Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City

Transcript

1 Charter School 27% AVERAGE 27% AVERAGE FUNDING GAP FUNDING GAP Funding : LOCAL LOCAL FUNDING FUNDING (More) TO BLAME TO BLAME METRO METRO AREAS GET AREAS GET Inequity “C” or WORSE “C” or WORSE HOUSTON HOUSTON BEST BEST in the City BALANCE BALANCE SPECIAL NEEDS SPECIAL NEEDS EXPLAINS GAP EXPLAINS GAP IN BOSTON ONLY IN BOSTON ONLY Corey A. DeAngelis Corey A. DeAngelis STATE $ STATE $ EFFECTS EFFECTS ON GAP ON GAP Patrick J. Wolf Patrick J. Wolf ATLANTA ATLANTA MOST (%) MOST (%) Larry D. Maloney Larry D. Maloney UNDER-FUNDED UNDER-FUNDED FED AND FED AND Jay F. May Jay F. May NONPUBLIC NONPUBLIC INEQUITIES INEQUITIES CAMDEN, NJ CAMDEN, NJ MOST ($) MOST ($) November 2018 November 2018 UNDER-FUNDED UNDER-FUNDED MOVEMENT IN MOVEMENT IN FUNDING GAPS FUNDING GAPS

2 Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City Corey A. DeAngelis Patrick J. Wolf Larry D. Maloney Jay F. May November 2018 Corrected Version 1.1 School Choice Demonstration Project Department of Education Reform University of Arkansas 201 Graduate Education Building Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-6345 uaedreform.org/charter-school-funding-more-inequity-in-the-city

3 The University of Arkansas was founded in 1871 as the flagship institution of higher education for the state of Arkansas. Established as a land grant university, its mandate was threefold: to teach students, conduct research, and perform service and outreach. The College of Education and Health Professions established the Department of Education Reform in 2005. The department’s mission is to advance education and economic development by focusing on the improvement of academic achievement in elementary and secondary schools. It conducts research and demonstration projects in five primary areas of reform: teacher quality, leadership, policy, accountability, and school choice. The School Choice Demonstration Project (SCDP), based within the Department of Education Reform, is an education research center devoted to the non-partisan study of the effects of school choice policy and is staffed by leading school choice researchers and scholars. Led by Dr. Patrick J. Wolf, Professor of Education Reform and Endowed 21st Century Chair in School Choice, SCDP’s national team of researchers, institutional research partners and staff are devoted to the rigorous evaluation of school choice programs and other school improvement efforts across the country. The SCDP is committed to raising and advancing the public’s understanding of the strengths and limitations of school choice policies and programs by conducting comprehensive research on what happens to students, families, schools and communities when more parents are allowed to choose their child’s school.

4 Corrections Made to the Original Version This sheet lists corrections made to the original release version of Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City , by Corey A. DeAngelis, Patrick J. Wolf, Larry D. Maloney, and Jay F. May. School Choice Demonstration Project. University of Arkansas. Error Correction Location p. 10, Box 1 omission Added new item 4) Account for dollar value of any facility support provided to charters; and renumbered remaining items 6 percent p. 14, par. 3, line 3 7 percent 89 percent less p. 32, par. 1, line 5 89 percent more which differs p. 32, par. 1, line 6 consistent with dramatically from p. 32, par. 1, line 8 less 34 percent 34 percent more state and local funding exception of exception of state p. 32, par. 1, line 9 funding p. 32, par. 1, line 10 favor (local funding) favor 84.5% -85% p. 32, Table 8, row 1 -86% 85.5% p. 32, Table 8, row 2 p. 32, Table 8, row 3 89.0% -89% 34% p. 32, Table 8, row 4 -33.9% -94% p. 32, Table 8, row 5 94.2% p. 32, Table 8, row 6 90.0% -90% -116% p. 32, Table 8, row 7 116.4% 98.2% -98% p. 32, Table 8, row 8 -85% p. 46, Table C15, row 1 84.5% -86% 85.5% p. 46, Table C15, row 2 -89% p. 46, Table C15, row 3 89.0% p. 46, Table C15, row 4 -33.9% 34% -94% p. 46, Table C15, row 5 94.2% p. 46, Table C15, row 6 90.0% -90% p. 46, Table C15, row 7 116.4% -116% -98% p. 46, Table C15, row 8 98.2%

5 Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City Executive Summary Public charter schools increasingly are part of both the national conversation 27% AVERAGE 27% AVERAGE about education policy and the local urban scene in America. Previous studies FUNDING GAP FUNDING GAP of public charter schools have examined their achievement effects focused on LOCAL LOCAL both the state and metropolitan levels, and funding disparities focused on the state FUNDING FUNDING levels. This report is an update to the first study of funding inequities to concentrate TO BLAME TO BLAME on revenue disparities between charters and traditional public schools where METRO METRO charters are most common: metropolitan areas across the country. The 15 urban AREAS GET AREAS GET “C” or WORSE “C” or WORSE areas that primarily inform our study include Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Denver, HOUSTON HOUSTON Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York BEST BEST City, Oakland, San Antonio, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C. Because these locations BALANCE BALANCE include eight for which we have at least some prior data, we are able to examine SPECIAL NEEDS SPECIAL NEEDS funding inequities over time. EXPLAINS GAP EXPLAINS GAP IN BOSTON ONLY IN BOSTON ONLY Our data regarding the charter school funding gap was carefully collected from STATE $ STATE $ official state documents and audited school reports regarding the 2015-16 school EFFECTS EFFECTS year, which is equivalent to the 2016 fiscal year. Because we have to wait a few ON GAP ON GAP ATLANTA ATLANTA years for revenue data to be complete and reliable, our study is necessarily MOST (%) MOST (%) retrospective. As a result, we describe our findings in the past tense, as they UNDER-FUNDED UNDER-FUNDED reflect conditions during the 2015-16 school year – the school year with the most FED AND FED AND recent and reliable data available to date. In the report’s conclusion, we describe NONPUBLIC NONPUBLIC recent policy changes in some of the cities that likely have affected their current INEQUITIES INEQUITIES charter school funding gaps. CAMDEN, NJ CAMDEN, NJ MOST ($) MOST ($) We define a public charter school as any school that (1) operates based on a UNDER-FUNDED UNDER-FUNDED formal charter in place of direct school district management and (2) reports its MOVEMENT IN MOVEMENT IN finances independently from the school district. We define all other public schools as FUNDING GAPS FUNDING GAPS traditional public schools (TPS). This study answers two main research questions: Did both public charter schools and TPS in major metropolitan areas receive equitable per-pupil funding during the 2015-16 We are grateful to those who made this project possible. We appreciate the guidance of Gary Larson, Molly O’Brien, and Angela Montagna Holmes of Larson Communications in making this complicated information accessible to the public. We are thankful for the expertise of Marlo Crandall of Remedy Creative in designing and formatting the report. We appreciate Elizabeth Reaves’ excellent logistical support. We thank the Walton Family Foundation for their grant support and acknowledge that the content of this report is entirely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily refiect the positions of the Foundation or the University of Arkansas. 4 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

6 school year? If not, what explains the funding gap? New Orleans is unique in ways that led us to treat it separately in our analysis. For the remaining 14 metropolitan areas, we find: ● ● Public charter schools received an average of Differences in the rates of enrolling students 27% AVERAGE 27% AVERAGE $5,828 less per-pupil than TPS – the largest with special educational needs only explained FUNDING GAP FUNDING GAP overall funding inequity gap ever reported the charter school funding gap in one of the 14 cities: Boston; by our research team – which represents a LOCAL LOCAL funding gap of 27 percent; A dearth of education funding from local ● FUNDING FUNDING ● Across the 8 cities with longitudinal data back sources was most responsible for the charter TO BLAME TO BLAME to 2003, the overall funding gap favoring TPS school funding gap, as 8 of the areas provided METRO METRO either no or a trivial amount of local funds to has grown 58 percent since 2003 and shrunk AREAS GET AREAS GET their public charter schools; about 10 percent since 2014; “C” or WORSE “C” or WORSE ● Across the 14 cities with longitudinal data back ● On average, state revenues increased the HOUSTON HOUSTON charter school funding gaps in the same to 2013, the overall funding gap favoring TPS BEST BEST has shrunk 2 percent since 2013 and widened number of cities as they decreased them and BALANCE BALANCE net increased the funding gap by 4 percent 0.03 percent since 2014; overall; SPECIAL NEEDS SPECIAL NEEDS Thirteen out of 14 metropolitan areas in our ● EXPLAINS GAP EXPLAINS GAP ● Federal education revenues, on average, study receive a C or lower grade for charter IN BOSTON ONLY IN BOSTON ONLY school funding equity because students who worsened the charter school funding inequities attended charters received more than 10 by 40 percent, while private or nonpublic STATE $ STATE $ sources of funding varied dramatically across percent less in funding than their peers in EFFECTS EFFECTS the 14 locations and did not completely close traditional public schools; ON GAP ON GAP the charter school funding gap in any location; ● Houston demonstrated the greatest revenue ATLANTA ATLANTA ● The public charter school funding gap declined balance between charters and TPS, as charters MOST (%) MOST (%) from 2003 to 2016 in Houston, Boston, and received 95 percent of the per-pupil funding UNDER-FUNDED UNDER-FUNDED Indianapolis, while it grew in Atlanta, Los average of TPS; Angeles, Denver, Washington, D.C., and New FED AND FED AND Public charter schools in Camden, New Jersey, ● York City; Gaps increased from 2014 to 2016 in NONPUBLIC NONPUBLIC were the most underfunded in terms of dollars, Atlanta, Houston, Little Rock, New York City, INEQUITIES INEQUITIES receiving an average of $14,671 less in per-pupil San Antonio, Shelby County (Memphis), and CAMDEN, NJ CAMDEN, NJ funding than TPS, representing a 36 percent Tulsa, while they decreased in Boston, Camden, MOST ($) MOST ($) funding inequity; Public charter schools in Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Atlanta, Georgia, were the most underfunded UNDER-FUNDED UNDER-FUNDED Washington, D.C. in percentage terms, receiving an average of $8,894 less in per-pupil funding than TPS, MOVEMENT IN MOVEMENT IN representing a 49 percent funding inequity. FUNDING GAPS FUNDING GAPS Our research indicates that urban charters tended to receive substantially less revenue on a per-pupil basis to serve their students than did traditional public schools in 2015-16. Once again, charter school funding represents an inequity in the city. 5 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

7 Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City Introduction Public charter schools are a growing part of K-12 education. Charter schools are public schools that are granted operational autonomy by their authorizing agency in return for a commitment to achieve performance levels specified in a contract. Like traditional public schools, charter schools are prohibited from charging tuition, must not discriminate in admissions or be religious in their operation or affiliation, and are overseen by a public entity. Unlike traditional public schools, however, most charters are open to all students who wish to apply, regardless of where they live. If a charter school is over-subscribed, random lotteries usually determine which students are admitted. Most charter 1 schools are independent of the traditional public school district in which they operate. Public charter schools have become a major feature of the education landscape. The first public charter school was established in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1991. In 2015-16, there were over 6,800 public charter schools serving about 3 million students in 43 states and the District In 2015-16, there were over 6,800 2 That year, the number of of Columbia. public charter schools serving about charter schools grew by about 2 percent 3 million students in 43 states and the and the number of students they served District of Columbia. increased by 9 percent. In New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Detroit, public charter schools educate over 40 percent of K-12 students. What explains the growing popularity of public charter schools? Evidence 3 Research indicates that families enjoy the empowerment to opt out of residentially assigned public 4 Further, the autonomy granted to public charter schools allows them to establish a schools, if needed. 5 specialized mission and deeply rooted organizational culture. The additional autonomy that charters enjoy allows them to serve students based on student interests and learning styles, rather than the standardized approach to education commonly mandated in traditional public schools. 1 What is a charter school? National Charter School Research Center. U.S. Department of Education. 2 A closer look at the charter school movement. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. 3 , 17 (2). Barrows, S., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2017). What do parents think of their children’s schools? Education Next Stewart, T., & Wolf, P. J. (2014). The school choice journey: School vouchers and the empowerment of urban families (New York: Palgrave 4 MacMillan, 2014). 5 See for example Fox, R. A., & Buchanan, N. K. (2014). Proud to be different: Ethnocentric niche charter schools in America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield). 6 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

