$’Way back in the early days of the charter movement, its advocates were certain that these deregulated schools would not only produce better results but they would cost less. Central office bureaucracies wasted resources that could be directed to the classroom. Taxpayers would see significant savings. Win-win-win.
Over time, however, charters leaders changed their tune. They wanted exactly the same public funding as public schools. In some instances, with the help of rich boards, they received more money than public schools.
Recently, the University of Arkansas School Choice Demomstration Project issued a report alleging that charter schools were shortchanged.
Bruce Baker says no.
Contact:
Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu
Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org
Review of Charter School Funding Report Finds Major Flaws
Policymakers should ignore highly flawed report seeking more taxpayer funds for charter schools
EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 20 2014) – A report from the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform (DER) proclaims large and growing school funding inequities between school district and charter school revenues. The report contends that charter schools are severely disadvantaged relative to traditional local public schools in terms of the revenue they receive. A new academic review of the report finds the report to be of little use for informing public policy and illustrates the problem of attempting to compare “all revenues” between local public district and charter schools.
Bruce Baker, Rutgers University, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
The report, Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands, written by Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay F. May, Sheree T. Speakman, Patrick J. Wolf, and Albert Cheng, was published by the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas.
The authors of the report claim large and growing inequities between district funding provided through state, local, federal and other sources and charter school revenues from those same sources, even after accounting for differences in student needs.
In his review, Baker finds that the report has one overarching flaw that invalidates all of its findings and conclusions, “the report displays complete lack of understanding of intergovernmental fiscal relationships, which results in the blatantly erroneous assignment of ‘revenues’ between charters and district schools.” Baker further states that the report ignores district funding that passes through district schools to charter schools in most states.
The report also has several smaller shortcomings: (1) it suffers from alarmingly vague documentation; and (2) the report constructs entirely inappropriate comparisons of student population characteristics.
In his review, Baker applies concrete numbers to three jurisdictions and finds miscalculations coupled with other inaccuracies.
The serious flaws in the Charter School Funding report invalidate its conclusions and any subsequent return-on-investment comparisons claiming they’re a better deal because they receive less funding and yet perform as well if not better than traditional public schools.
In conclusion, Baker says “The Charter Funding report reviewed herein fails to meet either the most basic standards of data quality and comparability or methodological rigor. It is therefore unwise to use it to inform charter school policy.”
Find Bruce Baker’s review on the Great Lakes Center website:
http://www.greatlakescenter.org
Find Charter Funding: Inequity Expands on the web:
http://www.uaedreform.org/charter-funding-inequity-expands/
Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible with support from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
This review is also found on the NEPC website:
http://nepc.colorado.edu
– ### –
The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform.
Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
-/
__._,_.___
__,_._,___
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Actually, one of the original requests of charter advocates was that the students who attended these schools would receive the same funding as that generated by those attending district public schools. It’s not true that those approaching legislators in states like Minnesota, California and Massachusetts, which were among the first to pass charter laws, suggested that less money be available to support those students.
Since there is great interest in “following the money”, it’s appropriate to note that the Great Lakes Center, which published this, is controlled by leaders of state affiliates of the NEA:
http://greatlakescenter.org/about.php
That’s perfectly legal.
Of course, you neglect the other many sources of information about research that starts and ends as a promotional piece for charter schools.
“The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform.”
The report discussed in the original post is a co-publication of another center:
Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications.
Who funds the National Education Policy Center? Here is the list of donors from the website:
NEPC has received direct or indirect funding from, among others, the Ford Foundation, the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, the National Education Association, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and the American Federation of Teachers.
That was then …
By and large, as you know, it was a whole different set of people creating the charter schools, and some of them still operate on the original model.
But then a different set of people, with vastly different goals, found they could use charter schools as a wedge to split the oak of public education.
And the rest is hystery …
The charter managers also quickly learned that they could replicate the profits in more of the same charters, and created chains, ala KIPP, a Kopp enterprise. These charters also have deep pocketed benefactors that the public schools do not.
quote: “he University of Arkansas School Choice ” isn’t this the department funded (endowed) through Walton Foundation? I haven’t read their study but I’m sure that they would like to reinforce the priorities of WALTON Foundation.
