More backdoor charter school capital funding exposed in Delaware!

JFC discusses charter school funds By Randall Chase, Associated Press via WDEL

For the past several years, charter schools have been allowed to keep the money if their actual costs for student transportation are lower than their state allotment. The goal is to encourage charter schools, whose state share of transportation funding has decreased by about $1.3 million in recent years, to negotiate better contracts.

But Rep. John Kowalko, a Newark Democrat, says the budget provision violates state law and allows charter schools to spend money with no accountability.

Members of the Joint Finance Committee voted Tuesday to keep the provision, but they did add language to specify that any leftover money must be spent on educational purposes.

So shouldn’t the same provision apply to traditional public schools? As far as accountability, there can’t be any without transparency. Its just Markell sticking his ass in the faces of the taxpayers and sowing his seeds for life after the governorship! Markell sticks it to the taxpayers and Matt Denn locks the transparency doors and windows! 

41 responses to “More backdoor charter school capital funding exposed in Delaware!

  1. Publius e decere

    If Kowalko really believes laws are being broken then call out the sheriff. Otherwise find a more constructive way to discuss public policy.

    Like

    • lastDEconservative

      I’m pretty sure the only thing Kowalko believes (I mean, believes) as far as public policy is concerned is that he should have his picture, at best, and a sanctimonious quote, at minimum, in the News Journal. Compliant as always, the NJ lets the legislator come off as a disinterested third party observer of the morass created by legislature.

      Like

  2. have you read the epilogue that grants the power Publius? have you?

    Like

  3. delawareway

    Seriously. Attacking the messenger? Kowalko was correct. This is transportation money and the little tweak that pretends to show accountability should say that the money must be used for transportation or returned.

    And how can the JFC possibly approve using the Vo Tech forumula for Charters such that the formula for NCS, a school with a five mile radius, is the same as Charters who draw at least county wide and perhaps even further?

    Newark Charter School lied on their expenditure submission to the Comptroller by claiming the full allowable amount was what they expended on transportation yet their checkbook showed it was actually short by over 200K.

    I have heard directly that NCS has a taxi – serivce style student pick up. They will take a call from a parent in the morning and change their pick up place if needed.

    Like

    • Pencadermom

      “I have heard directly that NCS has a taxi – serivce style student pick up. They will take a call from a parent in the morning and change their pick up place if needed” -HA HA that’s bullshit. So every kid who rides that bus would have an inconsistent pick-up time? How many parents would allow that to happen?
      I heard they serve virgin mimosas and crepes on the way to school.

      Like

    • lastDEconservative

      No attack on any messenger. Just an observation about an unacknowledged perpetrator.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Kowalko is not correct, his view (which the JFC sensibly shunned) is a half-baked dud. Charters don’t get the same as votechs, they get 70% of that. And they way the legislature moved from 75% down to 70% last year was far from transparent. Let John explain that, while he comes clean on his résumé.

      Publius

      Like

    • John Young

      ANd what does VoTech get Publius? and how does that compare to TPS?

      Who needs to come clean?

      As usual, Publius. Kowalko has this one right.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Ok Johnny,

      “If” Kowak has it right and, as you imply, vo-techs are getting too much money then why doesn’t he say so? Hint: he is a votech graduate. If 70% is too much then 100% is much too much. Right? Are you, johnny, taking an anti-votech position? Just asking.

      Publius

      Like

    • Pencadermom

      vo-tech in New Castle County has a waiting list of over 400 kids a year.. just sayin

      Like

    • no Publius, I am asking a simpler question, one which I am unsurprised evades you: whay is VoTech the comparison at all? Why not TPS? Whay the disparity in treatment? Why 70% of a special VoTech district v. XX% of a TPS district (likely contiguous and subject to land based referenda v. appointed BOE and tax power?)

      come on Publius, you’re smarter than this drivel your pushing here, aren’t you?

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      JohnnieO,

      I’ll keep it simple for you. Votechs bring in students from an area much wider than a district and that transportation costs more for the more miles. Capeche? Charters also bring in kids from areas wider than a district, so they are more comparable to votechs from a transportation perspective than to TPSs. This is fact.

      Votech is the right activity-based reference for charters when it comes to transportation. Your kin have already disemboweled this by arbitrarily taking away 30% from charters, presumably because some act like NCS and others act like votechs. So I call your bluff same as I do for Kowalko — give 100% of the votech rate to charters who DON’T use a radius preference, and give a district-parity amount to those who do use a radius preference. It is fair and logical.