8 The scientific evidence on the effectiveness of public charter schools is abundant, though studies have varied in quality. A meta-analysis of 24 rigorous studies showed that, overall, charters have had small 6 positive effects on student achievement, as measured by standardized test scores. A national study of 7 charter school performance in 26 states and the District of Columbia largely confirmed those results, though a U.S. Department of Education evaluation limited to charter middle schools reported no An examination of charter 8 More relevant to statistically significant effects. school achievement effects our study here, an examination of charter school in 41 large metropolitan achievement effects in 41 large metropolitan areas areas across the country across the country showed that urban charters consistently have boosted student achievement showed that urban charters and the gains for students from disadvantaged consistently have boosted 9 backgrounds have been large. The most recent student achievement and 10 of the most rigorous evidence systematic review the gains for students from shows that public charter schools have increased 11 disadvantaged backgrounds high school graduation and college enrollment, while experimental evaluations have found that have been large. winning a lottery to attend a public charter school reduced the likelihood that males were incarcerated 12 and the chance that females became pregnant as teenagers. Funding Equity Findings that public charter schools tend to increase student achievement, but only slightly, have led policymakers to consider the amount of resources available to charters. Do charter schools receive higher per-pupil revenue allocations than traditional public schools (TPS)? Is funding equal across the two public school sectors? Do public charter schools receive less per-pupil revenue than TPS? Might . Bothell, WA: e Betts, J. R., & Tang, Y. E. (2011). 6 The effect of charter schools on student achievement: A meta-analysis of the literatur Center on Reinventing Public Education. National charter school Cremata, E., Davis, D., Dickey, K., Lawyer, K., Negassi, Y., Raymond, M., & Woodworth, J. L. (2013). 7 . Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes. study Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C. C., and Dwoyer, E. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report (NCEE 2010-4029). 8 Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. CREDO (2013). Urban charter school study . Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes. 9 10 . Journal of School Choice , 11 (4), 642-654. Foreman, L. M. (2017). Educational attainment effects of public and private school choice 11 Deming, D. J., Hastings, J. S., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2014). School choice, school quality, and postsecondary attainment. American 104 Charter high schools’ effects on long‐ (3), 991-1013; Sass, T. R., Zimmer, R. W., Gill, B. P., & Booker, T. K. (2016). Economic Review , Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (3), 683-706. 35 , term attainment and earnings. Dobbie, W., & Fryer Jr, R. G. (2015). The medium-term impacts of high-achieving charter schools. Journal of Political Economy , 123 (5), 12 (4), 2063-2115. 126 , Quarterly Journal of Economics 985-1037; Deming, D. J. (2011). Better schools, less crime? 7 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

9 charters produce even better results if they were better resourced? Members of our research team have provided evidenced-based answers to these questions for over a decade. Charter School Funding: Inequity’s Next Frontier , we compared student funding in public charters In 13 versus TPS in 27 districts in 16 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) during school year 2002-03. We found that public charter school students were funded at levels below TPS students in all but one state, Minnesota, and all but one school district, Albuquerque, NM. On average, charter students in the study received 21.7 percent less in funding than their TPS peers, with the state-level gaps favoring TPS ranging from 4.8 percent in New Mexico to 39.5 percent in South Carolina. This pioneering research concluded that, when a given student switched from a residentially assigned public school to a public charter school in 2002-03, less than four-fifths of the resources dedicated to the education of that student followed them into their charter school. When a given student switched from a One might assume that residentially assigned public school to a policymakers moved swiftly to public charter school in 2002-03, less than remedy the injustice of charter four-fifths of the resources dedicated to the school funding inequity revealed education of that student followed them into in the 2005 report. Sadly, that was not the case. We re-examined the their charter school. charter school funding gap using data from 2006-07 and adding seven more states to our sample. In Charter School Funding: Inequity Persists , we reported that the gap 14 favoring TPS stood at 19.2 percent nationally, only trivially smaller than the original gap of 21.7 percent. Even more concerning, a third study of 2010-11 revenue data identified the gap across an expansive sample of 30 states plus D.C. to average A third study of 2010-11 revenue data 28.4 percent more funding for TPS than charters, provoking the report identified the gap across an expansive Charter School Funding: Inequity title of sample of 30 states plus D.C. to 15 Expands . All three of these charter average 28.4 percent more funding for school revenue studies have concluded TPS than charters. that funding gaps are larger in urban areas, due to more local funding and 13 Batdorff, M., Finn, C. E. Jr., Hassel, B., Maloney, L., Osberg, E., Speakman, S., & Terrell, M. G. (2005). Charter school funding: Inequity’s next frontier . Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 14 Batdorff, M., Maloney, L., May, J., Doyle, D., & Hassel, B. (2010). Charter school funding: Inequity persists. Indianapolis, IN: Ball State University. Charter school funding: Inequity expands. Fayetteville, Batdorff, M., Maloney, L., May, J. F., Speakman, S. T., Wolf, P., & Cheng, A. (2014). 15 AR: School Choice Demonstration Project. 8 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

10 categorical funding earmarked for districts with disadvantaged students going to TPS than to charters, even though public charter schools enroll a high proportion of low-income students. Educational resources targeted to disadvantaged students in urban areas often miss their targets when those children are in public charter schools. Two other public charter school funding Educational resources targeted to inequity studies have been performed at the city level. The first report examined disadvantaged students in urban per-pupil funding discrepancies areas often miss their targets when between TPS and charters across 92 those children are in public charter cities in the state of Michigan. The study schools. found that Michigan charter schools received about $2,782, or 20 percent, less funding per pupil than TPS in Across the 14 cities included in our 16 The funding the 2014-15 school year. primary analysis, we found that advantage for TPS was statistically public charter schools received significant even after controlling for an average of $5,721, or about 29 sector differences in the percent of students that were identified as: special percent, less per-pupil than TPS. needs, economically disadvantaged, English Language Learners, minorities, This study represents the latest and females. evidence regarding remaining Our most recent report, Charter School public charter school funding Funding: Inequity in the City , contributed inequities where charters are most to the school funding policy literature by taking a deep dive into the realities common: in cities. of charter and TPS funding in major urban areas across the country. We examined funding disparity levels from all possible revenue sources in 15 different metropolitan areas for the 2013-14 school year. We selected the locations based on either a high concentration of charters in the metropolitan area or potential for charter school growth there. Across the 14 cities included in our primary analysis, we found that public charter schools received an average of $5,721, or about 29 17 percent, less per-pupil than TPS. 16 DeAngelis, C. A., & DeGrow, B. (2018). Doing more with less: The charter school advantage in Michigan. Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Wolf, P. J., Maloney, L. D., May, J. F., DeAngelis, C. A. (2018). Charter school funding: Inequity in the city 17 . Fayetteville, AR: School Choice Demonstration Project. 9 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

11 Our current report serves as an update to the previous analysis, as it draws upon data for the 2015-16 school year. We highlight differences in local, state, and federal public funding, as well as all nonpublic funding for the same locations. This study represents the latest evidence regarding remaining public charter school funding inequities where charters are most common: in cities. 2015-2016 Results Total Revenue For each table, we order the locations from traditional public school funding, regardless ● of which sector is receiving more, a B if the one with the biggest percentage funding the funding disparity is between 5 and 10 disparity favoring charters at the top to the percent, a C if the gap is 10 to 15 percent, a one with the biggest percentage funding gap favoring TPS at the bottom; D if it is 15 to 25 percent, and an F if it is over 25 percent; ● For each figure, we order the locations from left (biggest gap favoring charters) to right The overall disparity grade appears in the ● (biggest gap favoring TPS); far left column of Table 1 and is consistently displayed in the far left column of all ● Each location is assigned a grade based on subsequent tables as a point of reference for the equality of revenues allocated to children the reader; in charter schools compared to TPS; ● Summary tables regarding all the revenue We highlight funding disparities regardless ● disparities for each separate location are of the sector that is receiving the short end of provided in Appendix C. Public indeterminate the revenue stick; and unspecified indeterminate revenue streams are shown in tables in Appendix D. ● A specific location receives an A if per- pupil charter funding is within 5 percent of Box 1: The core practices that generate our reliable comparisons are that we: Apply true weighted averages to all cross-location 5) Compare per-pupil revenues for all charter schools to 1) totals to assure appropriate per-pupil amounts for all all traditional public schools within the geographic data groupings; boundary of each city or county; Rely on data of record collected by states, and, when 6) Provide a comprehensive accounting of school 2) those are unavailable, approved, audited financial revenues that accounts for all funds received by all statements as our source materials; schools in the public charter and TPS sectors from all § possible sources; 7) Conduct a special analysis of the charter school funding gap, excluding all special education funding, Credit all revenues to the school sector upon whose 3) to demonstrate whether the inequities in charter students the revenue will be spent, assigning any school funding are explained by higher special funding directed to charter school students that education enrollment rates in TPS. passes through TPS to the charter sector and not the TPS sector; Account for dollar value of any facility support 4) The only exception to this rule is any revenue received due to § debt restructuring. provided to charters; 10 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

12 Metholology This is a study of the revenues underscores the central fallacy of expenditure-based analysis is actually received by public charter some researchers who compare equal grounded in a concept of schools and TPS. Revenues equal charter and TPS funding using funding for equal work . We choose funding. Revenues signal the expenditures. They exclude a revenue-based analysis because amount of resources that are various categories of expenditures public education is about so much being mobilized in support of on the TPS side, supposedly to more than merely equal work. students in the two different types create “apples-to-apples” funding Our methodology generates a of public schools. Some critics of comparisons, but those exclusions full, accurate, and transparent these types of analyses argue that are mere artifice of the analysts accounting of the per-pupil our revenue study should, instead, that bring the numbers further funding in both the public charter focus on school expenditures away from the complete and true and TPS sectors (see Box 1). It tells and excuse TPS from certain amounts of resources available us how much money is directed expenditure categories, such to educate a child in each public to charter schools, which have as transportation, because TPS school sector. much discretion regarding how to are mandated to provide it but An analysis based on all revenues, spend it, and how much money many charter schools choose in contrast, supports an innovation is directed to traditional public not to spend scarce educational view of equity, consistent with schools, which have less discretion † resources on that item. state charter statutes calling for regarding how to spend it. If TPS First, we stand by the practice of charter schools to be innovative. receive more revenue in part using revenues, not expenditures, to inform our revenue study. Our methodology generates a full, accurate, and Second, the discretion to spend money as school leaders see transparent accounting of the per-pupil funding in fit is definitional to public both the public charter and TPS sectors. charter schools because they are expected by statute to have autonomy to be innovative. We are comparing the amount of An analysis based on a subset because they have more things resources that are channeled into of expenditures only for the on which they are required to a traditional public school system, functions that TPS and charter spend public resources, then where many specific expenditures schools share is a status quo view that fact should not be obscured are mandatory, with the amount of equity, because charters are but should remain a part of the devoted to public charter schools, expected to be funded only for comparison. Mandatory spending where many specific expenditures the exact same functions that in TPS is a discretionary policy of are discretionary. If we omitted TPS already performs. A revenue- decision makers. If it is a cause supposedly “mandatory based analysis is grounded in of inefficiency in TPS operations spending” from the TPS side a concept of equal funding for relative to charters, then policy of our comparison, including equal purpose , the purpose being makers, informed by our research, salaries baked into teacher public education. An adjusted could reduce it. and administrator collective bargaining agreements, there would be almost no revenue † Baker, B. D. (2014). Review of “Charter school funding: Inequity expands.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. left to compare. This point 11 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

13 On average, across all locations, a student Table 1 and Figure 1 below illustrate the total funding disparities between children in received $5,828, or 26.7 percent, less in total annual funding if they chose to attend a charter traditional public schools (TPS) and charters in the 14 metropolitan areas we include in our main school instead of a TPS. This funding inequity analysis. Only one location -- Houston, Texas -- result favoring TPS is only slightly smaller than obtained an A for charter school funding equity. the gap of 28.7 percent in our report using 2013-14 data. Students in public charter schools Charters in Houston received only 5 percent less in per-pupil funding than the Houston TPS. sacrificed over one-quarter of their educational resources by opting out of their traditional public Boston, Massachusetts received a C because schools. Put differently, on average, urban parents charters got 12 percent less in per-pupil funding than the Boston TPS. Four locations – New in our study sample were willing to pay the price of at least $5,828 per year in order to opt York City, Denver, Shelby County (the Memphis into a public schooling environment that they region), and San Antonio – obtained a D because charters received between 19 and 23 percent less perceived to be superior to their residentially assigned institution. To operate at the efficiency in per-pupil funding in each place. level of the charter schools in our study, the Eight of the 14 cities in the main analysis – over traditional public schools would have had to half of the cities examined – received an F forfeit $13.1 billion per year in revenue. because per-pupil funding disparities exceeded 25 percent. Notably, charter students in Camden, NJ, obtained nearly $15,000 less in Students in public charter per-pupil funding per year, representing a schools sacrificed over one- funding gap of 36 percent. The largest disparity quarter of their educational percentage was in Atlanta, Georgia, where resources by opting out of their charter school students received 49 percent less funding than their traditional public school traditional public schools. peers, amounting to almost $9,000 less in educational resources per student in 2015-16. Other cities in our study that earned an F for their extreme charter funding gaps include Los Angeles, D.C., Tulsa, Indianapolis, Oakland, and Little Rock. 12 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