Who funds these guys —> “National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice”
Does this review reinforce the priorities of the funders of NPEC and GLCERP?
The National Education Policy Center is also funded by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. No doubt that means we do not actually have to read the research to know that it reinforces the priorities of the NEA and AFT.
I suggest that actually evaluating the work, even though it takes more effort, is far more reliable than simply evaluating the work based on who funded the study.
Thanks TE,
I knew the answer, just wanted to see if anyone here had the integrity to post it and then admit that we should focus on the quality of the work\research\information instead of looking for Walmart\Koch Bros\Hedge Fund managers lurking in the shadows.
Cynthia Weiss, the Waltons, the Koch brothers, and the hedge fund managers don’t lurk in the shadows. They flaunt their contempt for public schools and teachers, as well as their eagerness to privatize public education, obtain a steady flow of public dollars for schools managed by their allies, get rid of unions, and turn teachers into temps.
Are politicians and policy makers using research, for their mandates?
Linda, you ask whether politicians base their decisions on research. Consider VAM, charters, vouchers, merit pay. The answer is no.
Jon – The vast majority of charters are independent, not part of any group.
As to the “oak” of public education – how about crediting the development of suburbs as the biggest publicly funded school choice program in the country? That’s because families are able to deduct from their taxable income both 1. real estate taxes (which in many exclusive suburbs are quite high) and 2, interest on homes. So there is a massive public subsidy for those able to afford to live in wealthy suburbs.
Minnesota has wisely provided extra dollars to fund public schools, district and charter, that serve high percentages of students from low income families. That helps equalize opportunity.
The figures I saw were that about 1/3 of charter schools were part of a chain and 2/3 are independent, stand along schools. Is that number about correct?
TE – I’d say 1/3 are part of a group and 2/3 are independent free standing.
I also agree with another comment you made about assessing the research not just on who funded it, but on the basis of how well done it is.
A variety of individuals and organizing are funding research in education & many other areas.
Is there any count about the number of charter schools that are specialized in a generally accepted way? Something about the charter schools that are Waldorf schools, or language immersion schools or specialize in some learning disabilities?
I don’t know. You might check with the federally funded charter resource center or the national alliance for public charter schools.
Joe,
Here in Michigan the vast majority of schools are privately managed, for-profit entities. This is a far cry from the original charter advocates of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
For the last two years, since the charter cap was lifted in my state, a leading argument of charter advocates was that they were more cost-effective. But apparently, now that they are cemented into public policy, it’s time for a money grab.
Equalization of funding only becomes valid if there are equal costs. Most charters in my state have existed for less than five years. They have no legacy costs. Most charters do not provide transportation. Most charters shy away from high school level grades primarily because elementary school are cheaper facilities to run.
And charter chains are growing. Fast. So while most are currently independent, the large chains will be pushing out local ones over time.
When charters are willing to have the fiscal transparency that traditional schools are required to do, then maybe equalization can be considered. Become fully public or fully private instead of taking advantage of the “split” natures of the charters.
MIchigan does seem to be an outlier. New York and my state are on the other end, not allowing any for profit charter schools. It would seem to be an issue of regulation at the state level.
“Non-profit” vs. “for profit” doesn’t mean much if charter schools are required to be non-profit but are allowed to contract out to for-profit companies to provide daily management and other services, which is the case in Illinois and, I believe, several other states (Florida? Ohio? Others?).
Steve – I’m a big fan of fiscal transparency for all institutions that receive public funds. In many states elementary students generate less per pupil from the state than secondary students. Is that the case in Michigan?
Charters here fight transparency energetically. And handsomely reward their CEOs (superintendents). I teach in a 12,000 student district with a superintendent who makes $225K. Clark Durant of Cornerstone Schools fame has less than half as many students but earned $675K in 2012. Half the students, triple the compensation.
I don’t think there is a per pupil difference at various levels in Michigan. But we are the home of the infamous “skunkworks” proposal. Michigan has aggressively underfunded public schools for the last three years. Snyder says that he has helped with legacy costs but that was not by diverting tax money for that purpose. It was done by increasing pension contribution rates 250% on teachers.