      If your real agenda is to take money away from charters, then you have to first take money away from votechs to do it. Be honest in your argument or hush.

      Publius

      Like

    • Charters also bring in kids from areas wider than a district, so they are more comparable to votechs from a transportation perspective than to TPSs. This is fact.

      So, name me the TPS or prove that VoTech has an area wider than NCS’ 5mile radius.

      Hush me?

      Um, hush you!

      Like

    • Charters also bring in kids from areas wider than a district, so they are more comparable to votechs from a transportation perspective than to TPSs. This is fact.

      So, name me the TPS or prove that VoTech has an area wider than NCS’ 5mile radius.

      Hush me?

      Um, hush you!

      Like

    • Charters also bring in kids from areas wider than a district, so they are more comparable to votechs from a transportation perspective than to TPSs. This is fact.

      So, name me the TPS or prove that VoTech has an area SMALLERthan NCS’ 5mile radius.

      Hush me?

      Um, hush you!

      Like

  4. Yeah, but, you all are forgetting that Delaware-specific charter school advocates all said that if we (legislators) gave them tax dollars with flexibility that they would achieve better results than traditional school districts for less $$$ – hence they didn’t need those capital dollars.

    Yep, some charters may be wise in negotiating down their transportation costs and then deferring the “excess” funds to other needs. But, we shouldn’t be surprised. This IS what they asked for and this IS what they were given.

    I’m NOT giving charters an out on capital funding. But, why isn’t anyone pitchin’ a fit for parity for districts? If it’s good enough for charters and apparently works in at least some situations, why not legislate parity? Let a district negotiate down the contracts and keep the difference for “educational purposes.”

    Sometimes, I think, we might be going about the fight all wrong. SOMETIMES, NOT ALWAYS.

    Like

    • lastDEconservative

      “But, why isn’t anyone pitchin’ a fit for parity for districts?”

      You’re funning with us with this question, right?

      Like

    • LDC – yes.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Elizabeth,

      If you want to offer that charters illogically should accept a district benchmark for transportation funds, rather than a 100% votech benchmark, then the offset of giving thm true and full capital funding might get a conversation started. However, if you want a one-sided harm to charter schools then you can stand alone in your shrieking shack.

      20% of the kids in the CSD have opted out of your schools to attend charters. 20% !! And then their parents turn out in a trickle for CSD elections and only float the Hobsons Choice of Minnehan versus Mullin. The equivalent of having to choose between death by hubris versus death by avarice. At least with you it was death by ideology. 🙂

      Lets look at the extrapolated trend. CSD goes to 80% charter kids, so the remaining 20% absorb all of that unused real estate and “tenured” excess faculty and the dollars-per-student skyrocket. Which then means you owe those charter schools more and more money. A snowball run rampant. Taxes rise unnecessarily, and de facto segregation becomes polar.

      CSD has no choice other than to stop bickering on the board, expunge John Young and Ms Saffer, and probablcy the member-elect Minnehan, and then get on with the task of improving schools to retain students using all of the charter-like tools at your disposal. The alternative is exponential expense and tax, with an ultimate “take over” of the district by charters. Any business consultant (which John Young is not) can tell you that CSD is at a strategic point of no return unless it radically changes its dynamics and its priorities,

      I’m just sayin’

      Publius

      Like

    • Publius – You are starting to sound like a cantankerous old man.

      I just want to correct some errors in your assumptions:

      You Said: “Lets look at the extrapolated trend. CSD goes to 80% charter kids, so the remaining 20% absorb all of that unused real estate and “tenured” excess faculty and the dollars-per-student skyrocket. Which then means you owe those charter schools more and more money. A snowball run rampant. Taxes rise unnecessarily, and de facto segregation becomes polar.”

      Reality Check: CSD is living within its units. As children leave the district and the educational funds follow the kids, the units leave with them. CSD is not employing above and beyond allocated units – unless it’s a fully grant-funded (and thus temporary) position. Yes, more experienced teachers cost more. But, statewide, the baby boomers exodus has begun and the vast cohort of these seasoned and experienced teachers are heading into retirement!
      Our use of temp contracts for new employees is how CSD is able to balance our first-in-last-out responsibility.

