvements to the district’s own buildings meant to accomodate new charters and other nonprofits in coming years. The funding would not be taken directly from NYC charter schools. So yes, de Blasio’s approach is certainly concerning for NYC charters, but it is hardly the epic sea change portrayed above.

It is difficult to see how the NYC charter school facility issues are relevant to Rochester. Despite years of excess space across the RCSD, charter schools have never been offered an opportunity to access district facilities here (whether for a price or otherwise). As the RCSD continues to face budget woes in the years ahead, it might be time to examine untapped sources of revenue such as leasing extra building space to new charters. Shifting the burden of building maintenance alone would result in significant savings. Instead, our district is carrying the cost of unnecessary buildings…funds that could be spent in classrooms instead.

One reply on “Charters nervous about de Blasio”

Marshall says:

February 7, 2014 at 10:30 am

While de Blasio is certainly rattling some cages in the NYC charter school community, it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that his proposals could “pull apart the whole movement” or have some parallel to Rochester’s situation.

The issue in NYC is about SPACE, not district finances or stability. Unlike district schools, charters in NYS do not receive public funding for capital expenses (i.e. buildings). In a city with extraordinary real estate costs such as NYC, the facility barrier is magnified for charters. In an effort to encourage charter growth, the previous Bloomberg administration made excess space in district buildings available to many charter schools rent free. While the space was often far from ideal, it mitigated one of the biggest logistical hurdles to opening a charter in NYC (and eliminated the need for funding from billionaire hedge fund managers). Now de Blasio is examining whether new charter schools (not existing charters) should pay rent for district space or if the district space should be made available at all in some cases. The $210 million he wants to divert to pre-K would come from planned improvements to the district’s own buildings meant to accomodate new charters and other nonprofits in coming years. The funding would not be taken directly from NYC charter schools. So yes, de Blasio’s approach is certainly concerning for NYC charters, but it is hardly the epic sea change portrayed above.

It is difficult to see how the NYC charter school facility issues are relevant to Rochester. Despite years of excess space across the RCSD, charter schools have never been offered an opportunity to access district facilities here (whether for a price or otherwise). As the RCSD continues to face budget woes in the years ahead, it might be time to examine untapped sources of revenue such as leasing extra building space to new charters. Shifting the burden of building maintenance alone would result in significant savings. Instead, our district is carrying the cost of unnecessary buildings…funds that could be spent in classrooms instead.