The question that begs to be asked regarding salaries of Superintendents (and Principals and Administrators) is why, in a district that contains both public and charter/public schools are the salaries so disparate, and secondly, if indeed the charters in a district are PUBLIC, why are they not overseen/governed/ruled by the same Superintendent of said district? Why are not the salaries across the board set by the district?
Also, with regard to the disparity of funding, the charters get grants and awards from Broad and Walton, etc. – do those grants/awards go to the “per pupil” expense? Likely, those grants/awards further line the pockets of the administrators.
“The report also has several smaller shortcomings:”
I guess it depends upon one’s defintion of “smaller” but those two shortcomings seem rather large, and ultimately not overcomeable by the study.
Two bits says you will hear the UASCDP report being echoed throughout the edudeformer echo chamber many times with no mention of the critique.
Joe, every time a headline about charter schools is on this blog, you are the first to comment, usually singing their praises or trying to come up with an anecdotal circumstance to counter any claims of wrong doing within the charter industry. I am sorry to say this but you must be the biggest charter sycophant in the country. There are many problems with the charter industry and probably too many for me to mention in the amount of time I have to write just now. As a parent, taxpayer, teacher, dual-citizen of the US and UK, I see the charter industry as one which plays the game of trying to appear that they are working in the interests of the students (maybe a few are and I am sure you will come back with an anecdotal story of some) but the setup just now promotes charter schools taking money from the public schools that serves ALL students, refusing to be transparent in EVERY sense, segregating and pitching communities against each other, demanding that the rule book is different from the public schools without having to show that they are, indeed, providing a far superior product. The reason charter schools were conceptualized was to provide a better alternative to the local public school. In many, many cases this has not been proven and, in fact, the schools either provide results that are the same or worse than their neighborhood schools. The fat-cat lining of pockets is too attractive a prospect for those who like to see the opportunities in $$$ when a dual school system is setup that relies and promotes on privatization,as seen through our current charter school system. I would much prefer to see that money invested into our public schools that serves ALL students.
Actually, I often deliberately avoid commenting on charter issues.
As noted, it’s interesting to hear that some people don’t regard magnet schools that use admissions tests as a “dual system” or many suburban schools that exclude students whose families can’t to live in them as a “dual system.”
One reason for the growth of the charter sector of public education is that some parents do regard these schools as good for their youngsters.
And as final reminder, our own children attended urban non admission test public schools.
But there in lies the rub, Joe. The charter school system setup a dual school system that creates large pockets of inefficiencies (multiple superintendent/CEO salaries for one) for those parents who want choice rather than the expectation of better educational opportunities for their children. Once again, these factors, along with many of the other problems with the for-profit (and not-for-profit) charter schools have to be accepted and ignored because parents want a quasi-private education for their children. I am not suggesting that public schools are perfect or problem free but I believe the system could be greatly enhanced with the money being filtered by charters. Sorry Joe, but if the word charter is in the title, you post almost immediately and always in defense of charters, no matter the claim. If the title said “charter school builds a moat round school to keep out riff raff” you’d find a way to defend it and provide an anecdotal story to deflect the issues.
Yes TE, I agree that this blog is wonderful because it allows for opposing views but I can’t think of a time I saw Joe defend our great public schools the way he defends the bad charter ones.
Kathleen,
It seems to me that there are already three relatively independent educational systems in most densely populated areas: a set of private schools, traditional public schools, and magnet, sometimes qualified admission, schools. The qualified admission magnet schools certainly have a wide and deep moat around them. If moats are a concern, that is where I would look first.
As for Joe not cheering on public schools in the majority of his posts, I have not noticed a shortage of support for traditional public schools on this blog. Perhaps his having worked as an urban public school teacher for over a decade, his spouse working as an urban public school teacher for over three decades, his sending his children to traditional urban public schools, one of his children currently teaching in an urban public school, and his presidency of the state PTA suggests a modicum of support for public schools.