      The real estate: I concur – the real estate is a problem. The state has frozen energy funds. When a new school opens, and the district’s square footage increases – yet there are no new energy funds. Furthermore, as more parents choose charter schools over district schools, the population goes down. If charters turn out to be the panacea (and I am not saying they are or will be) CSD and other districts will eventually find themselves with buildings that are severely underused yet requiring full energy funding. CSD specifically will not succeed in closing a neighborhood school thanks to the failed attempt at city closures under lowery that resulted in the lawsuit that led to the current re-segregation of our students.

      What’s a district to do?

      Withdraw from the war and throw up the flags of collaboration.

      And the anti-charter conglomerate is going to have my neck for that statement while the pro-charter reformers want to hang me out to dry b/c they don’t to collaborate, they want to corner the market on education funding.

      But, there is reason in my words. Today, CSD is the only district to have an excessed building available for charter usage. It sits idle, sealed. But, it’s there and waiting.

      One last correction – expunging CSD of Young, Saffer, and Minnehan will not resolve the bickering of our board. In fact, Saffer joined me in my request that CSD consider Chartering Glasgow High School when it was first named to PZ. Young does not object to charters in general. He objects to abuses – and there have been some. And Minnehan – well she fought like hell for Pencader only to have the school turn on her for what? The school sought to protect a conniving school leader who was committing abuses with the very public protection of the quorum of her board. Even Pencader’s board couldn’t blame Minnehan for the state of school come September. It’s clear in all their letters and reports to DOE – they never called her out as the fault – b/c clearly she wasn’t. 3,2,1 – PCHS supporters are about to assault in force…

      Nope – there are CSD board members who are out and out anti-charter. But, they were on the board before me and will be there after me. It’s been the newest members with the youngest children who’ve sought to change our district’s perception of charters. Keep in mind that what Mr. Young proclaims here and on kilroy is not a reflection of the CSD board nor are my statements. In fact, the anti-charter sentiment that is felt most strongly today is specific to Newark Charter. There’s actually little expressed animosity by board members for any other charter school.

      We all debate the merits of charter schools here and there, but almost never in a board meeting.

      Like

  5. Pigeon on the Green

    On a different note, the rant filled email by a former Pencader coach has made it’s way to Dover. It has since been forwarded to about 2,000 people.
    Kilroy, you were very right in not printing it.

    Like

  6. John Kowalko

    Charter Schools get (per pupil) in New Castle County -$908.75
    Kent County——–$843.85
    Sussex County—–$964.88

    Traditional public schools get (per pupil) ——————$579.30

    Traditional schools (by law) must return all monies appropriated for transportation costs back to the General Fund except that this administration has cut their transportation allocation so dramatically that there is no money to return and the difference is made up from local funds (taxpayers- charter/traditional and private/parochial parents and non-parents).

    Charter Schools are also required (by law) to return unused transportation specific funding allocations:
    DE. CODE Title 14 sec. 508:
    “In lieu of payment from the State specified, if a charter school utilizes a contractor for student transportation the charter school shall publicly bid the routes, and the State shall reimburse the charter school for the actual bid costs only if lower than the payment specified above (see per pupil numbers above). “Local school districts and charter schools shall cooperate to ensure that the implementation of this chapter does not result in inefficient use of state appropriations for public school transportation”.

    The epilogue language allowed to be inserted yesterday and throughout the last four budgets reads

    “Notwithstanding Title 14 Del. C. Sec. 508 or any regulation to the contrary, a charter school may negotiate a contract for contractor payment for school transportation up to the maximum rate specified, or may publicly bid the transportation routes. (Drum-roll please, to announce code/law violation via epilogue language).

    “If the actual negotiated or bid costs are lower than the maximum rate specified above, the charter school may keep the difference”.

    Now hang in there with me on this:

    Newark Charter (5 mi. radius) received (per formula) the highest transportation fund allocation provided. $1,224,086 and reported to the controller general an actual contract total of $1,224,086 (coincidence??) the actual checkbook balance issued for transportation by Newark Charter School was $1,008,733.86. Obvious discrepancy of $215,000+ and the fact remains and will always remain that this allocation and all transportation allocations are specifically identified by law as for the purposes of providing public school transportation to public/charter school pupils not (as Sen Bushweiler wrongly and deliberately suggested) as charter school pupil/academic funding. In fact as wrongly stated in a Delaware Online comment Charter Schools (Capital funding aside) receive the same funding per pupil as traditional public schools and (if you calculate the total compensation package) in some cases receive more.

    To summarize “this (transportation funding) is not what they asked for”, nor is it allowed to be given by law as a “slush fund unaccountable to the taxpayers and violating the specificity (by law) of its intended use. Furthermore the 12 member Joint Finance Committee has no right to overturn/subvert/contravene code that has been implemented by 62 members of the General Assembly. And that, quite frankly, is the point.

