Education is full of irony. For example, in Ohio - as in other states - charter schools were born in the late 1990s out of lawmakers' exasperation with failed district schools that were constantly seeking more funding through adequacy lawsuits in the state courts.
Fast forward to 2009, and Ohioans are still debating school funding and charter schools. The Ohio House released its version of the state biennial budget this week and during a press conference leadership claimed that the budget would finally make Ohio's school funding system "constitutional." Deep in this 3,679-page budget document, Democratic lawmakers propose the creation of four classes of charter school funding. All of these levels of funding, by the way, are less than what traditional district schools would receive--some charters would simply be shorted less than others.
The proposed categories are:
1) District-sponsored brick-and-mortar charter schools. These schools, regardless of their state academic rating, receive the base charter funding plus the "Ohio educational challenge factor." This factor is an index ranging from 0.75 to 1.65 that is intended to adjust funding for each school to account for student and community property wealth and socioeconomic factors. Charter schools that are sponsored by the district from which the majority of their students hail will be assigned the educational challenge factor of that sponsoring district. This is a significant bump in school revenue--for example, in Dayton the educational challenge factor is 1.448 while in Cleveland it is 1.59. There were 47 schools serving 5,800 children in this category in 2007-08, and only 15 were rated "C" or higher by the state.
2) Non-district-sponsored brick-and-mortar charter schools rated "C" or higher by the state. These schools get the same funding as district-sponsored brick-and-mortar charter schools except they are assigned the statewide average educational challenge factor (1.22). There were 65 schools serving 15,000 children in this category in 2007-08.
3) Non-district-sponsored brick-and-mortar charter schools rated "D,""F," or not rated at all by the state. These schools get less funding than either of the two categories above. They are not assigned an educational challenge factor so will operate with the base funding only. A charter school in Dayton in this category would receive about 31% less funding than a district-sponsored school, a charter in Cleveland would receive nearly 40% less, and a charter in Columbus more than 20% less. There were 180 schools serving 37,800 children in this category in 2007-08.
4) Cybercharter schools, regardless of sponsor. These schools get dramatically less funding--at least half of what a poor-performing district school would receive. There were 34 virtual schools serving 24,000 children in this category in 2007-08.
Here is the irony. In 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court declared the state's funding system of public education unconstitutional: "Due to glaring discrepancies in school buildings, facilities, access to technology and curriculum, some students within the state are being deprived of educational opportunity." Yet, in 2009, the governor and House Democrats, in seeking to make the state's system of school funding "constitutional" are in fact proposing the creation of a statutorily sanctioned class of underfunded public schools. Students in these schools are predominately needy and children of color - 65% of Ohio charter school students are economically disadvantaged while 57% are minority!
The irony here would be funny if it weren't for the fact that we are talking about real children, which makes it tragic. Failed schools should be closed. Starving them of resources only hurts the children in them.