As noted elsewhere, I write a weekly newspaper column that often describes outstanding things happening in district public schools, and I’ve cited a number of positive things on this list serve. In recent weeks, the column has cited a great graduation portfolio process, outstanding drama programs, and finance awards. All involved district schools.
http://hometownsource.com/tag/joe-nathan/?category=columns-opinion
TE, thanks for your reply. I am sure that Joe is also glad that you saved him the trouble of having to pull the “magnet school” scenario. The big difference, as far as I can see, is that magnet schools are still public schools, under the control of the their locally elected school board and superintendent. There is full transparency on at least a financial level; there is still one administrative system running the school. I am curious as to why all those who advocate for charters don’t want to address the inefficiencies in having dual or multi systems with many overlapping, highly-paid positions. Yes, they have an applications process but that is why they are magnet schools. I have worked in a charter system that was the inception of the local school board and was run within the local public schools. It offered choice at the elementary level where the parents could choose if their child would attend the multiple intelligences school, the math and science academy, art school, etc…. It gave the parents choice but within the parameters of the locally run schools. It didn’t create dual competing systems that were motivated by profit and greed.
I appreciate what you say about joe’s work in public schools but still stand by my point that he doesn’t ever seem to sing their praises the way he does charter schools. It would be nice to hear him vocalize his support for public schools in the same way he does charters.
See previous response. Also, there are many “magnet” schools run outside district pubilc schools. Many states have statewide public magnet schools that are not run by local districts.
My state had plans to establish a qualified admission magnet boarding high school for the state, but they never got the funding together.
In a number of states, part of public education includes students allowed to take courses on college campuses (not under control of local boards) with state $ following them. Two examples are Running Start in Washington state and Post Secondary Options in Minnesota.
It seems to me that being under the control of the local school board has its own set of drawbacks. There may be enough parents in a district to fully enroll a magnet Montessori school, but they may not have the political power to get the local school board to approve one. In fact, there may be local opposition to the Montessori school from parents who have an unfavorable view of this approach to education. I suspect that is the dynamic that has left my local school district with private Montessori, Waldorf, and progressive schools and no magnet schools. Other posters have talked about long waiting lists for magnet schools but little or no effort on the part of the district to expand those programs despite the demonstrated desire in the part of some members of the community for more seats.
Financial transparency is important and I think could be achieved with better regulation. It is certainly a goal that would unite many who support both choice schools and traditional public schools.
Internet forums tend to result in people taking more extreme positions than they would in a face to face encounter. I think it would be nice if a whole variety of posters here would say nice things about the work that some charters are doing, but I don’t really expect that they will. It is unfortunate because it tends to drive heterodox posters like myself off sites like this, leaving them little more than an echo chamber.
“Joe, every time a headline about charter schools is on this blog, you are the first to comment, usually singing their praises or trying to come up with an anecdotal circumstance to counter any claims of wrong doing within the charter industry. ”
Kathleen, these are my thoughts, as well.
Both Joe and TE “swoop down” on this blog whenever Charter Schools are the topic. Tiresome.
Bothersome unless you are trying to discuss a better education for all. If dissenting views become too challenging, there is always sites that will more efficiently filter posts. Perhaps there could be a place trigger warnings on posts so that the reader need not be exposed to anything that contradicts their world view.
I am surprised that Joe’s deep understanding of urban education is not more appreciated here.
From the report…
“Second, the report constructs entirely inappropriate comparisons of
student population characteristics—comparing, for example, charter school students to
students statewide (using a poorly documented weighting scheme) rather than comparing
charter school students to students actually served in nearby districts or with other schools or districts with more similar demographics.”
I am literally laughing my head off. Ms Ravitch uses this same tactic at least twice a day when saying that charter schools underperform state averages That is rich!
In what ways are the comparisons that Ms. Ravitch uses inappropriate? By demonstrating the differences in rates of ELL students? Rates in special ed students?
Again, there are some good innovative charters. But the majority are cash-generating investments by private entities. Michigan is exhibit A. Charters only close for financial reasons. When they close, they claim academic underperformance but that is the publicity released reason. I have multiple friends who taught in charters that were closed. An examination of their scores reflected average proficiency when compared to the local traditional public. So why close? Underenrolled. Not making enough profit.