14 Table 1: Total Revenue Disparity Per Student, 2015-16 School Year Disparity District Per Disparity Charter Per Overall Funding State Student Per Student Student Ranked Regions Per Student Disparity Grade (%) Revenue ($) Revenue TX $11,557 $11,040 ($517) -5% A Houston MA C $20,423 ($2,865) -12% Boston $23,288 New York City $28,141 $22,701 ($5,440) -19% D NY Denver CO $15,230 $12,248 ($2,982) -20% D Shelby D $8,902 ($2,273) -20% TN $11,174 TX ($3,214) $10,934 San Antonio -23% D $14,147 Los Angeles $17,813 $13,017 ($4,797) -27% F CA $35,494 DC F $25,236 ($10,258) -29% Washington, DC F OK $11,656 $7,904 ($3,752) -32% Tulsa Camden NJ $40,697 $26,027 ($14,671) -36% F F Indianapolis IN $15,380 $9,769 ($5,611) -37% F Oakland $23,332 $14,735 ($8,597) -37% CA Little Rock $9,134 $14,917 F ($5,783) -39% AR F GA $18,276 $9,382 ($8,894) -49% Atlanta Weighted Average $21,802 $15,974 ($5,828) -27% Note: Disparity Per Student ($) is the Charter Per Student Revenue minus the District Per Student Revenue, so negative values indicate a charter school funding disadvantage. Disparity Per Student (%) is the dollar disparity divided by District Per Student Figu re 1: Di erence in Total Revenue Per St udent ($) g 1 Revenue. tion Ina -Ad Per Pupil Disparity justed Favor greg ate of 8 District s ing Ag Figure 1: Difference in Total Revenue Per Student ($) FY03 to FY16 g 6 $- $16,000 $( 2,000) rs ) $( 4,000) $14,000 lla $( 6,000) y (in Do $12,000 $( 8,000) parit $7,000 g 7 $( 10, 000) $10,000 $6,000 venue Dis $( 12, 000) Re . on, D.C Washin gt $5,000 $( 14, 000) $8,000 ta Atlan $( 16, 000) $4,000 $6,000 $3,000 India napolis New York Cit y $2,000 $4,000 le s ge Los An 13 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City g 2 Public Revenue Per St udent ($) cal re 2: Di erence in Lo Figu $1,000 nver De Boston $2,000 $0 3 4 6 FY0 FY0 7 FY1 1 FY1 FY1 Houston $0 $0 FY0 FY1 FY0 FY1 3 4 1 7 FY1 6 ($2, 000) -$2,000 ta, Boston, DC, Denver, egate of : Atlan Aggr rs ) ($4, 000) Houston, Indian ap olis s Angele s, & NYC , Lo lla t Houston Atlan a Bo st on Denver ($6, 000) Wash apolis New York Ci ty Indian ington, D.C. Los Angeles y (in Do ($8, 000) parit ) ($10, 000 000 ($12, ) venue Dis ($14, 000 ) Re ) ($16, 000 000 ($18, ) Revenue Per St udent ($) Figu re 3: Di erence in St ate Public $14,000 $5,100 g 3 g 8 g 9 $5,050 $12,000 $5,000 $1 5, 000 $10,000 0, 000 $1 $4,950 rs ) $5 ,000 lla $8,000 $4,900 $0 y (in Do $4,850 $6,000 ($5, 000) parit $4,800 ) ($10, 000 $4,000 venue Dis $4,750 ($15, 000 ) Re ) 000 ($20, $4,700 $2,000 000 ($25, ) $4,650 $0 $4,600 FY1 FY1 3 4 FY1 6 6 FY1 4 3 FY1 FY1 -$2,000 Revenue Per St udent ($) Public re 4: Di erence in Federal Figu g 4 Denver ta Bo st on Cam Atlan den Houston apolis Little Ro ck Los Angeles Indian New York Ci ty lan d San Antonio Shelby Oak ington, D.C. Wash Tulsa $1 ,000 $5,100 $0 $5,050 rs ) lla ($1, 000) $5,000 ($2, 000) y (in Do $4,950 parit ($3, 000) $4,900 ($4, 000) venue Dis $4,850 Re ($5, 000) $4,800 ($6, 000) $4,750 $4,700 re 5: Di erence in Nonpublic Revenue Per St udent ($) Figu $4,650 g 5 $4,600 axis text FY1 FY1 3 4 FY1 6 0, 000 $1 data labels $8 ,000 rs ) 68 69 69 lla ,000 $6 data labels .5pt boxes y (in Do $4 ,000 parit $2 ,000 venue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ($2, 000) boxes

15 Some school commentators claim that any gap in per-pupil charter funding compared to TPS is because charters enroll significantly fewer students with low-incomes, English Language Learner (ELL) 18 In Table 2 we display the enrollment percentages for students with these three status, and disabilities. features of disadvantage across the two public school sectors when such data were available. In six of the metropolitan areas – Houston, New York City, Denver, Shelby County, Los Angeles, and Camden – the charter sector enrolled a higher proportion of low-income students who qualify for the federal 19 lunch program than did the TPS sector. In Oakland, the proportion of federal lunch-eligible students in the charter and TPS sectors was equal. In seven of the areas – Boston, San Antonio, D.C., Tulsa, Indianapolis, Little Rock, and Atlanta – the charter sector enrolled a lower percentage of low-income students. The differences were large across sectors, exceeding 20 percentage points, in Little Rock, Atlanta, and Camden. English Language Learner (ELL) student enrollments were higher in public charter schools than TPS in Houston and Denver. In the remaining 12 metropolitan areas, public charter schools enrolled disproportionately fewer students with ELL designations compared to TPS. Across-sector disparities of ELL students were 5 percentage points or less in seven locations: Houston, Shelby County, Los Angeles, D.C., Camden, Oakland, and Atlanta. The across-sector disparities were 10 percentage points or lower in all areas but Boston, where the gap was 16 percentage points. Finally, the charter school sectors in the 12 metropolitan regions with data enrolled lower percentages of students with disabilities than their local TPS in every place except Atlanta. In Houston, district-run TPS listed 22 percent of their students as qualifying for special education services, compared to 7 percent in Houston’s public charter schools. In Camden, the student disability rates were 18 percent in TPS and 9 percent in charters. The charter school special education enrollment gap was 5 percentage points or less in nine of the 12 locations with data. Research from New York City, Denver, and Louisiana suggests that public charter schools enroll fewer students with disabilities than TPS mainly because (1) fewer parents choose such schools for their kindergarten children with disabilities, (2) transfers into charters in non-entry grades tend disproportionately to be general education students, and (3) charter schools 20 declassify students as no longer requiring special education services at higher rates than TPS. The fact that the traditional public school sectors in our study tended to enroll higher percentages of students with certain disadvantages does not appear, itself, to explain the funding gaps between 18 See, for example, Baker, B. D. (2014). Review of “charter school funding: Inequity expands.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. 19 These students all come from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty line and therefore are eligible for either free or reduced-price lunches. 20 See, for example, Winters, M. A. (2013). Why the gap? Special education and New York City charter schools. Bothell, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education. Winters, M. A. (2014). Understanding the charter school gap: Evidence from Denver, CO. Bothell, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education. Wolf, P.J., & Lasserre-Cortez, S. (2018, January). Special education enrollment and classification (REL 2018–288). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of in Louisiana charter schools and traditional schools Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. 14 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

16 TPS and public charter schools. The proportion of students eligible for the federal lunch program was as likely to be higher or equal in the charter sectors compared with the TPS sectors in our sample. The TPS sectors more consistently tended to enroll higher proportions of ELL students than the charter sectors, though Houston and Denver were exceptions. Moreover, differences in the measures of disadvantage of the student populations in TPS and charters in our areas did not align with the overall funding differences described in Table 1. Public charter schools in Denver, The proportion of students eligible for example, enrolled higher proportions for the federal lunch program was of low-income students and English as likely to be higher or equal in the Language Learners but received over $2,982 less in per-pupil revenues than their charter sectors compared with the TPS. TPS sectors in our sample. In many cases, it requires even greater resources to educate students with special needs than low-income or ELL students. Such students were enrolled at higher rates in TPS in all but one of these metropolitan areas. Does special education funding explain the charter school funding gaps in our study? We examine that question next. Table 2: Levels of Student Disadvantage Across Sectors, 2015-16 School Year District Overall Charter Differ- Charter District Differ- Differ- Charter District State Disparity Ranked Regions Federal Federal ELL % SPED % ELL % ence ence ence SPED % Lunch % Grade Lunch % Houston TX 13% 30% 34% 4% 22% 7% -16% 76% 89% A MA 45% -4% Boston 14% -16% 20% 17% -3% 30% C 49% 18% 71% 14% 6% -8% 22% 6% -4% NY 77% D New York City 68% 72% 4% 35% 45% 10% D 9% -2% Denver CO 11% TN 65% 8% 9% 4% 57% 13% 11% -2% Shelby D -5% TX 92% 84% -8% 19% 13% -6% 10% 7% -3% D San Antonio CA Los Angeles 2% 27% 22% -5% NA NA NA F 76% 78% 12% 47% 11% 7% -4% 14% -3% -2% DC 44% F Washington, D.C. 85% 83% -2% 18% 10% -8% F 11% -6% Tulsa OK 17% NJ 91% 31% 10% 5% 60% 18% 9% -9% Camden F -5% CA 73% 73% 0% 33% 31% -2% NA NA NA F Oakland IN Indianapolis -6% 15% 8% -6% 17% 12% -5% F 72% 66% 12% AR -29% 13% 5% -8% 52% 8% -4% Little Rock F 81% GA 91% 67% -24% 5% 0% -5% 5% 9% 4% F Atlanta Difference is the Charter percent minus the District percent, so negative numbers mean TPS enroll a higher percentage Note: of such students. Differences may appear to be off by one point due to standard rounding conventions. California data for Los Angeles and Oakland do not allow us to determine special education enrollments by school sector. 15 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

17 Special Education (SPED) and the Charter School Funding Gap Inequitable funding between public charter schools and TPS could be due to differences in the number of students identified as requiring special education services, as described in Table 2. To test this ubiquitous claim regarding the charter school funding gap, we depart from our normal approach of focusing exclusively on revenues and consider special education expenditures by both school sectors. The Table 3 column labeled “SPED Expenditure Gap Per Student” presents the results from subtracting the amount of dollars spent per student in the charter sector from the amount of dollars spent per student in the TPS sector. Thirteen out of the 14 totals are positive, indicating that TPS spent more on special education expenditures per pupil than public charters in all locations except Denver. It is surprising that public charter schools in the Mile High City spent $165 more per pupil on special education services than TPS, since TPS enrolled a higher proportion of students with special needs than did public charters. This difference, however, only accounts for about 6 percent of the total overall funding disparity in Denver. The largest SPED expenditure gap was in Camden, where TPS spent $4,740 more per student on special education than charters spent. The smallest SPED expenditure gap showing that TPS spent more on special education services was in New York City, where TPS spent around $221 more per pupil on special education than charters did. The “Disparity Net of SPED” column displays the sum after adding the “SPED Expenditure Gap Per Student” to the “Total Revenue Disparity Per Student,” describing how much of the charter school funding gap remained after accounting for the differences in SPED expenditures. If the defenders of the charter school revenue gap were right, every number in the “Disparity Net of SPED” column would be either positive or zero, meaning charters were either over-funded or equitably funded relative to TPS once the extra special education burden in TPS was subtracted from the totals. That is only true for Boston. In Beantown, the charter school revenue gap flipped from a $2,865 per student advantage for TPS to a $961 per pupil advantage for charters after accounting for SPED expenditures. For the remaining 13 cities, charter schools continued to be underfunded relative to TPS even after factoring in special education expenditures. For Houston, the funding gap favoring TPS shrunk from $517 per student to $114 per pupil after accounting for SPED. The disparity diminished from $4,797 to $1,971 in Los Angeles and from $2,273 to $973 in Shelby County after accounting for SPED. In the remaining 10 metropolitan areas, the charter school funding gap favoring TPS remained unacceptably large – in excess of $2,000 per pupil – even after accounting for higher special education spending in TPS than in charters. In seven of the metropolitan areas the charter school funding disparity exceeded $4,000 per child even after accounting for differences in SPED expenditures between charters and TPS. The non-SPED revenue gap benefiting TPS exceeded $7,000 in Camden, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C. 16 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

