“Publicly funded”? For the most part.
I saw a story the other day—kills me that I can’t remember where—that described charter schools as funded by a combination of public and private funds. That’s often the truth, isn’t it, at least among the high-performing charters people want to replicate? Yet they are almost never described that way in the press; the shorthand description is usually that charters are “public schools that operate with public funds free from many of the strictures of the school district,” or something like that. I do not think anybody keeps track of how much private capital flows to charters (for operating costs, for buildings, for whatever). It is important to mention private funds, where they are relevant—for instance, in discussions about encouraging more charters and replicating the good ones. There are sustainability questions when any venture relies in part on philanthropy; obviously this is an issue other sectors (ahem: journalism, nonprofits) grapple with too. At any rate, I think implying charters are solely publicly funded may at times mask complexity.
posted by Linda Perlstein at
10:12 AM
15 Comments:
True -- but many public schools are also getting by with a remarkable amount of private funding, too. Look at school foundations in more affluent areas: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/article_a06b74d1-9896-52bd-855f-efd2e38e112e.html
Not only are there considerable private funds in many public schools (often in the form of grants from non-profit groups that may or may not be attached to larger, for-profit corporate entities), but these amounts are particularly high in high-profile failing public schools. HCZ has all kinds of private capital behind it, for example. A larger urban district where I work as a consultant has an entire position dedicated to grant writing, and I'm quite sure they're not looking solely at Department of Education opportunities.
That being said, this has been looked at, at least on a preliminary basis, in New York City. Check this post over on Gotham Schools for some interesting data. They even posted their Excel spreadsheets (if not in this post than in one of the follow ups).
http://gothamschools.org/2010/01/14/charter-school-expenses-2009/
Many rely on the funding of supporters, many of whom want to facilitate the wipeout of traditional public schools by the charters. Because there is so little transparency, and too few investigators pursuing it, we don’t really know what the scope of their supplementation is. Sometimes the money is given to the schools directly and sometimes it’s given to the CMOs. The money pays for all the extras used to woo families away from the traditional public schools.
Here in CA, Jerry Brown, “the state's top law enforcer and former governor, has raised $9.8 million for two Oakland charter schools that he helped launch while he was mayor of the Bay area city: the Oakland School for the Arts and the Oakland Military Institute. More than 200 corporations, foundations and people have given to the two schools at the urging or "behest" of Brown since 2006, state financial records show." Those two schools have a combined enrollment of about 850 kids. When Brown was mayor, he showed minimal interest in the regular public schools.
And then there is the notorious Ben Chavis of the American Indian Public Charter Schools. Last spring CNN.com gave Chavis a space for a commentary entitled, “Who says public schools need more money?” He talked about how so much money is wasted, and how schools should be run on less, but failed to mention that his own schools have been the recipients of generous supplementary funding courtesy of the Walton Family Foundation, and also that when Chavis was on-site as the AIPCS principal, he drew a negligible salary because he had an ouside personal income source (he is a landlord). That difference probably accounts for how he helped pay for some extras at his school, like giving cash rewards to students. No extra money needed, indeed.
More information about some of supplementary school funding in the East Bay (Form 990 Total revenues http://nccs. urban.org/)
In the very affluent community of Piedmont:
- Piedmont Educational Foundation (EIN 946426176, ~2500 kids): $748,474 in 2007, $587,882 in 2006
- Piedmont High Parents Club (EIN 942594204, ~840 kids): $688,711 in 2007, $700,397 in 2006
- Piedmont Middle School Parents Club (EIN 942503182, ~580 kids): $501,517 in 2007, $510,427 in 2006
In the most affluent secondary schools in the much less affluent City of Oakland:
- Montera Jr. High Parent Faculty Student Club (EIN 237266421, ~870 kids): $82,416 in 2007, $80,795 in 2006, $76,552 in 2005, $75,275 in 2004
- Oakland Technical High School (EIN 946174625, ~1700 kids): $134,607 in 2007, $38,351 in 2006
- Skyline High School (EIN 946174483, ~2000 kids): $14,939 in 2006, $23,155 in 2004
Now, Jerry Brown's pet charter:
- Oakland School for the Arts (EIN 680463892): $3,009,719 in 2007, $10,978,807 in 2006 for 285 students, $1,032,828 in 2005 for 421 students, $1,432,148 in 2004 for 272 students, and $1,088,851 in 2003 for 176 students.
Our charter school gets a pretty decent chunk of philanthropy. We're fortunate. I think about 10% of the charters get 80% of the total philanthropy.