    To be perfectly honest if you think a headline and picture in the local paper is worth the four months of my life spent documenting and explaining this to my colleagues than you may take my place in line, the food isn’t that good anyway.

    Regards,
    John Kowalko, State Representative

    Like

    • Publius e decere

      John,

      Here is reality. A votech school has a county-wide “feeder pattern” and transportation funds are offered accordingly. Districts have a monopoly on a tight geography. A charter school is arguably a county-wide school from a pragmatic commute perspective. AND a charter school gets ONLY 70% of what a vo-tech gets. Seems unfair, but they bear up under the unfairness and STILL manage to secure contracts below even this 70% level and then they use the little bit of leftover money for other school (aka student) purposes. Seems like the state saves 30% and the students gain a few extra percentages too. Everyone wins.

      John, even you can get this: if you fix the amount that schools get and then require them to forfeit any savings then don’t be surprised when every bus company from here to Heck miraculously bids the same amount –the amount you authorized. Charters start at a 30% deficit and they still make hay from your horse-caca. The real tragedy is that you seem to be OK with everyone else wasting that 30%. Of course, you graduated from a votech high school so I understand your bias in favoring votechs despite its public unfairness to charters.

      Rather than whine, why not respect charters for their ability to embrace their deficit and make a public good from it? Why not ask for the same benefit for other public schools? We could cut 30% from everyone else’s transportation budget right now, Day-1, and the let them keep any savings thereafter. Stop with your Dog in the Manger act and let every other public school benefit from the opportunity embraced by charters.

      Lastly, please spare us from your sanctimonious transparency speech. The last bill which took charters from 75% to 70% was buried under a dung heap of hundreds of pages of stuff in an 11th hour bill which you voted for in the dark of night without public hearing. You want respect for transparency? live it first and then earn it. Right now you operate at a significant deficit of integrity on the argument and a deficit of credibility given your half-truth manipulation of the facts for the News Journal reporter who ignored ships basic duty to research the facts.

      Bok should have taught your better. Shame on you.

      Publius

      Like

    • John K.

      You decontextualized my statement:

      The “this” in “this IS what they asked for and this IS is what they were given” is reflective of the topic sentence of the graph and referred specifically to “negotiating down their…costs and then deferring the “excess” fund to other needs.

      Charter schools absolutely requested flexibility – with flexibility they claimed they could do more with less.

      It does not surprise me that a/some charter school/s may have found a way to skirt the law – re: transportation funding. Once the charter leadership realized that the DOE lacks the power to enforce the laws, it was to be expected that they’d begin extract every penny they could from the “system.” They’d have to be pretty stupid not to try.

      I appreciate your work in regards to charter schools and real reform.

      PS – I’m not really interested in the food. But, I’d love to have a snazzy personalized legislative license plate 🙂

      Like

    • lastDEconservative

      Kowalko said, ” … many, many, many, many words, some legislative … “. And that these words need to be reworded, dare I say “reformed?”

      As I always point out, more government is always the answer to the last time more government screwed something up.

      At least according to the innocent bystanding legislators now clamoring for more government as if they’ve just ridden in on a white steed.

      Yaaaaaawn.

      Face it denizens, with this lot, as with the federales, it’s about control, it ain’t about your kid’s education. The fact that neither individually nor collectively do they know better should be soooo obvious. The fact that they keep piling on more and more, what was it, horse-caca, which the educrats then turn into mountains of it, all in a monumental swirl of sanctimony, should make even the slowest recognize …

      … YOU MUST GO TO THE SOURCE. As rotten as the Coach is, as insidious as Rebecca is, the evil starts in legislative hall. Don’t be distracted by the proclaimed innocence of any one of that lot. Focus on that one. For starters, that is.

      Like

  7. AND a charter school gets ONLY 70% of what a vo-tech gets

    Again, how does 70% of VoTech compare and how do you apply that logic when preference runs gamut from “interest” to “5 mile radius” which would SIGNIFICANTLY impact transportation?

    Come on, Publius, you look quite the fool here.

    Like

    • Publius e decere

      John,

      Interest does not affect transportation. I will agree that using a radius preference does affect it. So how about this: agree that a charter using a five mile preference gets only 100% of the local district amount but a charter which does not use a radius preference gets 100% of the votech rate. Seems fair and logical itch your argument. And your brother, John Kowalko.