18 Because public charter schools in Denver spent more on special needs services per pupil than In seven of the metropolitan TPS, the funding disparity favoring TPS grew by areas the charter school 6 percent from $2,982 to $3,147 after accounting funding disparity exceeded for differences in SPED expenditures. $4,000 per child even after The proportion of the total revenue gap accounting for differences in explained by higher SPED expenditures is SPED expenditures between presented in the far-right column of Table 3. Again, if the defenders of higher funding for charters and TPS. TPS were correct, every figure in the far-right column would be 100 percent or higher. This is only true in Boston. SPED expenditures explain just over three-fourths of the disparity in Houston and nearly three-fifths of the disparities in both Los Angeles and Shelby County. In the remaining 10 cities, spending by TPS on special education account for less than a third of the higher While TPS tend to enroll higher per pupil revenue received by proportions of students with TPS compared to public charter disabilities than charter schools, the schools. Special education additional spending required for expenditures account for 20 percent or less of the funding students with special needs rarely disparities in seven of these cities. explains all or even most of the Notably, differences in SPED inequities in the funding of public expenditures account for only 4 charter schools. percent of the funding disparity favoring TPS in New York City. While TPS tend to enroll higher proportions of students with disabilities than charter schools, the additional spending required for students with special needs rarely explains all or even most of the inequities in the funding of public charter schools. The main sources of the charter school funding gap must lie elsewhere. 17 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

19 Table 3: SPED Expenditure Gap Per Student, 2015-16 Disparity Total Revenue Disparity Net SPED Expenditure Overall Explained by Disparity Per Ranked Regions State of SPED Gap Per Student Disparity Grade SPED (%) Student Houston TX $403 ($517) ($114) 78% A Boston MA $3,826 ($2,865) $961 C 134% D New York City NY $221 ($5,440) ($5,219) 4% D CO ($165) ($2,982) ($3,147) 6% Denver D Shelby TN $1,300 ($2,273) ($973) 57% D San Antonio TX $848 ($3,214) ($2,366) 26% 59% F Los Angeles CA $2,826 ($4,797) ($1,971) Washington, D.C. DC F 17% ($8,518) $1,740 ($10,258) F Tulsa $651 ($3,752) ($3,101) 17% OK Camden $4,740 ($14,671) ($9,931) 32% F NJ Indianapolis IN $1,143 F ($4,468) 20% ($5,611) F Oakland CA $2,587 ($8,597) ($6,010) 30% F Little Rock AR $997 ($5,783) ($4,786) 17% 20% F $1,749 ($8,894) ($7,145) GA Atlanta Note: SPED Expenditure Gap Per Student calculated by subtracting average special education expenditures per pupil in the charter sector from average special education expenditures per pupil in the TPS sector. Total Revenue Disparity Per Student is taken from Table 1. Disparity Net of SPED is the SPED Expenditure Gap plus the Total Revenue Disparity, with negative numbers indicating an enduring gap favoring TPS. Disparity Explained by SPED (%) is the absolute value of the SPED Expenditure Gap Per Student divided by the Total Revenue Disparity Per Student. Oakland handles SPED support and reporting for charter schools differently than all other cities in our study. The Oakland Unified School District, the Alameda Office of Education, and Alameda Unified School District, all with charters located within the boundaries of Oakland, imbed financial data for the charters in each district’s financial reporting to the California Department of Education, just as Los Angeles Unified does. However, the two cities differ in the level of detail captured in the reporting. Los Angeles provides the same level of detailed reporting for the charter schools as it does for the district, making it possible to determine how much is spent on special education. Oakland Unified, however, does not report charter school financial data with the same level of detail as reported for the school district. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how much has been spent on special education for students attending Oakland charter schools. Local Public Revenue If special education enrollments do not explain the charter school funding gap in most of the areas in our sample, what does? Most local public school funding comes through property taxes. Because public charter schools serve students living in households within specific communities, we may expect that local funding will support a community’s children in whichever public schools they choose. Does this actually happen? As the seat of the federal government, the District of Columbia lacks local taxing authority. Table 4 and Figure 2 show the 2015-16 disparities in local public revenue for public charter schools and TPS in the 13 locations with local taxes. Zero of the 13 locations had local funding disparities favoring public 18 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

20 charter schools. All 13 areas demonstrated extreme disparities in the local funding of the two types of All 13 areas demonstrated public schools that disadvantaged charters. In New extreme disparities in the York City, Los Angeles, and Camden, charter school local funding of the two students received around half the amount of local types of public schools that public funding provided to those in TPS. In Atlanta and Oakland, charter students received about 80 disadvantaged charters. percent less in local funding. In Denver and Shelby County, students in public charter schools received a trivial amount of local per-pupil funding. Charter school students in the six remaining locations did not receive a single dollar of local public funding. On average, students in charter schools obtained around $8,000 less in local public funding per pupil than their traditional public school counterparts, a discrepancy of 74 percent. Wide disparities in local funding explain most or the entire charter school funding gap in all of our study’s locations except Los Angeles, Camden, and Washington, D.C., for which differences in other revenue sources are primarily at fault. Table 4: Total Local Public Revenue Disparity Per Student, 2015-16 Disparity Per District Per Student Charter Per Disparity Per Overall Funding State Ranked Regions Student ($) Student (%) Student Revenue Revenue Disparity Grade $17,173 $9,278 ($7,895) -46% D New York City NY CA $3,498 ($1,624) -46% F Los Angeles $1,874 $838 ($433) -52% NJ $405 F Camden $13,878 $2,866 ($11,012) F Atlanta GA -79% CA $10,293 $2,018 ($8,275) -80% Oakland F CO $9,025 $114 ($8,911) -99% D Denver TN Shelby ($4,736) -100% D $4,742 $6 $16,598 ($16,598) -100% MA $0 C Boston $8,246 $0 ($8,246) A Houston TX -100% IN $4,575 $0 ($4,575) -100% Indianapolis F AR $6,755 $0 ($6,755) -100% F Little Rock TX San Antonio ($3,722) -100% D $3,722 $0 OK $0 ($6,031) -100% Tulsa F $6,031 $2,859 ($7,958) -74% Weighted Average: $10,817 Disparity Per Student ($) is the Charter Per Student Revenue minus the District Per Student Revenue, so negative values Note: indicate a charter school funding disadvantage. Disparity Per Student (%) is the dollar disparity divided by District Per Student Revenue. Washington, D.C. does not have the capability to raise local funds for education and therefore is excluded from this table. 19 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

21 re 1: Di erence in Total Figu Revenue Per St udent ($) g 1 Ina tion Per Pupil Disparity justed -Ad 8 District s ate of greg ing Ag Favor FY03 to FY16 g 6 $- $16,000 $( 2,000) rs ) $( 4,000) $14,000 lla $( 6,000) y (in Do $12,000 $( 8,000) parit $7,000 g 7 $( 10, 000) $10,000 $6,000 venue Dis $( 12, 000) Re Washin gt . on, D.C $5,000 $( 14, 000) $8,000 Atlan ta On average, students in charter schools obtained around $( 16, 000) $4,000 $8,000 less in local public funding per pupil than their $6,000 $3,000 traditional public school counterparts, a discrepancy of India napolis New York Cit y $2,000 74 percent. $4,000 le s ge Los An g 2 Revenue Per St udent ($) cal Public re 2: Di erence in Lo Figu $1,000 De nver Boston $2,000 $0 Figure 2: Difference in Local Public Revenue Per Student ($) FY1 1 FY1 4 FY1 6 FY0 FY0 3 7 Houston $0 $0 FY1 1 FY1 7 FY1 3 FY0 6 FY0 4 ($2, 000) -$2,000 ta, egate of : Atlan Aggr Boston, DC, Denver, rs ) ($4, 000) , Lo olis ap Houston, Indian s Angele s, & NYC lla a t Atlan Denver st on Houston Bo ($6, 000) Indian ington, D.C. Wash New York Ci ty Los Angeles apolis y (in Do ($8, 000) parit ) ($10, 000 ($12, ) 000 venue Dis ) 000 ($14, Re ($16, 000 ) ($18, ) 000 State Public Revenue re 3: Di erence in St ate Public Revenue Per St udent ($) Figu State governments typically intervene in the funding of public education in the United States. Local $14,000 $5,100 g 3 funding is based on property values, which tend to fluctuate substantially from one locality to the next. g 8 g 9 Thus, severe school funding inequities could arise absent state-level intervention. We should expect $5,050 $12,000 state funding to close the large revenue gaps between charter and TPS at the local level. $5,000 $1 5, 000 As described in Table 5 and Figure 3, state-level revenue streams in 2015-16 tended to worsen funding $10,000 $1 0, 000 $4,950 inequities between the public charter and TPS sectors more than they improved them. On average, rs ) TPS received $385, or about 4 percent, more state-level per-pupil funding than public charter schools $5 ,000 lla $8,000 $4,900 in the same location. State-level education funding expanded the charter school funding gap in seven $0 of the cities analyzed in this report. Charter school students were allocated moderately less per-pupil y (in Do $4,850 $6,000 ($5, 000) funding than TPS from the state in Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and New York City. parit $4,800 Charter school students in Camden, New Jersey, received about 59 percent, or $21,413 per pupil, less in ($10, 000 ) $4,000 venue Dis $4,750 ) ($15, 000 Re 20 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City ) ($20, 000 $4,700 $2,000 ($25, 000 ) $4,650 $0 $4,600 3 FY1 4 6 FY1 FY1 4 FY1 FY1 6 FY1 3 -$2,000 Figu re 4: Di erence in Federal Public Revenue Per St udent ($) g 4 Denver Atlan Bo ta st on Cam den ck Little Ro apolis Indian Houston Los Angeles Oak Shelby Antonio San d New York Ci ty lan Tulsa Wash ington, D.C. $1 ,000 $5,100 $0 $5,050 rs ) lla ($1, 000) $5,000 ($2, 000) y (in Do $4,950 parit ($3, 000) $4,900 ($4, 000) venue Dis $4,850 Re ($5, 000) $4,800 ($6, 000) $4,750 $4,700 Revenue Per St udent ($) re 5: Di erence in Nonpublic Figu $4,650 g 5 $4,600 axis text 6 FY1 3 FY1 FY1 4 0, 000 $1 data labels $8 ,000 rs ) 68 69 69 lla $6 ,000 data labels .5pt boxes y (in Do ,000 $4 parit $2 ,000 venue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ($2, 000) boxes

22 state funding than TPS students. The relative state-level funding disparity was especially large in Shelby County, as public charters got 76 percent less per-pupil revenue from the state than TPS. The most equitable distribution of state funding was observed in Oakland, California, where the disparity was only 3 percent in favor of TPS. Equity in state funding in Oakland failed to remedy large inequities in charter school funding from other sources, however, as Oakland had the fourth-largest overall charter school funding gap in our study. In San Antonio, Little Rock, and Tulsa, charters received moderately more per-pupil funding than TPS from state sources, reducing the charter funding gap in those locations somewhat. Funding gaps were diminished substantially, but not eliminated, by state funding in Houston, Boston, and Denver, where charters received over twice as much state funding per pupil as TPS. Table 5: Total State Public Revenue Disparity Per Student, 2015-16 District Per Disparity Per Charter Per Disparity Per Overall Funding Ranked Regions State Student Revenue Student ($) Student Revenue Student (%) Disparity Grade TX Houston $7,356 $1,455 $8,811 A 506% C MA $4,600 $14,557 $9,958 217% Boston D Denver CO $3,094 $7,634 $4,540 147% D San Antonio TX $5,858 $8,378 $2,520 43% 40% F Tulsa OK $3,750 $5,231 $1,481 $1,408 24% F Little Rock AR $5,982 $7,390 F Atlanta $4,403 $4,717 $314 7% GA F CA $9,342 $9,062 ($280) -3% Oakland F Indianapolis IN $7,728 $6,898 ($830) -11% F Los Angeles CA $10,573 $8,398 ($2,175) -21% DC F Washington, D.C. $28,102 -31% $19,299 ($8,803) D NY $10,044 $5,857 ($4,187) -42% New York City F Camden NJ $36,283 $14,870 ($21,413) -59% -76% D TN $4,977 $1,189 ($3,788) Shelby Weighted Average: $8,853 $8,468 ($385) -4% Disparity Per Student ($) is the Charter Per Student Revenue minus the District Per Student Revenue, so negative values Note: indicate a charter school funding disadvantage. Disparity Per Student (%) is the dollar disparity divided by District Per Student Revenue. State funding of charters in Shelby County might be predominantly captured in the “Public Indeterminate” totals in Appendix D, as the revenue documentation for those schools did not always permit us to identify the specific government source of public funds. 21 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

