by Fawn Johnson

What exactly is "parity" for students who attend different kinds of institutions that are governed by different rules? This represents the second fundamental question that governs the school choice debate.

Let's back up to the first question. Before even talking about funding, states and local officials have decide that independently-run community schools are allowed in their regions as an alternative to traditional public schools. That isn't a given in many places, but the charter school movement is growing steadily enough that it's hard to see them going away.

Then we get to the second question. Districts that have said yes to charter schools now must figure out what "parity" means. There is no easy answer, and the debate will probably plague courts around the country for years.

More than 30 charter schools in Washington D.C. recently weighed in on the issue. The plaintiff charter schools claim that they should get the same amount of money per pupil as traditional public schools. In Washington D.C., as in other districts that allow charter schools, the city pays less for charter school students than it does for traditional students, a difference of about $2,000.

Charter school advocates argue that the disparity is unfair. More than 40 percent of the public school students in the district are enrolled in charter schools, which they say compounds the unequal treatment. Importantly, plaintiffs aren't arguing that all charter schools require equal payment per student. They simply say that the city's disparities violate the exact wording of a federal law requiring that the district provide "the same level of educational funding from local revenues, as calculated on a per-student basis, as students who attend the traditional public school system."

Opponents of these claims say charter schools and traditional schools are fundamentally different. Traditional schools must maintain enough staff and resources to accommodate any in-district student who shows up on their doorstep at any point during the school year. They must employ unionized teachers. Charter schools aren't subject to either of those requirements. "Parity" in per-student funding should reflect the additional regulatory requirements of traditional schools, the defendants say.

If history is any guide, the charter school lawsuit in Washington D.C. is a long shot. Let's look at Arizona, which is perhaps the friendliest charter school state in the country. Yet last year an Arizona superior court judge found that the funding disparities between charter schools and traditional public schools did not violate an equal protection law for the state's students. "Arizona's public school financing system funds charter and district schools differently because they are different," wrote Maricopa County Judge Richard Gama. "Charter schools are largely exempt from the multitude of statutes and regulations that govern district schools."

That's not to say that charters aren't winning on the first question, their very right to exist. Last year, a Washington state judge tossed out a lawsuit from a teacher's union and community advocacy organizations arguing that a state law allowing charter schools was unconstitutional. But at the same time, Superior Court Judge Jean Rietschel said that Washington state charter schools cannot be considered "common schools" because they are not under the control of the voters of the school district. They do not have to comply with the traditional schools' requirements for discipline or instructional components, even though they must comply with all the educational goals.

In other words, they can exist, but the law doesn't mandate that they are the same as traditional public schools. That's the whole point of charter schools, but it's also the perfect legal justification for a funding disparity.

The district's lawsuit will be closely watched nationwide because the city is a virtual petri dish in which Congress is experimenting with school choice. (Much of the U.S. capital city's funding comes from Congress, which allows federal lawmakers to place requirements on the local government. Whether that's fair is a subject for another blog post.)

Since the charter school lawsuit in Washington D.C. invokes a 1995 federal school reform act that expressly calls for parity, the court's interpretation of that law will deepen the debate about what "parity" actually is. Maybe it will even clarify the question, although that may be too much to hope for.

For our insiders: What is "parity" in per-pupil funding? How much should charter schools receive for each student? Should it be exactly the same as traditional schools, or is there wiggle room to account for the differences in institutions? How will the answer to this question impact the future of charter schools? How important is it in the broader school choice debate?

By Kevin Welner

The claims in this area made by charter school advocacy organizations are based on very problematic research. The Univ. of Arkansas study cited by Nina Rees was reviewed by Prof Bruce Baker, a school finance expert at Rutgers, who pointed to numerous flaws and concluded:
"[T]he report displays complete lack of understanding of intergovernmental
fiscal relationships, which results in the blatantly erroneous 
assignment of “revenues” between charters and district schools. A 
district’s expenditure can be a charter’s revenue, since charter funding
is in most states and districts received by pass-through from district 
funding, and districts often retain responsibility for direct provision 
of services to charter school students—a reality that the report 
entirely ignores when applying its resource-comparison framework. In 
addition, the report suffers from alarmingly vague documentation 
regarding data sources and methodologies, and it constructs entirely 
inappropriate comparisons of student population characteristics. Simply 
put, the findings and conclusions of the study are not valid or useful.
"
http://nepc.colorado.edu/think...

In fact, two years earlier, Baker co-authored a thorough study of spending by charter EMOs in three jurisdictions with good data (Texas, Ohio and NYC) and found that the picture is more much nuanced -- with some CMOs spending less and some spending more (than comparison tradition publics). I'll paste the summary below, but I encourage readers to look at the full report, at http://nepc.colorado.edu/publi.... There's a danger of good research being ignored because readers see conflicting studies and throw up their hands. But don't lose faith. Read the UArk report, read the review of that report, and read the Baker et al study. The issues -- about how to calculate fair funding -- are certainly not simple, but anyone who cares about the issues should understand the questions that need to be asked and answered.

Here's the summary of the Baker et al report:


"Policymakers have long pursued more cost effective, scalable 
alternatives for delivering elementary and secondary education. The 
elusive goal is identifying how to reform educational systems so that 
children will consistently achieve more academically—at a lesser cost. A
frequently heard reform claim of this sort is that charter schools 
deliver higher performance at a lower cost. While the test score side of
this question has been addressed by a great number of studies (with 
generally mixed findings), the cost side of the question has received 
far less attention.


"This study evaluates the cost claim by comparing the per-pupil 
spending of charter schools operated by major charter management 
organizations (CMOs) in New York City, Texas and Ohio with district 
schools. In each context, we assemble three-year panel data sets 
including information on school level spending per pupil, school size, 
grade ranges and student populations served for both charter schools and
district schools. For charter schools we use both government (and 
authorizer) reports of spending, and spending as reported on IRS 
non-profit financial filings (IRS 990).


"We compare the spending of charters to that of district schools of 
similar size, serving the same grade levels and similar student 
populations. Overall, charter spending variation is large as is the 
spending of traditional public schools. Comparative spending between the
two sectors is mixed, with many high profile charter network schools 
outspending similar district schools in New York City and Texas, but 
other charter network schools spending less than similar district 
schools, particularly in Ohio.


"We find that in New York City, KIPP, Achievement First and Uncommon 
Schools charter schools spend substantially more ($2,000 to $4,300 per 
pupil) than similar district schools. Given that the average spending 
per pupil was around $12,000 to $14,000 citywide, a nearly $4,000 
difference in spending amounts to an increase of some 30%. In Ohio, 
charters across the board spend less than district schools in the same 
city. And in Texas, some charter chains such as KIPP spend substantially
more per pupil than district schools in the same city and serving 
similar populations, around 30 to 50% more in some cities (and at the 
middle school level) based on state reported current expenditures, and 
50 to 100% more based on IRS filings. Even in New York where we have the
highest degree of confidence in the match between our IRS data and 
Annual Financial Report Data, we remain unconvinced that we are 
accounting fully for all charter school expenditures."