      Of course you realize I am calling-out your obvious NCS hatred since they are the only charter school in the state to use the 5 mile preference in a meaningful way. But my argument is logical .. If you use a preference for the radius then you are acting like a district school but if you don’t use a radius preference then you re acting much more line a vetch school as regards tnsportstion.

      I’ll call your bluff. Support a district cost limit for charters using the radius preference BUT you must allow a 100% of votech rate for all other charters. If you can’t accept this, based on your own logic, then you are lying to us all and you need to come clean with your real agenda.

      Publius

      Like

    • Why the switch from TPS to Votech? Why not 100% TPS for all charters.?

      And make sure to include the Governor’s 10% suck it shove down.

      Like

    • Hey Publius –

      I want to know – do you think districts should have the same flexibility as charters?

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Elizabeth,

      Should districts have the same right as charters to negotiate a transportation contract and keep any savings versus public funds received? YES.

      Publius

      Like

  8. Publius, I refuse to accept the arbitrary comparison of VoTech that you do. This has nothing to do with me coming clean, it’s you that reeks dis-ingenuousness on the issue.

    Why should there be an arbitray application of VoTech metrics for non-5 mile radius charters?

    Who needs to come clean?

    Like

    • Publius e decere

      Not arbitrary, it is logical. Calm down, think, and you will see that kids interested in most charters are all over the place geographically. Is votech a perfect comparator? Nothing is. BUT, votech is much closer to the non-NCS model than are the TPSs whe it comes to transportation.

      Publius

      Like

    • Publius, your logical is my arbitrary.

      Like

  9. Joanne Christian

    Lighten up everybody. The whole transportation piece has been hijacked by people NOT enforcing the original Code. Vo-tech transportation was to be covered. TPS and Charters were to be covered IF the charter resided in the district the charter was domiciled. However, IF a charter in a district had scattered students across a district, the TPS could opt out of bus service, designate to the charter and reimbursement could be the 70%. However, those parents choosing a charter outside a district boundary, WERE RESPONSIBLE to get that child to a designated meeting place at the edge of the district for the charter school to transport, and collect the 70%. What’s happened is people have come to expect charter transportation to be just like local TPS transportation–and are demanding a district have a bus go there–or expecting many more drop off points than was ever intended or actually legal. So yes it does make sense for vo-techs and charters to snag the 70%, if a district doesn’t have the critical mass for a designated route to Charterville. Otherwise, you just shoot yourself in the foot, getting these kids to their school of “choice”, and are eating a heckuva alot more in transportation funding and problems than the quick and dirty formula of equality in charter and vo-tech transportation expenses. But audit your darn districts, and see if the parents are meeting at a district edge for transportation, if their charter of preference is out of district. Otherwise, in district, see what YOU can do to tighten it up, so the money floats your way. But for the intent of the funding formula, it sure has become villianized just because a whole bunch of very local students in Christina gave a boost to NCS’s piggybank? Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Christina to say “that’s okay–we’ll handle their transportation–it’s right down the road”–and probably resulted some consolidated savings?
    Just a thought.

    Like

    • Joanne,

      CSD did not and does not have the capacity to be a transportation provider for a charter school. We don’t have enough buses or drivers. We currently maintain our own fleet but we also have to put many routes out to bid to be run by private contractors in order to ensure all in-district students have a way to and from school.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Joanne,

      The charter school can opt to have the district provide transportation or to get (currently) 70% of the votech average and go it alone. If a charter opts for the former the district must comply. Contrary to your point, the decision on who provides transportation is up to the charter school not the district. Contrary to Elezabeths comment, if asked they would have to provide.

      Most charters operate across district lines, substantially so. The city is carved up into four districts so even if the students live nearby many are not in the specific building where the school building sits. In the suburbs, and here we are mostly talking New Castle County, most charters draw from Brandywine, Red Clay, Colonial, Christina and Appo. In both cases, if you accept the premise that charters shall be provided with relevant transportation funds, then using the votech standard is the most relevant one. If you were to force charters to only get in-district busing then you would be infringing large cuts of the city population and would be pushing the suburban charters to be even more head-to-head competing with nearby district schools.