23 Figu re 1: Di erence in Total Revenue Per St udent ($) g 1 Per Pupil Disparity Ina -Ad tion justed 8 District s ate of ing Ag Favor greg FY03 to FY16 g 6 $- $16,000 $( 2,000) rs ) $( 4,000) $14,000 lla $( 6,000) y (in Do $12,000 $( 8,000) parit $7,000 g 7 $( 10, 000) $10,000 $6,000 venue Dis $( 12, 000) Re . on, D.C Washin gt $5,000 $( 14, 000) $8,000 ta Atlan $( 16, 000) $4,000 $6,000 $3,000 India napolis New York Cit y $2,000 $4,000 ge le s Los An g 2 Figu re 2: Di erence in Lo cal Public Revenue Per St udent ($) $1,000 nver De Boston $2,000 $0 3 FY0 FY0 7 FY1 4 FY1 1 FY1 6 Houston $0 $0 FY1 4 FY1 1 FY0 3 FY0 6 FY1 7 ($2, 000) -$2,000 ta, egate of : Atlan Boston, DC, Denver, Aggr rs ) ($4, 000) s Angele s, & NYC olis ap Houston, Indian , Lo lla st on Houston Denver Bo a t Atlan ($6, 000) New York Ci ty Wash ington, D.C. Indian apolis Los Angeles y (in Do ($8, 000) parit ) 000 ($10, ) ($12, 000 venue Dis 000 ($14, ) Re ) ($16, 000 000 ) ($18, Revenue Per St udent ($) re 3: Di erence in St ate Public Figu $14,000 $5,100 g 3 g 8 g 9 $5,050 $12,000 Figure 3: Difference in State Public Revenue Per Student ($) $5,000 5, 000 $1 $10,000 $1 0, 000 $4,950 rs ) $5 ,000 lla $8,000 $4,900 $0 y (in Do $4,850 $6,000 ($5, 000) parit $4,800 ($10, ) 000 $4,000 venue Dis $4,750 ) 000 ($15, Re ) 000 ($20, $4,700 $2,000 000 ) ($25, $4,650 $0 $4,600 FY1 FY1 3 FY1 6 4 FY1 3 FY1 4 6 FY1 -$2,000 Figu Public Revenue Per St udent ($) re 4: Di erence in Federal Federal Public Revenue g 4 Bo Atlan ta Denver den Cam st on Since President Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993, all U.S. presidents have been vocal supporters Indian apolis Houston Los Angeles ck Little Ro of public charter schools. Thus, we might expect that federal revenues shrink whatever charter school d lan Oak New York Ci ty San Antonio Shelby ington, D.C. Wash Tulsa ,000 $1 funding gaps have been created by combined state and local funding disparities. $5,100 Table 6 and Figure 4 show the funding disparities between charters and TPS based solely on federal $0 $5,050 rs ) revenue. On average, students in charter schools received $666 less per student in federal funds than lla ($1, 000) $5,000 students in TPS, representing a 40 percent federal public charter school funding gap. Only Boston’s charter school sector received more federal funding, on a per-pupil basis, than its TPS, while Houston ($2, 000) y (in Do $4,950 charters obtained only 4 percent less than parit ($3, 000) Houston TPS. The federal government $4,900 Students in charter schools provided students in public charter ($4, 000) venue Dis $4,850 schools in the remaining 12 areas with received $666 less per student in Re ($5, 000) substantially less in federal revenue than it federal funds than students in TPS, $4,800 delivered to their TPS counterparts. Public ($6, 000) representing a 40 percent federal charter school students in six locations – $4,750 public charter school funding gap. Oakland, Camden, Denver, Shelby County, $4,700 Washington, D.C., and Atlanta – received less than half of the federal funding allocated to TPS per pupil. The federal funding inequities were re 5: Di erence in Nonpublic Revenue Per St udent ($) Figu $4,650 g 5 especially large in Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, where public charter schools received 72 to 75 percent $4,600 less in per-pupil funding from the federal government than nearby TPS. axis text FY1 FY1 FY1 6 3 4 0, 000 $1 22 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City data labels ,000 $8 rs ) 68 69 69 lla $6 ,000 data labels .5pt boxes y (in Do $4 ,000 parit $2 ,000 venue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ($2, 000) boxes

24 Figu re 1: Di erence in Total Revenue Per St udent ($) g 1 Per Pupil Disparity justed -Ad tion Ina ing Ag greg Favor ate of 8 District s FY03 to FY16 g 6 $- $16,000 $( 2,000) rs ) $( 4,000) $14,000 lla $( 6,000) y (in Do $12,000 $( 8,000) parit $7,000 g 7 $( 10, 000) $10,000 $6,000 venue Dis $( 12, 000) Re Washin gt . on, D.C $5,000 $( 14, 000) $8,000 ta Atlan $( 16, 000) $4,000 $6,000 $3,000 India napolis New York Cit y $2,000 $4,000 le s ge Los An g 2 re 2: Di erence in Lo Public Figu cal Revenue Per St udent ($) $1,000 De nver Boston $2,000 $0 6 FY0 FY1 7 FY0 1 FY1 4 FY1 3 Houston $0 $0 6 3 FY0 FY1 FY1 FY0 1 FY1 4 7 ($2, 000) -$2,000 egate of : Atlan ta, Boston, DC, Denver, Aggr rs ) ($4, 000) Houston, Indian s Angele s, & NYC , Lo olis ap lla t a Bo Atlan st on Denver Houston ($6, 000) Wash Indian apolis Los Angeles ington, D.C. New York Ci ty y (in Do ($8, 000) parit ) 000 ($10, ) 000 ($12, venue Dis 000 ) ($14, Re ($16, 000 ) ) 000 ($18, Table 6: Total Federal Public Revenue Disparity Per Student, 2015-16 Disparity Per District Per Charter Per Student Disparity Per Overall Funding Ranked Regions State Student ($) Student Revenue Revenue Student (%) Disparity Grade Revenue Per St udent ($) re 3: Di erence in St ate Public Figu $14,000 $5,100 g 3 $1,097 C Boston MA $1,322 $226 21% g 8 g 9 TX ($53) $1,343 $1,396 -4% Houston A $5,050 $12,000 Tulsa OK ($332) F $1,340 $1,007 -25% $1,555 AR ($522) F $1,033 -34% Little Rock $5,000 5, 000 $1 IN $1,207 F Indianapolis ($832) $2,039 -41% $10,000 0, 000 $1 $4,950 ($587) $699 D -46% NY New York City $1,286 rs ) $2,646 $1,426 D San Antonio TX ($1,220) -46% ,000 $5 lla $8,000 $4,900 $939 Los Angeles -50% F CA $1,863 ($924) $0 $877 $1,754 CA Oakland F -51% ($887) y (in Do $4,850 $6,000 NJ Camden -51% ($1,562) $3,057 $1,495 F ($5, 000) parit Denver D $698 -59% $1,686 CO ($989) $4,800 ($10, ) 000 D Shelby -61% ($1,297) $837 $2,134 TN $4,000 venue Dis $4,750 ($15, 000 ) DC $7,119 $1,968 F Washington, D.C. -72% ($5,151) Re F Atlanta $489 $1,978 GA ($1,488) -75% ) 000 ($20, $4,700 $2,000 -40% Weighted Average: $1,016 $ (666) $1,681 ) ($25, 000 Disparity Per Student ($) is the Charter Per Student Revenue minus the District Per Student Revenue, so negative values Note: $4,650 indicate a charter school funding disadvantage. Disparity Per Student (%) is the dollar disparity divided by District Per Student $0 Revenue. $4,600 FY1 6 FY1 3 FY1 4 FY1 6 3 FY1 FY1 4 -$2,000 Figu Public Revenue Per St udent ($) re 4: Di erence in Federal g 4 ta Bo st on Denver den Cam Atlan Figure 4: Difference in Federal Public Revenue Per Student ($) Houston Indian apolis Little Ro Los Angeles ck New York Ci ty San Antonio Shelby Oak d lan Tulsa ington, D.C. Wash $1 ,000 $5,100 $0 $5,050 rs ) lla ($1, 000) $5,000 ($2, 000) y (in Do $4,950 parit ($3, 000) $4,900 ($4, 000) venue Dis $4,850 Re ($5, 000) $4,800 ($6, 000) $4,750 $4,700 23 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City Revenue Per St udent ($) re 5: Di erence in Nonpublic Figu $4,650 g 5 $4,600 axis text 4 FY1 6 FY1 3 FY1 0, 000 $1 data labels $8 ,000 rs ) 68 69 69 lla ,000 $6 data labels .5pt boxes y (in Do ,000 $4 parit ,000 $2 venue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ($2, 000) boxes

25 Nonpublic Revenue Charter school critics often justify the presence of significant charter school funding gaps from public revenue sources, arguing that public charter schools more than make up the difference with 21 charitable donations. Both charter and traditional public schools are able to gain revenue through nonpublic sources such as food service fees, voluntary individual donations, and grants from charitable organizations. In our prior research on charter school funding equity, we determined that per-pupil revenue from nonpublic sources was nearly equal for students in the charter and TPS sectors, with 22 TPS holding a slight advantage. What was striking, however, was the fact that nonpublic revenue in the charter sector was highly skewed towards a small number of favored operators. Nearly two-thirds of public charter schools in that study received no revenue at all from nonpublic sources. What is the story regarding nonpublic revenue in the 14 locations in the primary sample for this study? Our previous analysis of these 14 locations found that public charter schools received 40 percent more in nonpublic funds per pupil than TPS in the 2013-14 school year. It appears that the charitable funding favoring public charter schools in these cities has increased since then. As shown in Table 7 and Figure 5, charter schools received about $655 more in nonpublic funding per pupil than TPS in 2015- 16, a nonpublic funding gap of 49 percent favoring charters. Twelve of the 14 locations had nonpublic revenue disparities favoring public charter schools. Where charters display a nonpublic funding advantage, these funds merely reduced the overall charter Charter schools received about $655 school funding gap slightly more in nonpublic funding per pupil because nonpublic funding than TPS in 2015-16, a nonpublic funding composed only 6.8 percent of gap of 49 percent favoring charters. all revenues in our sample of cities. The two locations with the largest public charter school nonpublic funding advantage were Washington, D.C., where TPS received $3,803 less per pupil, and Camden, New Jersey, where TPS secured $8,737 less per pupil. Little Rock and Denver had the most equity in nonpublic revenue, as public charter schools received about 8 percent more than TPS per pupil in those two cities. 21 See for example Miron, G., Mathis, W., & Welner, K. (2015). Review of separating fact and fiction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Batdorff, M., Cheng, A., Maloney, L., May, J. F., & Wolf, P. J. (2015). Buckets of water into the ocean: Non-public revenue in public charter 22 and traditional public schools. Fayetteville, AR: School Choice Demonstration Project. 24 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

