Should charters get more money?

by David Safier

I've been wrestling with this one lately. A suit has been filed to give charter schools more money to make their allocations "equal" with district schools. That raises the question: do charters get less than district schools, and if so, should the state give them more?

The main issue here is the $7500 vs. $9500 per pupil figure that I've written about ad nauseam. The $9500 figure is ridiculous when you're talking about the amount spent on a student's education. The extra $2000 has to do with the cost of building more schools to deal with our expanding student population. It wouldn't be there if our population had remained stable or was shrinking. No reputable comparative national study from the left or the right includes the extra $2000, nor does Tom Horne. We spend about $7500 per student. End of story.

But when we're comparing schools within the state, it may be a different matter. Why shouldn't all schools, charter and district, have equal access to school building funds when they need to put up a school to house students? It's a compelling argument.

But I think the argument falls apart when you look at it more closely. Here are 3 reasons why charter schools shouldn't have access to extra government funds for building schools. I'll elaborate on them after the jump.

1. Charter schools aren't built to meet the needs of an expanding student population.
2. Charter school buildings are created (or redesigned) at the whim of the directors, not the Department of Education or a school district.
3. Charter schools can fail or have their charters revoked, leaving an empty building.

Here's the best analogy I can think of. I think people would complain mightily if a district wanted money to put up a few new schools it couldn't justify because of population needs. The complaints would grow louder if it left the building design up to the new principal and a group of friends. And they would reach eardrum-piercing levels if the district said, we don't know if we'll still be using the school a few years down the road.

That's a rough approximation of the situation when a new charter school is built.

Let me expand on the reasons why charter schools shouldn't get extra money from the state, or another governmental funding source like bonds, one by one.

1. Charter schools aren't built to meet the needs of an expanding student population.

The main reason we build more district schools is because those we have are bursting at the seams or the population has shifted to geographical areas without schools nearby. In other words, new building is dictated by population expansion. States with stable populations or dwindling populations generally don't build new schools.

Except in rare instances, charters aren't created to respond to a growing student population. They're started because someone wants to start a new school, and they're given state money for that purpose, equal to the amount any school would receive for a given number of students. There's no reason why the state should pay more out of its general fund or float bonds for the purpose of erecting schools which aren't needed to take care of an overflow of students.

2. Charter school buildings are created (or renovated and redesigned) at the whim of the directors, not the Department of Education or a school district.

When the state or school district builds a new school or adds on to an existing school, it makes sure the design is in keeping with what it believes are necessary educational standards. Charter school buildings, on the other hand, are built or redesigned to the specifications of the directors and others involved with the school. Build the school in the shape of a geodesic dome? Fine. Don't want a cafeteria? Also fine. Have a sandbox built into every room? Why not? I'm exaggerating for effect, but the point is, those involved with the charter call the shots.

If government is going to participate in funding a school building, it should also be intimately involved in all aspects of the design and construction. That would be put heavy restrictions on the charter directors that they probably would object to. Their concept of the school might involve a different sort of building design.

In other words, in trade for the freedom to build the school of its choice, a charter forfeits the right to have the state participate in funding the building.

3. Charter schools can fail or have their charters revoked, leaving an empty building.

There is no guarantee a charter school will be successful. It can close its doors in a year or 5 years or 10 years, because it fails to attract students, or because it mismanages its money and goes under or because the State Charter Board revokes its charter. The directors can even just walk away and say, "Enough."

So what happens to the building then? If it has been built with government funding, it can be a gigantic albatross hanging around the neck of the state or a school district. There may be no buyers, and there may be no need for the building, yet a government entity would have to continue paying off the cost of the building for years.

These three reasons lead me to the conclusion that the seeming funding inequity between district and charter schools is part of the nature of charter schools. It might be different if a charter takes over a school that's already running or if the charter is housed in an unused portion of an existing school. You can find situations like that in other states and possibly in Arizona as well. But if people set out to create a new school from the ground up, it's not a governmental responsibility to put up extra money to build the school.

Comments

[AZ Ed Watch]

Hi Mr. Safier,

1. Charter schools aren't built to meet the needs of an expanding student population.

According to AZCSA, "In Arizona, more than 100,000 students are enrolled in 475 charter schools in Arizona. According to recent survey results, 60 percent of our charter schools have waiting lists. To meet this demand, more quality charter schools have, and continue to open. In the 2008 school year, 34 new charter schools opened. In 2009, 21 completed applications are pending before the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.
". Seems like the demand is there.

2. Charter school buildings are created (or renovated and redesigned) at the whim of the directors, not the Department of Education or a school district.

Not sure of your point here. Wouldn't the Schools Facility Board have oversight if charters were using state funds to build buildings?

3. Charter schools can fail or have their charters revoked, leaving an empty building.

Districts can have falling enrollment. Mesau Unified is looking at closing multiple schools because of "declining enrollment, budget cuts and competition from charter schools" [EVT]. Scottsdale Unified recently mothballed an entire wing of a building. These empty buldings are costing the tax payers and would be no different than if a charter school closed.

[Bess1919]

No.
Charters are taking no cuts in the next round of state cuts, and less than 8% of students attend charter schools in AZ. Why aren't we concentrating on funding the 92% of students who attend public schools?

[David Safier]

AZ Ed Watch, I have to say, those are very strange responses to my points.

In response to my first point, you say there is a demand for charter schools. That's a completely different issue. I say there is not a population necessity driving the opening of charter schools. That means there's not the same need to spend the extra money on a building there is when a new district school is built.

In the second point, it may be that charter schools would be OK with the School Facility Board setting standards for the school buildings if they were paid for with extra funding. But at this point, that isn't the case. It would be interesting to see how, say, Imagine Schools would feel about being told how to construct a school, and how another charter setting up in a storefront would feel about the Board telling them how to do things. That seems to go against the independence charters seem to treasure.

Your third point is that sometimes district schools close. Sure they do, because of population shifts. Otherwise, they stay open virtually forever. Charters, on the other hand, can close at the drop of a hat. If you want to do the research, you can tell us how many charter schools have failed and closed in the past 15 years, compared with how many district schools have closed their doors.

The weakness of your rebuttals actually strengthens my confidence in my arguments.