A 153-page study released in August 2005 determined children attending charter schools in the state are receiving $414, or 5.5 percent, less per student than public school pupils. The number jumps drastically for charter school students living in Wake County. They fall behind public school students by $2,727, or 29.5 percent each year.
The disparity in funding was brought to light in a comprehensive report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, “Charter School Funding: Inequity’s Next Frontier.”
“U.S. charter schools are being starved of needed funds in almost every community and state,” the study’s foreword, by Chester E. Finn Jr., and Eric Osberg, says. “These data command the urgent attention of all policymakers—not just charter partisans—because charter schools are no less public than their traditional counterparts and typically serve needier students.”
Finn and Osberg said the charter movement is at a crossroads, one that has grown from infancy to adolescence, establishing itself as a major source of educational opportunity for America’s neediest children. They said, however, that enemies of charter schools are under-funding charter schools, preventing state legislatures from enacting more effective charter laws and keeping the caps tight, and limiting the number of charter schools and how many children who enroll in them.
“In some places, (charter schools are) beginning to show promise as a competitive spur to existing schools,” Finn and Osberg said. “Yet its success and staying power have only strengthened the resolve of its many opponents to cram what they view as an evil education genie back into its bottle. And keep it on short rations in the meantime.”
In taking a closer look at their analyses, North Carolina appears guilty on all counts. Stephen Daniels, director of research for the North Carolina Policy Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to lobbying legislatures on behalf of charter schools throughout the state, said the Fordham Institute has done a good job of pulling together the statistics for the report.
“This study is a useful tool,” he said. “It illustrates the discrepancies charter schools have to go through to get off the ground. They often struggle the first few years to get themselves off the ground. Charter schools tend to face an uphill climb.”
This report isn’t a shock to the charter school industry in the state, said Roger Gerber, communications director for the North Carolina League of Charter Schools. “This is something we’ve known for a while,” he said. “It shows what we’ve always said — we do more with less.”
The only upbeat note in the study was the finding that North Carolina is only a “moderate” offender in creating a fiscal gap between public and charter schools. However, Gerber said, $414 per pupil is too low, and that it should be closer to $1,000 less funding per charter school student.
In the state’s defense, Jack Moyer, director of Charter Schools for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, said state and local officials treat charter school students equitably with their Average Daily Money, but not when it comes to a funding charter school facilities.
“One of the major differences is charter schools don’t receive money for the purchase or building of their facilities,” he said. “I think the state legislature is wrong for not giving them money for their facilities. Charter schools should be able to build facilities that are equal to their public school counterparts.”
Gerber agreed with that part of Moyer’s assessment. “The building thing is always the hardest thing for charter schools,” he said. “Buildings and schools go hand-in-hand. The location, appearance, and curb appeal are important to people.”
Gerber said at least 10 to 15 charter schools couldn’t open because they couldn’t find a suitable building. There may be other legitimate reasons for the under-funding. Paul LeSieur, director of School Business Services for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, was responsible for providing the numbers to the Fordham Institute.
He said the discrepancy of funds on paper could be result of federal grants and individual school fund-raising that distorts per-pupil amounts.
“There’s a lot involved in this,” LeSieur said. “Much more than we’re seeing. There can be a lot of variances,” he said. “For example, Wake County, with a larger population, gets a lot of direct grants into their school system.”
LeSieur said charter schools are often eligible to apply for the funds, but often they don’t have the manpower to complete the paperwork needed to secure the grants.
Whatever the reasons for the imbalance, Gerber said, measures should be taken to make sure charter schools are given the chance to succeed.
“It’s the basic principle of what’s fair,” he said. “Everyone should start off with the same amount of money. Most people want us to be performing at a higher level than our public school counterparts, but we aren’t on equal footing. It would be nice not to be treated like second-class citizens.”
Moyer said changes in the system would depend heavily on parents seeing the need and the legislature understanding the ongoing needs. Finn and Osberg said the only way to resolve the problem may be through the court system.
“We suspect that charter fans will likely grow angry (and likely litigious) based on what they read (in the report), and we can’t blame them,” they wrote at the opening of the Fordham study. “The current arrangements bear the hallmark of a misguided or rigged policy process; the finance ground rules appear designed to produce failure, not success, on the part of charter schools across the land.”
Karen Welsh is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.