26 Figu Revenue Per St udent ($) re 1: Di erence in Total g 1 Ina tion -Ad justed Per Pupil Disparity ate of ing Ag 8 District s Favor greg FY03 to FY16 g 6 $- $16,000 $( 2,000) rs ) $( 4,000) $14,000 lla $( 6,000) y (in Do $12,000 $( 8,000) parit $7,000 g 7 $( 10, 000) $10,000 $6,000 venue Dis $( 12, 000) Re Washin gt on, D.C . $5,000 $( 14, 000) $8,000 ta Atlan $( 16, 000) $4,000 $6,000 $3,000 India napolis New York Cit y $2,000 $4,000 Los An ge le s g 2 Public Revenue Per St udent ($) re 2: Di erence in Lo cal Figu $1,000 De nver Boston $2,000 $0 4 7 FY1 FY0 FY1 3 FY0 FY1 6 1 Houston $0 $0 FY1 FY0 7 FY1 4 FY1 6 FY0 3 1 ($2, 000) -$2,000 egate of : Atlan ta, Boston, DC, Denver, Aggr rs ) ($4, 000) s Angele s, & NYC ap Houston, Indian olis , Lo lla st on Denver Houston Atlan ta Bo ($6, 000) ington, D.C. is Los Angeles New York Ci ty Wash Indian apol y (in Do ($8, 000) parit ($10, ) 000 ) 000 ($12, venue Dis ) ($14, 000 Re ) 000 ($16, ) ($18, 000 Figu Revenue Per St udent ($) re 3: Di erence in St ate Public $14,000 $5,100 g 3 g 8 g 9 $5,050 $12,000 $5,000 5, 000 $1 $10,000 0, 000 $1 $4,950 rs ) ,000 $5 lla $8,000 $4,900 $0 y (in Do $4,850 $6,000 ($5, 000) parit $4,800 ) 000 ($10, $4,000 venue Dis $4,750 ($15, 000 ) Re ($20, 000 ) $4,700 $2,000 ) ($25, 000 $4,650 $0 $4,600 FY1 6 FY1 4 FY1 3 Table 7: Total Nonpublic Revenue Disparity Per Student, 2015-16 6 FY1 FY1 3 FY1 4 -$2,000 re 4: Di erence in Federal Public Revenue Per St udent ($) Figu g 4 District Per Disparity Per Disparity Per Charter Per Overall Funding Ranked Regions State den Bo ta Atlan Denver Cam st on Student Revenue Student (%) Student Revenue Student ($) Disparity Grade Indian apolis Little Ro ck Los Angeles Houston New York Ci ty Oak lan d San Antonio Shelby $3,803 2836% Washington, D.C. DC $134 $3,938 F Tulsa Wash ington, D.C. ,000 $1 $519 1683% F Camden NJ $9,256 $8,737 $5,100 $1,246 D $978 $268 365% Shelby TN $0 $5,050 $994 MA Boston C $4,543 $3,549 357% rs ) lla $1,666 $1,130 211% F Tulsa OK $536 ($1, 000) $5,000 113% New York City NY $1,401 $2,981 $1,580 D ($2, 000) y (in Do $426 A $885 Houston 93% TX $460 $4,950 parit $1,038 IN Indianapolis F 60% $626 $1,665 ($3, 000) $2,690 Oakland CA $1,943 F $747 38% $4,900 $174 38% GA $634 F Atlanta $461 ($4, 000) venue Dis $4,850 Re 8% D Denver $119 $1,534 $1,415 CO ($5, 000) $52 $625 AR Little Rock $678 8% F $4,800 D San Antonio TX $1,921 $1,130 ($791) -41% ($6, 000) -67% Los Angeles $1,960 $640 CA ($1,320) F $4,750 Weighted Average: $1,327 $1,982 $655 49% $4,700 Disparity Per Student ($) is the Charter Per Student Revenue minus the District Per Student Revenue, so negative Note: values indicate a charter school funding disadvantage. Disparity Per Student (%) is the dollar disparity divided by District Per re 5: Di erence in Nonpublic Revenue Per St udent ($) Figu $4,650 Student Revenue. g 5 $4,600 axis text Figure 5: Difference in Nonpublic Revenue Per Student ($) 4 3 FY1 FY1 6 FY1 0, 000 $1 data labels $8 ,000 rs ) 68 69 69 lla $6 ,000 data labels .5pt boxes y (in Do ,000 $4 parit $2 ,000 venue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ($2, 000) boxes 25 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

27 We are not always able to identify a revenue item’s specific source. If we know that the revenue is from government, but we cannot establish conclusively which level of government provided it, we classify it as “Public Indeterminate” funding. If we cannot confirm if the revenue came from public or nonpublic sources, we classify it as “Indeterminate”. All revenue received by the schools in a school sector are factored into the totals we presented in Table 1, including Public Indeterminate and Indeterminate funds. Because those categories of funds are unpredictable and nonspecific, we do not present tables of those totals in the text but, instead, display them in Appendix D by revenue type and as separate line items in the individual area profiles in Appendix C. Only 1.6 percent of the total revenues used in our analysis are “Indeterminate.” Longitudinal Results: 8 Cities Is the condition of the charter school funding gap in 2015-16 similar to past gaps? To explore that question, we provide a longitudinal analysis for eight locations in our study for which we have data from FY03 to FY16. Since FY14, six locations decreased funding disparities while two locations widened their charter school funding gaps (Figure 6). In particular, inflation-adjusted funding gaps closed by 45 percent in Washington, D.C., 42 percent in Boston, 31 percent in Los Angeles, 25 percent in Denver, and 3 percent in both Indianapolis and New York City from 2013-2014 to 2015-16. The charter school funding gap expanded during that period by 116 percent in Houston and 285 percent in Since FY14, six locations decreased Atlanta. In per-pupil dollars, the funding funding disparities while two gap closed in Washington, D.C. by $7,050 locations widened their charter during that period but expanded by school funding gaps (Figure 6). $5,586 in Atlanta. Funding inequity worsened dramatically in Atlanta from FY14 to FY16 because nonpublic funds dried up and charter school enrollment growth took place primarily in virtual charter schools. Atlanta charter schools received over $4,300 in nonpublic revenues per pupil in 2013-14, while they only obtained around $600 per pupil in nonpublic revenues in 2015-16. The local funding disadvantage for public charter schools also grew over those two years in Atlanta – from 72 to 79 percent. By FY16, student enrollment in Atlanta charter schools had risen to 24,326, a 297 percent increase over the FY14 enrollment. Most of the growth was due to the opening of a virtual charter school where enrollment reached 13,916, or 57 percent of the total charter student population in FY16. The virtual charter school received $6,121 per pupil in total funding in FY16 while APS charter schools authorized by Atlanta Public Schools received $16,029 in total funding and services. With a much greater proportion of the charter school population in a virtual charter school, which received dramatically less public and non-public funding than district-authorized charter schools, the charter school funding gap grew dramatically from FY14 to FY16 in Atlanta. 26 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

28 Unfortunately, the funding equity improvement in Washington, D.C. also is mostly due to unpredictable nonpublic revenues. Nonpublic per pupil revenues increased from $1,300 in FY14 to over $3,900 in FY16 for public charter schools in Washington, D.C. Similarly, With a much greater proportion of the while public charters in Shelby charter school population in a virtual County had a 20 percent funding charter school, which received dramatically disadvantage overall in FY16, they less public and non-public funding actually had an overall public charter school per pupil funding than district-authorized charter schools, advantage of 9 percent due to the charter school funding gap grew unusually high philanthropic dramatically from FY14 to FY16 in Atlanta. support back in FY14. Looking back further, since FY03, the charter school funding gap declined in three metropolitan areas in our study and grew in the other five. Over the past 13 years, the funding gap dropped in Boston, Houston, and Indianapolis, but grew in Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C. Inflation-adjusted funding disparities favoring TPS grew by over $1,000 per student between 2002-03 and 2015-16 in all five of these locations. In New York City, the inflation-adjusted per pupil funding disparity favoring TPS increased by about $2,800 while the disparity grew by about $4,700 per pupil in Washington, D.C. Figure 7 provides the weighted average of the charter school funding gap for Over the past 13 years, the funding these eight cities across the 13 years from gap dropped in Boston, Houston, FY03 to FY16. Public charter schools in and Indianapolis, but grew in Atlanta, these eight locations received an average Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, of $3,316 less in real inflation-adjusted and Washington, D.C. dollars per pupil than TPS in 2002-03. That funding gap grew to an average of $5,738 in 2006-07 and $6,391 in 2010-11. Between FY11 and FY14, the funding disparity favoring TPS declined by $576 per student. Between FY14 and FY16, the funding disparity shrunk again by $570 per student, a 10 percent reduction in funding inequity. Thirteen years after we first revealed that public charter schools receive less revenue than their TPS in these eight cities, the already large charter school funding gap has grown by 58 percent. Thirteen years after we first revealed that public charter schools receive less revenue than their TPS in these eight cities, the already large charter school funding gap has grown by 58 percent. 27 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

29 re 1 : D i erenc e in Total R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu flg 1 Ina tion justed Per Pupil D isparity -Ad Figure 6: Inflation-Adjusted Per Pupil Funding Gap Favoring TPS in 8 Cities, 2002-03 to 2015-16 Favor ing Ag greg ate of 8 D istrict s FY 03 to FY 1 6 flg 6 $- $ 1 6,000 $( 2,000) $( 4 ,000) $ 1 4 ,000 lla rs ) $( 6,000) $ 1 2,000 $( 8,000) parit y ( in Do $ 7 ,000 flg 7 $( 1 0, 000) $ 1 0,000 $ 6,000 venue Dis $( 1 2, 000) Re . W ash in gt on, D.C $ 5,000 $( 1 4, 000) $ 8,000 Atlan ta $( 1 6, 000) $ 4 ,000 $ 6,000 $ 3,000 India napolis N ew Y ork Cit y $ 2,000 $ 4 ,000 L os An ge le s flg 2 re 2: D i erenc e in Lo c al Pub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 1 ,000 nver De B oston $ 2,000 $ 0 FY0 FY1 3 FY0 7 FY1 1 6 FY1 4 H ouston $ 0 $0 FY1 4 6 FY1 FY0 7 1 FY1 FY0 3 ( $ 2, 000) -$ 2,000 ta, B oston, D C, D enver, Aggr egate of : Atlan ( $ 4, 000) H ouston, Indian ap olis , Lo s Angele s, & N Y C lla rs ) H ouston ta Atlan D enver st on Bo ( $ 6, 000) W ash ington, D . C. N ew Y ork Ci ty L os Angeles apolis Indian ( $ 8, 000) For the longitudinal analysis shown in Figures 6 and 7 adjustments were made to the current analysis data to conform to Note: parit y ( in Do ( $ 10, 000 ) the methodology in our prior revenue studies, from which the 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2014 data are drawn. For these figures only, Adult Education and Pre-K revenues and enrollments were removed from FY2014 and FY2016 data to enhance the comparability ) 000 ( $ 12, of the numbers. Also removed for these figures only were bond and loan proceeds and any identified “in-kind” revenues. venue Dis ) ( $ 14, 000 Re ) ( $ 16, 000 ) 000 ( $ 18, re 3: D i erenc e in St ate Pub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 1 4 ,000 $ 5,1 00 flg 3 28 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City flg 8 flg 9 $ 5,050 $ 1 2,000 $ 5,000 $1 5, 000 $ 1 0,000 $1 0, 000 $ 4 ,9 50 $5 ,000 lla rs ) $ 8,000 $ 4 ,9 00 $0 $ 4 ,850 $ 6,000 ( $ 5, 000) parit y ( in Do $ 4 ,800 000 ( $ 10, ) $ 4 ,000 venue Dis $ 4 ,7 50 ) 000 ( $ 15, Re ) ( $ 20, 000 $ 4 ,7 00 $ 2,000 000 ( $ 25, ) $ 4 ,650 $ 0 $ 4 ,600 FY1 3 4 FY1 6 FY1 FY1 FY1 4 FY1 3 6 -$ 2,000 Figu re 4 : D i erenc e in Federal Pub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) flg 4 st on D enver den Bo ta Atlan Cam H ouston L os Angeles c k L ittle Ro apolis Indian Sh elb y Oak N ew Y ork Ci ty San Antonio lan d Tulsa W ash ington, D . C. $1 ,000 $ 5,1 00 $0 $ 5,050 lla rs ) ( $ 1, 000) $ 5,000 ( $ 2, 000) $ 4 ,9 50 parit y ( in Do ( $ 3, 000) $ 4 ,9 00 ( $ 4, 000) venue Dis $ 4 ,850 Re ( $ 5, 000) $ 4 ,800 ( $ 6, 000) $ 4 ,7 50 $ 4 ,7 00 re 5: D i erenc e in N onpub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 4 ,650 flg 5 $ 4 ,600 axis text FY1 4 3 FY1 6 FY1 $1 0, 000 data labels $8 ,000 68 69 69 lla rs ) ,000 $6 data labels .5pt boxes ,000 $4 parit y ( in Do $2 ,000 venue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ( $ 2, 000) boxes

