It Doesn't Add Up: "Equalized" Funding of Charter Schools: By Eric Reyes

Per-pupil spending has long been part of the discussion when talking about equity in education. A report just released by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) found that charter operators in New York and Texas spend more per-pupil than traditional public schools. In New York it was found that KIPP schools spent 33 percent more ($4300) than comparable traditional public schools. It was found that in New York there were no charter networks that spent less per pupil than traditional public schools.

What does this have to do with Chicago?

On April 17th the Illinois Network of Charter Schools (INCS) held rallies in Springfield and Chicago to lobby for HB4277 aka the “Equal Funding Bill” for charter schools. HB4277 intends for districts like Chicago to increase per-pupil funding for charter school students from 75% to 95%. (a funding increase would mean $13,078 per-pupil x .95 x 46,000 charter students = $571,708,600 more to charters). CPS already faces a $712 million budget deficit. Amendment I of HB4277 does not indicate new revenue sources, meaning that this increase will come from money intended for other public schools.

The NECP study concluded that positive results from charter schools could be reproduced at a small scale if philanthropic donations help cover costs, but will not be sufficient for 10,000 to 50,000 students. Currently, the Chicago charter school student population is approximately 46,000 students, and like the NECP studies shows, it appears that the philanthropic dollars are not sustainable.

According to Andrew Broy, President of Illinois Network of Charter Schools (INCS) "(the discrepancy in funding is) hurting charters' ability to be competitive around teacher salaries.” but teachers salaries were always an issue for charters to begin with. Further, it’s been found that lower salaries, less experience, and longer workdays are what accounts for high turnover rates among charter school teachers. An Arizona State University study found that national traditional public school teacher attrition rates ranged from 11%-14% compared to 31% for charters (Teacher Attrition in Charter Schools).

Illinois school code prohibits charter teachers from joining the Chicago Teachers Union, which means they don’t reap the benefits of a higher base salary and labor protections via collective bargaining. This ultimately means less stability for our students and schools.

How they are funded

Charter schools revenues come from a combination of public and private funds. State money is passed on to the district, which then passes that money on to the charter schools. Illinois state school code allows charters to manage their own finances but requires that they submit to an audit from an independent firm and submit their tax forms to the state.  Detailed expenditures and revenues from charter schools are not made available to the public.

Chicago charters do not receive funds for facilities from the state or local level unless they are designated as turnaround schools, which in this case they receive the facilities at no charge, otherwise facilities, utilities, and maintenance costs are paid through the charters per-pupil operating funds.

Meagan Batdorff, researcher for a Ball State University study on charter funding, had to file a Freedom of Information Act request in order to receive the auditing information, in which it was still difficult to discern the source of revenue or specifics on expenses for Chicago charter schools. The Chicago Public School District receives an unidentifiable lump sum of federal, state, and locally sourced dollars for charter schools making it difficult to discern where exactly the revenue is coming from.  If they are to get more public funding there needs to be transparency and accountability in how public dollars are spent. If they are indeed getting results while spending less, then all students should have access. So, how do they stack up?

How do Charters compare to traditional public schools?

If the data from the NECP study holds true for large Charter Management Organizations, then comparing these schools to traditional public schools that receive little to no private dollars is unfair. Adequate funding has always been an issue for schools, the charter proponents are now realizing this, and even with millions in private funds, it barely makes them competitive.

Below is a chart showing the top non-selective CPS high schools based on ACT scores. I’ve included the percentage of special education students enrolled at these schools to demonstrate that the top scoring charters also have a lower than average percent of special education students.

Non-selective schools                             Avg. ACT        School Type                  % Sp. Ed.        

I do not want to downplay the success of these students and teachers, this is indeed a great achievement, but it is unfair to compare them to traditional public schools when it is highly likely that these charters are spending more money per student, have the ability to counsel students out, which actually makes them “selective”, and have less special education students (historically, the group with lowest test scores). Mike Milkie, founder of Noble Street Charters admitted that his schools counsel students out in an interview with WBEZ in 2010 (http://www.wbez.org/story/news/education/charters-struggle-hold-their-weakest-students).

The highest performing schools on this chart have lower percentages of special education students compared to the district average of 14 percent. Wells High School, a neighbor to Noble Street’s original campus, which must take in neighborhood students that Noble counsel out, is 21 percent special education and a 15.2 average ACT score.

According to CPS in 2011, 28 percent of charters were high-performing, 40 percent were on par with other schools, and 32 percent were performing below traditional public schools. This data did not include all charters since many are too new and did not have students in testing grades 3-8, or in the junior year if it’s a high school.

These numbers do not instill a sense of confidence that would merit an increase in public funding. So why are charters being expanded?

Expansion

The $4.35 billion Race to the Top contest demonstrated the bi-partisan federal support of charters that has been brewing for decades. In order to be eligible for RTTT funding a state would have to ensure “successful conditions” for charter schools. In Illinois’ case, the cap on the number of charters was lifted.

In 1996, the cap for charter schools in Chicago was 15. By 2009, that number increased to 75. In order to get beyond the cap, charters that were approved before 2009 were permitted to open additional campuses. It wasn’t until late in 2011 that each campus was subject to a state report card; prior to this they were given a cumulative score for all campuses making it difficult to discern how a specific campus was performing.

Currently there are 110 charters with plans to open 60 new charters within the next 5 years (REN 2017 anyone?), meaning that charters would make up 25 percent of CPS schools.

If funding is equalized, neighborhood schools will lose a huge chunk of money to charters. This money would be better spent at traditional public schools where the funds are desperately needed. There are schools on the West side that have been allowed to fester on academic probation for up to 16 consecutive years, to the point where CPS thinks it’s easier to shut them down. This disrupts communities, forces students to cross into rival gang territories, and further contributes to the segregation of schools.

The original idea behind charter schools came from concerned parents and teachers who wanted to implement innovative methods of teaching without the bureaucracy that come with large urban school districts. The idea was that they would grant autonomy if they agreed to be accountable to standards. The movement overall has been flooded with Charter Management Organizations that have taken strides to promote business efficiencies in order to “fix” schools. The problem with this ideology is that there are winners and losers. It is true that we must prepare our students for the real world, but at this early stage in life, every child should have access to a good school. Policies like these only increase educational inequality and are resigned to letting kids slip through the cracks.