      But to correct one error in your post — charters have the option of getting their funding based on the votech “concept” but at a significant reduction from votech parity. Votechs by definition get 100% of the votech amount, yet charters only get 70%. Other than the punitive politics of it, this makes no sense. The option law originally specified 80% as the “compromise” so the charter opponents slipped in two stealth reductions over time. In June 2008 a reduction to 75% was enacted by burying it deep within a 300+ page appropriations bill without any public discussion nor notice or even obvious presence. Let’s call it pork for the charter opponents. The same sleight of hands happened again in June 2012, buried deep within a several hundred page appropriations bill and without public discussion, moving from 75% to 70% starting with FY2012.

      The above stealth grabs from charters are a lack of transparency matter which our legislators are responsible for. Including the bellicose Kowalko. If he wants more transparency, then man up and demonstrate how it is done. Or hush up.

      For most charters the votech concept is the right method and we can debate the percentage. I would argue that 70% is too much of a reduction for a suburb and school and at least 80% should be restored. Would city schools run more surpluses? Probably, but they serve more challenging communities and one could argue that such surpluses would be put to good use in other educational areas. Would a suburban school using a 5-mile radius preference be biased toward a surplus? Probably. So solve THAT issue and not penalize the entire charter community.

      Kowalko, are you listening? If you loathe NCS so much for using a radius preference then stand up and use you brain and address it. If the voters will let you :-). Why don’t you float a bill which says that a school using a 5mile preference will be limited to transportation funds equivalent to its local district TPS and let the schools who don’t use a radius preference get 80% of votech? That would be an honest approach if you really believe what you say.

      Publius

      Like

    • Publius – In reference to TRANSPORTATION, I did NOT say: if asked they would have to provide, as you have attributed to me.

      In fact – I SAID that it CSD maintains its own and fleet AND still has to contract out with private carriers b/c we do not have the capacity to internally serve all of our students. THus CSD would likely have been unable to service NCS routes if we had even been asked.

      Please do not put words in my mouth.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Elizabeth,

      You said that CSD could not provide transportation for a charter (in CSD) which requested it. All I was saying (trying to say) is that CSD would have to, by law. And it could. How? CSD would apparently hire more contracts.

      NCS could choose to make CSD do this and then put CSD in the position of liability for all performance failures. You should be glad the state provides NCS with the incentive to not bring it to your doorstep,

      Publius

      Like

  10. Joanne Christian

    Sorry P E D– Still sticking w/ my original comment that charter transportation is on the PARENTS, charter school, and then TPS if it serves benefit to both district and charter school. Ain’t no way a charter has the authority to demand/assume/assign transportation to a home district–except if student is homeless, or in need of some itinerant services—then that’s a whole ‘nother negotiation. You don’t just go and put up a school–and delude yourself with “If we build it they will come–because the TPS has to deliver them…..” Sorry, like Elizabeth, we have very full buses running multiple rounds, and none are district owned (unlike Elizabeth). Until this past year our district was about 95% bussed. The opening of a new multi-neighborhood embedded pre-k/K-5 building, decreased that to about 87% this year. We have no interest in transporting some other school’s precious cargo–when hey–if they don’t want our school, we certainly don’t need to be their travel agent.Why would a TPS knock themselves out, bankrupt their transportation account, and bid busses for routes of a few kids going umpteen miles away. TPS buses have enough headaches just keeping the district moving, and on time. They don’t need to be brokering passage for a new stranger.

    § 508. Responsibility for student transportation.

    The charter school may request to have the school district where the charter school is located transport students residing in that district to and from the charter school on the same basis offered to other students attending schools operated by the district, or to receive from the State a payment equal to 70% of the average cost per student of transportation within the vocational district in which the charter school is located and become responsible for the transportation of those students to and from the charter school. In the case of students not residing in the district where the charter school is located, the parents of such students shall be responsible for transporting the child without reimbursement to and from a point on a regular bus route of the charter school. In lieu of the payment from the State specified above, if a charter school utilizes a contractor for student transportation the charter school shall publicly bid the routes, and the State shall reimburse the charter school for the actual bid costs only if lower than the payment specified above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a student at a charter school shall receive such transportation assistance as is made available to students pursuant to a public school choice program established by this Code provided that such student otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for such assistance. In the event a charter school chooses to transport students itself, it shall do so in accordance with all public school transportation safety regulations. Local school districts and charter schools shall cooperate to ensure that the implementation of this chapter does not result in inefficient use of state appropriations for public school transportation and the State Board shall exercise its authority to approve bus routes so as to avoid such waste.

    Like

    • So, if they ask CSD to bus the kids they give up the 70% VoTech $$.

      Only Publius thinks a charter would give up that cash cow.

      Like