30 Figu re 1 : D i erenc e in T otal R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) flg 1 justed Ina tion Per Pupil D isparity -Ad greg ate of 8 D istrict s Fav or ing Ag FY03 to FY1 6 flg 6 $- $ 1 6,000 $( 2 ,000) $( 4 ,000) $ 1 4 ,000 lla rs ) $( 6,000) Figure 7: Aggregate Inflation-Adjusted Per Pupil Funding Gap for 8 Cities, FY03 to FY16 $ 1 2 ,000 $( 8,000) parit y ( in Do $ 7,000 flg 7 $( 1 0, 000) $ 1 0,000 $ 6,000 v enue Dis $( 1 2, 000) Re . W ash in gt on, D.C $ 5 ,000 $( 1 4, 000) $ 8,000 Atlan ta $( 1 6, 000) $ 4 ,000 $ 6,000 $ 3,000 India napolis N ew York Cit y $ 2 ,000 $ 4 ,000 ge le s L os An flg 2 re 2 : D i erenc e in Lo c al Pub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 1 ,000 nv er De B oston $ 2 ,000 $ 0 3 FY0 7 6 1 FY1 4 FY0 FY1 FY1 H ouston $ 0 Note: Weighted average of the per-pupil revenue gap in Atlanta, Boston, Washington D.C., Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Los $0 FY0 7 FY0 3 6 FY1 1 FY1 4 FY1 Angeles, and New York City. ( $ 2, 000) -$ 2 ,000 ta, B oston, D C, D env er, Aggr egate of : Atlan ( $ 4, 000) H ouston, Indian ap olis , Lo s Angele s, & N YC lla rs ) a Atlan t Bo H ouston D env er st on Longitudinal Results: 14 Cities ( $ 6, 000) N ew York Ci ty Indian apolis L os Angeles W ash ington, D . C. We now have sufficient data to perform a longitudinal analysis for all 14 cities from our main evaluation. ( $ 8, 000) We have funding data for these locations from three time periods: FY13, FY14, and FY16. As shown in parit y ( in Do ) 000 ( $ 10, Figure 8 below, inflation-adjusted funding gaps favoring TPS widened between 2013-14 and 2015-16 in ) 000 ( $ 12, seven cities and shrunk in seven cities. Funding gaps grew in Atlanta, Houston, Little Rock, New York v enue Dis 000 ) ( $ 14, Re City, San Antonio, Shelby, and Tulsa – while they ) 000 ( $ 16, shrunk in Boston, Camden, Denver, Indianapolis, Funding gaps have grown in Los Angeles, Oakland, and Washington, D.C. 000 ( $ 18, ) more cities (9) than they have Funding gaps have grown in more cities (9) than shrunk (5) since 2012-13. they have shrunk (5) since 2012-13. Funding gaps have grown since that time in Atlanta, Camden, Los Angeles, New York City, Oakland, San Antonio, Shelby County, Little Rock, and Tulsa, while they have re 3: D i erenc e in St ate Pub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 1 4 ,000 $ 5 ,1 00 flg 3 shrunk in Boston, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, and Washington, D.C. flg 8 flg 9 $ 5 ,05 0 As shown in Figure 9 below, inflation-adjusted funding gaps have slightly decreased across the 14 cities $ 1 2 ,000 since 2012-13 but increased since 2013-14. Specifically, inflation-adjusted funding gaps – weighted by $ 5 ,000 5, 000 $1 student enrollment in each location – have shrunk by about 2 percent since 2012-13 and widened by $ 1 0,000 about 0.03 percent since 2013-14. $1 0, 000 $ 4 ,9 5 0 ,000 $5 lla rs ) $ 8,000 29 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City $ 4 ,9 00 $0 $ 4 ,85 0 $ 6,000 ( $ 5, 000) parit y ( in Do $ 4 ,800 000 ) ( $ 10, $ 4 ,000 v enue Dis $ 4 ,75 0 ) 000 ( $ 15, Re ( $ 20, 000 ) $ 4 ,700 $ 2 ,000 000 ) ( $ 25, $ 4 ,65 0 $ 0 $ 4 ,600 6 FY1 3 FY1 4 FY1 6 FY1 4 FY1 3 FY1 -$ 2 ,000 Figu re 4 : D i erenc e in Federal Pub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) flg 4 den ta Bo Atlan D env er Cam st on L os Angeles H ouston Indian apolis L ittle Ro c k lan Oak N ew York Ci ty S h elb y S an Antonio d T ulsa W ash ington, D . C. ,000 $1 $ 5 ,1 00 $0 $ 5 ,05 0 lla rs ) ( $ 1, 000) $ 5 ,000 ( $ 2, 000) $ 4 ,9 5 0 parit y ( in Do ( $ 3, 000) $ 4 ,9 00 ( $ 4, 000) v enue Dis $ 4 ,85 0 Re ( $ 5, 000) $ 4 ,800 ( $ 6, 000) $ 4 ,75 0 $ 4 ,700 re 5 : D i erenc e in N onpub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 4 ,65 0 flg 5 $ 4 ,600 axis text 6 3 FY1 FY1 FY1 4 $1 0, 000 data labels $8 ,000 68 69 69 lla rs ) $6 ,000 data labels .5pt boxes ,000 $4 parit y ( in Do $2 ,000 v enue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ( $ 2, 000) boxes

31 Figu re 1 : D i erenc e in Total R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) flg 1 Ina tion Per Pupil D isparity justed -Ad ate of 8 D istrict s greg Favor ing Ag FY0 3 to FY1 6 flg 6 $- $ 1 6,0 0 0 $( 2 ,0 00) $( 4,0 00) $ 1 4,0 0 0 lla rs ) $( 6,0 00) $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 $( 8,0 00) parit y ( in Do $ 7 ,0 0 0 flg 7 $( 1 0, 000) $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 6,0 0 0 venue Dis $( 1 2, 000) Re . W ash in gt on, D.C $ 5 ,0 0 0 $( 1 4, 000) $ 8,0 0 0 Atlan ta $( 1 6, 000) $ 4,0 0 0 $ 6,0 0 0 $ 3,0 0 0 India napolis N ew York Cit y $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 4,0 0 0 L os An ge le s flg 2 re 2 : D i erenc e in Lo c al Pub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 1 ,0 0 0 nver De B oston $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 0 FY1 7 FY0 3 6 FY1 4 FY1 FY0 1 H ouston $ 0 $0 6 FY1 FY1 4 FY0 3 1 FY0 7 FY1 ( $ 2, 000) -$ 2 ,0 0 0 Aggr egate of : Atlan ta, B oston, D C, D enver, ( $ 4, 000) H ouston, Indian ap olis , Lo s Angele s, & N YC lla rs ) Atlan a Bo st on D enver H ouston t ( $ 6, 000) N ew York Ci ty apolis Indian L os Angeles W ash ington, D . C. ( $ 8, 000) parit y ( in Do 000 ) ( $ 10, ( $ 12, 000 ) venue Dis 000 ( $ 14, ) Re ) 000 ( $ 16, ) ( $ 18, 000 Figure 8: Inflation-Adjusted Per Pupil Funding Gap Favoring TPS in 14 Cities, FY13 to FY16 Figu re 3: D i erenc e in St ate Pub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) $ 1 4,0 0 0 $ 5 ,1 0 0 flg 3 flg 8 flg 9 $ 5 ,0 5 0 $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 $ 5 ,0 0 0 5, 000 $1 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 0, 000 $1 $ 4,9 5 0 $5 ,0 00 lla rs ) $ 8,0 0 0 $ 4,9 0 0 $0 $ 4,85 0 $ 6,0 0 0 ( $ 5, 000) parit y ( in Do $ 4,80 0 000 ( $ 10, ) $ 4,0 0 0 venue Dis $ 4,7 5 0 ) 000 ( $ 15, Re 000 ) ( $ 20, $ 4,7 0 0 $ 2 ,0 0 0 000 ( $ 25, ) $ 4,65 0 $ 0 $ 4,60 0 6 4 FY1 3 FY1 FY1 FY1 3 6 FY1 4 FY1 -$ 2 ,0 0 0 Figu re 4: D i erenc e in Federal Pub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) flg 4 Atlan ta Bo st on Cam den D enver c k L ittle Ro apolis Indian H ouston L os Angeles San Sh elb y N ew York Ci ty Oak lan d Antonio Tulsa W ash ington, D . C. $1 ,0 00 $ 5 ,1 0 0 $0 $ 5 ,0 5 0 lla rs ) ( $ 1, 000) $ 5 ,0 0 0 ( $ 2, 000) $ 4,9 5 0 parit y ( in Do ( $ 3, 000) $ 4,9 0 0 ( $ 4, 000) venue Dis $ 4,85 0 Re ( $ 5, 000) $ 4,80 0 ( $ 6, 000) $ 4,7 5 0 $ 4,7 0 0 re 5 : D i erenc e in N onpub lic R evenue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 4,65 0 flg 5 30 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City $ 4,60 0 axis text 4 FY1 6 FY1 3 FY1 $1 0, 000 data labels $8 ,0 00 68 69 69 lla rs ) $6 ,0 00 data labels .5pt boxes $4 ,0 00 parit y ( in Do $2 ,0 00 venue Dis $0 Re 134 134 134 ( $ 2, 000) boxes

32 re 1 : D i erenc e in T otal R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu flg 1 Per Pupil D isparity justed -Ad Ina tion greg Fav or ing Ag ate of 8 D istrict s FY0 3 to FY1 6 flg 6 $- $ 1 6,0 0 0 $( 2 ,0 00) $( 4,0 00) $ 1 4,0 0 0 lla rs ) $( 6,0 00) $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 $( 8 ,0 00) parit y ( in Do $ 7 ,0 0 0 flg 7 $( 1 0, 000) $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 6,0 0 0 v enue Dis $( 1 2, 000) Re . W ash in gt on, D.C $ 5 ,0 0 0 $( 1 4, 000) $ 8 ,0 0 0 Atlan ta $( 1 6, 000) $ 4,0 0 0 $ 6,0 0 0 $ 3,0 0 0 India napolis N ew York Cit y $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 4,0 0 0 L os An ge le s flg 2 re 2 : D i erenc e in Lo c al Pub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu $ 1 ,0 0 0 De nv er B oston $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 0 7 FY1 FY0 FY1 4 FY1 6 3 FY0 1 H ouston $ 0 $0 4 FY0 7 FY1 1 FY1 FY0 FY1 6 3 ( $ 2, 000) -$ 2 ,0 0 0 Aggr egate of : Atlan ta, B oston, D C, D env er, ( $ 4, 000) H ouston, Indian ap olis , Lo s Angele s, & N YC lla rs ) ta H ouston st on Bo D env er Atlan ( $ 6, 000) N ew York Ci ty Indian apolis L os Angeles W ash ington, D . C. ( $ 8, 000) parit y ( in Do ( $ 10, ) 000 ) ( $ 12, 000 v enue Dis ( $ 14, 000 ) Re ( $ 16, 000 ) ) 000 ( $ 18, Figure 9: Aggregate Inflation-Adjusted Per Pupil Funding Gap for 14 Cities, FY13 to FY16 Figu re 3: D i erenc e in St ate Pub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) $ 1 4,0 0 0 $ 5 ,1 0 0 flg 3 flg 8 flg 9 $ 5 ,0 5 0 $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 $ 5 ,0 0 0 5, 000 $1 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $1 0, 000 $ 4,95 0 ,0 00 $5 lla rs ) $ 8 ,0 0 0 $ 4,90 0 $0 $ 4,8 5 0 $ 6,0 0 0 ( $ 5, 000) parit y ( in Do $ 4,8 0 0 ) 000 ( $ 10, $ 4,0 0 0 v enue Dis $ 4,7 5 0 ) 000 ( $ 15, Re ) 000 ( $ 20, $ 4,7 0 0 $ 2 ,0 0 0 000 ) ( $ 25, $ 4,65 0 $ 0 $ 4,60 0 FY1 FY1 3 FY1 4 6 4 FY1 3 FY1 FY1 6 -$ 2 ,0 0 0 re 4: D i erenc e in Federal Pub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) Figu flg 4 D env er st on Bo den ta Atlan Cam Note: Weighted average of the per-pupil revenue gap in Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Washington D.C., Denver, Houston, apolis c k L os Angeles Indian L ittle Ro H ouston Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Oakland, Shelby, Tulsa, San Antonio, Little Rock, and New York City. N ew York Ci ty S h elb y Oak lan d S an Antonio W ash ington, D . C. T ulsa $1 ,0 00 $ 5 ,1 0 0 $0 $ 5 ,0 5 0 The Special Case of New Orleans lla rs ) ( $ 1, 000) $ 5 ,0 0 0 23 As the Hurricane Katrina drastically changed the public school system in New Orleans, Louisiana. ( $ 2, 000) $ 4,95 0 parit y ( in Do government rebuilt the system from 2005 to 2007, the state-managed Recovery School District ( $ 3, 000) $ 4,90 0 governed an increasing proportion of New Orleans public schools as charters while maintaining a ( $ 4, 000) v enue Dis $ 4,8 5 0 Re few traditional public schools. The Orleans Parish School Board continued to manage less than a ( $ 5, 000) $ 4,8 0 0 dozen traditional public schools, most of which required high student test scores to enter, along ( $ 6, 000) with an increasing number of public charter schools that the Board itself authorized. Meanwhile, $ 4,7 5 0 hundreds of millions of federal emergency management dollars earmarked for education flowed into $ 4,7 0 0 New Orleans annually through the Recovery School District and Orleans Parish School Board. The Figu re 5 : D i erenc e in N onpub lic R ev enue Per St udent ( $ ) $ 4,65 0 flg 5 subsequent funding of public schools became radically different in the Crescent City than in other $ 4,60 0 axis text cities, and the scale of federal funds supporting the rebuilding and operation of New Orleans schools FY1 6 4 FY1 FY1 3 $1 0, 000 has been uniquely massive, continuing even through FY16 with $71.3 million that year from the Federal data labels Emergency Management Agency. The Orleans Parish School Board, which is the primary administrator ,0 00 $8 68 69 69 lla rs ) of the “traditional public school” sector as it exists in New Orleans, clearly is passing through some ,0 00 $6 data labels .5pt boxes of those hundreds of millions of dollars in federal support to public charter schools in the Crescent ,0 00 $4 parit y ( in Do ,0 00 $2 23 15(4), Fall, See Harris, D. (2015). Good news for New Orleans: Early evidence shows reforms lifting student achievement. Education Next v enue Dis pp. 8-15. $0 Re 134 134 134 ( $ 2, 000) boxes 31 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