Charters can control for their student populations and frequently do. Therefore, it does create a different student body.
If she does it “at least twice a day” it should be easy to find a few examples of such. We’ll wait.
Looks like about 743 examples.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=diane+ravitch+charters+do+not+outperform+site%3Adianeravitch.net
Apparently you don’t understand how comparisons work. If the Chicago Bulls were to beat the Northview Elementary School boys’ basketball team, that wouldn’t really terribly impressive. But if the Northview team were to beat the Chicago Bulls, now that would be something to talk about.
The fact is that charters skim the “cream of the crop” as it were – very few kids in the deepest poverty, few English language learners, few students with disabilities, more kids with functional, involved families, etc. Yet even with all those advantages, charters rarely “outperform” public schools, even by their own metric of test scores.
Well, Cynthia, you can keep laughing, if you will. It doesn’t change the fact that comparing non-equivalent population samples invalidates the research conclusions. That means the results of the study are useless.
It doesn’t appear that validity matters to the MBA’s in the charter bidness. Garbage in. Garbage out.
” It doesn’t change the fact that comparing non-equivalent population samples invalidates the research conclusions”
Yes, explain that to Ms Ravitch.
Cynthia, did you write this after your head came off? The 743 ‘examples’ are not examples of non-equivalent population comparisons.
I am literally laughing my A off at some persons who have a knee-jerk robotic action without knowing what the heck is going on. Welcome to the world of the Generation DX!
I suppose you haven’t responded further because you literally laughed your head off and you’re dead now.
I read that it can take up to 12 hours for someone to literally laugh their head completely off. Apparently it’s a terrifying, excruciating way to die, and ironically isn’t funny at all.
Something I always found terribly annoying about pro-charter supporters is the claim that charters “cut through district bureaucracy”. To me, it seems like charters have multiplied bureaucracies. Suddenly, each charter operator has its own CEO (getting paid exorbitant salaries, no doubt), HR departments, marketing teams, recruitment teams–all money NOT going to the classroom. (The idea that more and more schools have extensive marketing departments is pretty disgusting. But I digress…)
I work as an outside provider as a teacher in a private psychiatric hospital. It’s complicated enough trying to navigate the many different districts in the Chicagoland area, but with “choice”, trying to work with different charter operators all with different codes of conduct, different set-ups, different people in charge is like a maze! What a chaotic mess “choice” is.
I agree. They seem administrator heavy and have deep pockets from their benefactor$. If they are public schools, they should function under the same budgets and rules; but they don’t seem to function that way. Also, there is a lot of “who is related to who” going on in the charters, and everyone has their hand out for a payday. Why such a difference in the salaries of charter admins and public admins? We know why such a disparity in teacher salaries, because teachers are the scum of the earth – except for those bright and energetic, and cheap-in-the-long-run TFA 22 year olds.
Katie Osgood & Donna: thank you for your comments.
Let’s use the sacred edumetrics of the charterites/privatizers. Money goes to the priorities. NYC School Chancellor Carmen Fariña oversees over 1 million students and makes approx. 19¢ @student for a total of $212,000 @year. Eva Moskowitz of Success Academy fame oversees about 6700 students and makes approx. $72.39 @student for a total of $485,000 @year.
Look at my comment via the following link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/04/11/michael-fiorillo-my-definition-of-an-ethical-charter-school/
As one of the shining stars in the charterite/privatizer firmament, “Dr.” Steve Perry, likes to say [channeling rapper Jay-Z]:
“Men lie and women lie but numbers don’t.”
In other words, Carmen Fariña is in it for the money and Eva Moskowitz is in it for the kids.
Makes perfect ₵ent¢ when you’re arguing in favor of a business plan. $tudent $ucce$$ flows upward to the most deserving.
When it comes to an educational model, nonsense. You’re starving the classroom.
It’s a question of priorities—and the priorities are set by whether you promote a business plan or are trying to ensure a “better education for all.”
😎