Inequity in the City—the work of veteran authors of charter-school funding studies, including Inequity’s Next Frontier, Inequity Persists, and Inequity Expands—differs slightly from its predecessors because of its metropolitan focus. Its core finding is familiar, however: public charter schools face serious and persistent funding gaps compared to their district counterparts. (Will we ever get to read “Inequity Shrinks” or “Inequity Disappears”? One can dream.)
The analysts focused on 15 cities: Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York City, Oakland, San Antonio, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C. These locales were selected for their high concentration of charters or their “potential for growth.” Data come from fiscal year 2014.
They examined revenue differences in these places between the charter and district schools sectors, including all sources of funding—local, state, federal, and nonpublic. In eight of the cities, the authors conducted longitudinal analyses. They also tested to see whether differences in the enrollment rates of students with special learning needs (defined broadly to include students who are low-income, English language learners, or with disabilities) might explain funding differences.
There are several notable findings:
- Urban charter schools continue to receive significantly less money than traditional district schools. The average funding gap in the cities studied was 29 percent, or a $5,721-per-pupil disadvantage.
- There is considerable city-by-city variation. Gaps faced by charters range from $225 per pupil (Houston) to nearly $15,000 (Camden).
- All but three cities earned D or F grades on funding disparity. (A city earned an A if per-pupil charter funding was within 5 percent of that received by district schools—in either direction; a B if between 5-10 percent, even in instances where charters received more; C if the gap was 10-15 percent; D if 15-25 percent, and F if 25+ percent.) Houston, home to many top-notch charter networks, earned the only A. The authors didn’t ask whether Houston charters perform well because they’re better resourced or better resourced because their strong performance made it more politically viable to provide equitable support. For anyone interested in achieving long-term funding equity for charters, however, those are important questions.
- Only in Shelby County, TN (Memphis) does the charter sector generate more revenue than nearby district schools, thanks to private philanthropy. Across the sample, however, philanthropy failed to fill the gap. In just a few places (including Atlanta, DC, and Boston) did charters receive over $1,000 per child in private funding. In several others (Little Rock, San Antonio, Denver, and New York City), philanthropic funding was actually higher (per pupil) for district schools.
- Differences in the rates of special-need students could only explain the funding gap in Atlanta and Boston, in both of which the charter sector enrolled proportionately few low-income children.
- The lack of local dollars for charters is primarily responsible for the gap. Eight of the cities’ charter sectors received no local funds (as is the case for almost every Ohio charter).
- The funding gap has widened in more cities than it has narrowed. Atlanta, Houston, and Boston experienced slight gap reduction since 2005, while Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Denver, New York City, and Washington D.C. saw their gaps widen.
The report also takes a deep dive into each revenue source (federal, state, local, nonpublic) and sheds light on the mechanics of how charters are (and aren’t) funded from each. But of course the overall amount is what matters most. In half of the cities, charters had higher state funding than district schools, but that edge turns into a net shortfall, given the dearth of local tax revenues for charters. (In Ohio, charter opponents employ the fact that charters get more state dollars than many district schools and overlook the truth that their overall revenues are far less.)
The city-to-city funding disparities are striking. DC district schools net $35,000 per pupil, versus $10,000 in Shelby County. Camden charters experience the greatest inequity in the sample (a gap of 45 percent and nearly $15,000 less per pupil) but district revenue per pupil is astronomical (almost $33,000). In fact, the cities that received the higher grades all had relatively low per-pupil amounts, meaning they were somewhat easier to match. But funding gaps between the two sectors remain a very big concern. A charter that receives far less per pupil than its district peer, even if its overall total might be decent, still struggle to keep teacher salaries competitive.
Finally the report reviews, albeit briefly, national evidence showing that charter schools have positive effects on student achievement. The authors are well aware that quantifying funding gaps is not just an exercise in discussing fairness. On average, across the nation and in several of the cities studied in this report, charters dramatically outperform their district counterparts despite these funding gaps. As the authors rightfully ask, “Might charters produce even better results if they were better resourced?” It’s a question about return on investment that’s worth taking very seriously.
SOURCE: Patrick J. Wolf, Larry D. Maloney, Jay F. May, Corey A. DeAngelis, “Charter School Funding: Inequity in the City,” University of Arkansas (May 2017).
