I know it's 9pm on a Tues (does that matter on twitter?) but want to talk about the "Fiscal Impact as a Factor in Charter Growth in RI" report released this month by @charteralliance (but I'll treat it w/ merit anyway, for sake of convo)

A thread ---->

https://www.publiccharters.org/sites/default/files/documents/2021-04/napcs_ri-fiscal-impact_rd4.pdf

Claim: Rhode Island charter schools are "funded the same as any other public school."

Question: How do we acct for / balance amount of available grant $$$ that HEAVY LEANS (like in the 100ks, million $$$ range) pro charter?

And, admittedly, 2nd ? ^ is this my imagination?

Claim: charter schools are meant to "promote improved student learning and academic performance."

Question: What happens when they don't?

Answer: @RIDeptEd renews them anyway

Question: Why? Political nepotism? No real method to dissolve / reabsorb charter students?

If Rhode Island's charter schools rely heavily on grant $$$ or independent donors (QUESTION: do they?) could they possibly achieve this purported goal?

This part basically makes the argument that when 100% of per pupil funding follows student that it DOES financially impact sending district. Reduction to 88% funding was to "soften the effect of 3 year charter growth" that this report goes on to claim doesn't exist.

This part matches argument I hear a lot about how districts "make $$$" by sending Ss to charters.

Question: Are we not funding schools enough (I know already you're going to say no- fair) or are the WRONG PEOPLE making the WRONG DECISIONS about how to spend? (yes) (not ever Ts!)

This chart here, which shows that at full capacity Excel Charter expansion would have an almost 10% fiscal impact on sending districts' budgets (PPSD, Cf, N. prov), is meant to show that charter expansion would not actually have a fiscal impact on sending districts' budgets.

Please read p. 9 & tell me that it's not a dude trying to explain why an Excel Charter Expansion would actually have positive impact on @pvdschools...w/o...a single shred..... of data that..... makes that argument??? I don't get it. Did they just think ppl wouldn't read this?

The report then goes on to admit that charter schools serving CF & Prov admittedly leave higher cost pupils behind & have higher fiscal impact than their suburban charter counterparts.... WHICH BASICALLY DON'T EXIST & WEREN'T PART OF EXPANSION IN QUESTION. Who paid for this????

@SamuelWBell @Cynthia_Mendes_ @RebeccaKislak @SANDRISCANO @GreggAmore1 @MRanglinVassell @LawrencePurtill @Riftcol can you please please please read this thread and make sure this deceptive report isn't used as convincing testimony to push forward w/ charter expansions?