The median Massachusetts charter school gets perhaps $50,000 per year of private dollars on a $5 million budget.
Don't forget about the substantial funds raised by parents for their children's schools, especially in wealthier communities. Some districts have actually regulated the amount that can be donated to individual schools, in some cases requiring donations be made to a pool that gets distributed among schools to ensure those with less wealthy parents get a share.
Another fact that often gets lost in school funding stories is the share that's paid by the state versus what the local community has to put up. There are usually wide variations, which are rarely discussed when districts complain about having to make cuts or raise taxes.
And New York City has an entire organization dedicated to raising private money for district schools: The Fund for Public Schools website says "In 2002 Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel I. Klein established public-private partnerships as a critical means of supporting public education reform, and The Fund is the primary vehicle for advancing this effort. The Fund has secured unprecedented investment from private business, individuals, and foundations, raising more than $230 million for system-wide reforms and initiatives that support individual schools." http://schools.nyc.gov/FundForPublicSchools/AboutUs/default.htm
In many states charter schools are only funded for operations, not for capital costs, i.e., facilities. Thus they save and fundraise to pay for their buildings, which district schools do not have to do.
The more relevant question to ask about successful charter school's reliance on philanthropy is what it tells us about the actual cost of educating students versus what we as a society are willing to pay. If in fact it takes more money to pay for longer schools days and better teachers to get the outcomes we want, then journalists could help our politicians and voters understand that.
The creaming/selection factor is at least as big an issue with charters, and reporters routinely ignore and deny that entirely.
Note that in this Time magazine piece on Philadelphia schools, the reporter describing the takeover by a charter operator of struggling schools airily declares "the kids remained," without further elaboration. Actually, the level of attrition at Mastery schools is widely discussed, and ignoring that leaves a big hole. Check-it-and-lose-it journalism?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963754,00.html?iid=tsmodule
As Jason mentioned above, I've attempted to keep track of how much private capital goes into charters in New York City. My full analysis, with spreadsheets, is actually available here (the other link refers to analysis I did on charter school expenses): http://gothamschools.org/2010/01/11/charter-school-philanthropy-2009
Thought this might be useful for those studying charters in New York City and elsewhere. I'd also love feedback for ways to dig deeper into the data!
I have never understood why charters must find their own buildings—often the biggest barrier to entry. If they are public schools, give them public space.
Charters get district facilities space here in California (under a measure approved by voters in 2000*), with resulting battles with districts and school communities -- which cause divisiveness and cost money in legal fees that could be supporting students in our desperately underfunded classrooms.
My own kids' public arts high school has been eyed hungrily by charters over the years, and the school administration has had to put some effort into fending off possible space grabs. However, here in San Francisco, the existing charter schools are not particularly successful, and local costs are so high that charters aren't that bent on expanding here. There are heated controversies in other districts, though.
And meanwhile, I follow NYC school issues via the Gotham Schools, Ed Notes Online and NYC Public School Parents blogs -- now THEY have near-open warfare between charters and regular public schools over facilities.
*The measure, Prop. 39, had a separate piece that removed the Prop. 13 "supermajority" requirement that used to require a 2/3 vote to pass a local school bond measure.
Reporters interested in covering this question for charter schools can look at the IRS form 990 filings which are made public by at least some charters--including ones that are known to receive a fair bit of philanthropic revenue.
The 990 will give you total spending, and you can get enrollment numbers for the corresponding year from the school or various official publications. Presto, you can compute total per pupil spending and compare it to local public school figures.
Here's an example: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/01/la-times-hastens-toward-the-light/
Much more interesting is to compare what districts claim they spend per pupil to the actual figures you get when you divide their latest spending numbers (their budgets are often on-line) by their latest enrollment numbers. Now THAT's a story.
Charters recieve dramatically less operating funding and usually NO facilities funding (Forcing some operating funds to be used for facilities) thus any private funding that may be going to charters is only making up a small fraction of the discrepancy. the GothamSchools post proves as much. Charters in NYC get about 70% of the operating funds as traditional publics ($12,500 vs $18,000) and NOTHING for capital.
My point is value-neutral about the worth of charter schools. No matter your position on the topic,it is good to be as clear as possible about where their money comes from and why. Same goes for traditional publics, obviously.
Post a Comment
Considerate comments are welcome. Uncivil remarks will be deleted. Anonymous comments -- including those unaccompanied by the author's first and last name -- are not permitted.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home