33 City. Such pass-throughs to charters, which we can account for in other metropolitan areas, are not sufficiently documented in the case of New Orleans for us to identify them reliably. Therefore, we exclude New Orleans from our aggregate analyses regarding the charter school funding gap in metropolitan areas to prevent this outlier case from drastically distorting our results. Nonetheless, we highlight the interesting findings from this outlier location in Table 8. With these cautions in mind, we find that, overall, whether we control for special education expenditures or not, New Orleans public charter schools received about 85 percent less in per-pupil funding than New Orleans traditional public schools in 2015-16. The student funding disparity between New Orleans charters and TPS that year was almost twice the size of the last-place city (Atlanta) in our 14-location analysis. Students in public charter schools in New Orleans received over 89 percent less local public funding than TPS, consistent with the other metropolitan areas in our study, none of which demonstrated a local funding advantage for charters. New Orleans public charter schools obtained 34 percent more state public funding than TPS, 94 percent less federal public funding, and 90 percent less nonpublic funding. With the exception of state and local funding, the revenue gaps that either favor or disfavor (federal and nonpublic) public charter schools are more extreme in New Orleans than any other metropolitan area we study. Table 8: Revenue Disparities for New Orleans, FY16 District Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student Type Per Student Revenue Revenue ($) (%) Total $80,838 $12,490 $(68,348) -85% Total without SPED $77,059 $11,203 $(65,856) -86% Local Public $4,179 $(33,820) -89% $37,999 State Public $3,799 $5,088 $1,289 34% Federal Public $31,402 $1,837 $(29,566) -94% Nonpublic $6,335 $633 $(5,702) -90% Public Indeterminate $(4,008) $658 $4,666 -116% $96 -98% $(5,214) Indeterminate $5,310 32 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

34 Conclusion Public charter schools increasingly are part of both the national conversation about education policy and the local urban scene in America. Previous studies of public charter schools have examined their achievement effects focused on both the state and metropolitan levels, and funding disparities focused on the state levels. This is the second study of funding inequities to concentrate on revenue disparities between charters and traditional public schools where charters are most common across the country: metropolitan areas. Because our 14 primary locations include at least three years of data, we include a longitudinal component to our study. Our data regarding the charter school funding gap were painstakingly collected from state financial data collections and audited reports regarding the 2016 fiscal year. Thirteen out of 14 metropolitan areas in our study received a C or lower grade for charter school funding equity. Houston, Texas, demonstrated the greatest revenue balance between charters and traditional public schools, as charters on average received 95 percent of the per-pupil funding average of TPS. Boston public charter schools were underfunded relative to their TPS by 12 percent, and it got worse for charters from there. Public charter schools in Camden, New Jersey, received an average of $14,671, or 36 percent, less in per-pupil funding than TPS. Public charter schools in Atlanta, Georgia, received an average of $8,894 less in per-pupil funding than TPS in that city, representing a 49 percent funding inequity. Differences in the rates of enrolling students with special educational needs fully explained the charter school funding gap in only one city: Boston. For the other 13 cities in our study, accounting for differential funding for students with special educational needs still leaves unexplained revenue gaps that favor TPS. A dearth of local education funding contributes mightily to the charter school funding gap in all locations studied here except three. Camden, New Jersey, only underfunds public charters by about $433 per student in terms of local revenues. In Los Angeles, only about one-third of the total disparity is due to differences in local revenues received per pupil. In Washington, D.C., all non-federal public funds come from the state education agency. State funding streams shrink the charter school funding gap in seven cities and widen it in seven locations. The average effect of state revenues on the charter funding gap for our 14 metropolitan areas is to increase it by about 4 percent. Federal education revenues, on average, worsen the charter school funding discrepancies as do nonpublic sources of funding, which vary dramatically across the 14 locations. For three of the cities we have studied for 13 years – Boston, Houston, and Indianapolis – the charter school funding gap declined from 2002-03 to 2015-16. For five other cities – Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C. – the funding gap increased over that period. Across the eight cities, we also found that overall per-pupil disparities decreased by about 10 percent from 2013-14 to 2015-16. Taking the longer view, however, the charter school funding gap increased by 58 percent 33 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

35 between 2002-03 and 2015-16. Across all 14 locations in our study, in the three years from 2012-13 to 2015-16, funding gaps grew in more cities (9) than they shrank (5). Inflation-adjusted funding gaps narrowed by a mere 2 percent since 2012-13 but widened by 0.03 percent since 2013-14. Although we originally intended to include New Orleans in the main sections of our revenue study, the unique ways that public schools are funded in that city and the massive amounts of federal emergency aid that have flowed into it continuously since 2005 make it such an outlier case that we were forced to discuss it separately. Our careful analysis of funding for public charter schools and TPS in 15 metropolitan areas has revealed much about school funding inequities in the city. Public policies in all but one location we examined, Houston, resulted in the inequitable funding of students in public charter schools in 2015-16. Two other cities with reasonably equitable charter school funding totals in 2013-14, Shelby County and Atlanta, experienced significant charter funding gaps in 2015-16. In both locations, much of the nonpublic funding that previously brought them above or close to funding equity went away in subsequent years. In Atlanta, the launch of a large virtual charter school pulled down the per-pupil funding average for the charter sector. These two cases of approximate funding equity lost underscore our main policy recommendation that all public funds should follow every K-12 child to whichever public school they choose to attend. State policymakers have the authority, opportunity, and responsibility to achieve equal total funding of public school students in their states. They have the authority because federal law delegates most education decisions to state governments. The ability of states to eliminate the charter school funding gap in their jurisdiction is especially strong given the accountability flexibility introduced by the recent replacement of No Child Left Behind with the Every Student Succeeds Act. State policymakers have the opportunity to achieve equal total funding of public school students by designing a funding formula whereby they first establish a general system of needs-based funding weights – for student characteristics such as special needs, low-income, State policymakers have the English Language Learner, and rural authority, opportunity, and location – and then funnel 100% of public responsibility to achieve equal total school funding through that formula, regardless of whether the school the funding of public school students student is attending is a public charter in their states. or a traditional public school. Every public school student needs to be educated in an adequate school facility, so capital funds, like operational funds, should be allocated equally to charters and TPS on a per-student basis. Any categorical aid that is designated by law to go 34 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

36 exclusively to one public school sector but not the other should be compensated for by separate state appropriations that re-balance the scales. State policy makers should be held accountable for the degree to which they achieve equal total funding across public school sectors, using a formula that adjusts appropriately for varying student needs, because ensuring that every public school student receives the public funding Only with equal total funding of that they need, regardless of sector, is students in public education can simply the right thing to do. Charter school we be confident that children will funding gaps need not and should not be not be valued less simply because a permanent part of the funding of public they are being educated in a schools. public charter school. In sum, our studies of the ebbs and flows of the charter school funding gap in the U.S. continue to point towards a single conclusion. Only with equal total funding of students in public education can we be confident that children will not be valued less simply because they are being educated in a public charter school. 35 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

37 Appendix A. Methodology data analyzed for districts and charter schools are as of the Location Selection same date, FY16, all data are properly matched based on The team selected 15 metropolitan areas for analysis, based reporting time period. on one of two criteria: the concentration of charter schools The analytic team did not rely upon finance data or within an area or the potential for charter school growth demographic data collected by Federal agencies, except in there. Locations represent selected cities or counties very rare cases where the data are not available from state used as an analysis domain for aggregating district data and local sources. Data sourced from Federal agencies and geographically and demographically similar charter have gone through extensive aggregation and reporting school data for comparative purposes. The objective of processes that tend to be aggregated to the point where our location selection is to match district students with there is insufficient specificity to be useful for our analysis, charter students by educational setting and student need. and where we have seen reporting errors when checked Locations are used as a proxy for urban/metropolitan against state sources. Due to lack of enrollment data for settings. They can include a single district or multiple Title I and students qualifying for Free & Reduced Price districts, and include geographically related multiple Meals from some states, Federal NCES data were used for charter schools. The study provides district and charter these special enrollment statistics for Table 2 in the study. revenue totals and funding disparity amounts for each New Orleans is excluded from the national averages and location. disparity calculations. State funding and accounting for charter schools since Hurricane Katrina has been unusual Fiscal Year in the Crescent City and not representative of patterns or We gathered publicly available revenue data for the 2015- practices in other states. 16 fiscal year (FY14). Because states differ in the fiscal year used for their public schools, we attempted to select the Data from Various Unique State Sources, fiscal year that most closely matched the 2015-16 school year. We refer to that year throughout this report as “FY Analyzed into Comparative Datasets 2016.” In each state, we encountered a maze of web sites, reports, audits, and other information that, while extremely Data Gathering challenging to piece together, ultimately provided the best sources of primary data for understanding and Source records were acquired directly from official state analysis of funding levels and comparisons. By using department of education records, and from independently each state’s individual accounting system, we were able audited financial statements when a state does not to isolate revenue streams for inclusion/exclusion to collect financial data. For New York City, we used detailed accommodate our consistent methodology and to make expenditure data from the New York City Education valid comparisons across locations. Department due to the greater level of detail available. We use the most reliable, most detailed, official records We began our research on state web sites, searching for available. The same data and analysis standards for the financial data reported by local, state, federal, and other past three revenue studies were applied for each location revenue categories. Though many states provided some in the study. form of revenue data, often the data existed only for school districts (not charters), or the data did not conform to the Revenues and expenditures were collected from many classifications used in other states. In those cases, we used sources, from state and federal agencies where these additional data sources to develop conforming revenue data are kept, as well as from audits. After the FY16 figures. In instances where the state did not collect charter school year concluded, the team waited 18 months to school revenue data, we used independent audits of begin researching this project to allow state departments financial data and sometimes federal Form 990. of education and charter schools time to produce and submit all of their official financial records, Annual We gathered enrollment data from state education Financial Reports, independent audits, enrollment department web sites. We also obtained funding formula statistics, and other data. The methodology matches a guidelines for both districts and charters for FY 2015-16. state’s Department of Education’s (DOE) records of school district revenues to the same fiscal year of data drawn from independent audits for the charter schools. Because all 36 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

38 Appendix A — cont. official fall count day. Depending on a state’s particular Analysis of Revenues, Expenditures, method of reporting enrollment, the official count Inclusions and Exclusions, Demographic could be either Average Daily Attendance (ADA) or Average Daily Membership (ADM). Context We studied revenues and special education expenditures Comparable Longitudinal Data: This analysis ● for this report. Our mission was to examine how charter includes revenues and enrollments related to Adult schools are treated in state public finance systems, so Education and Pre-K. Also included are charter school we focused on how much money schools receive and, contributions for the purpose of building schools secondarily, how much of their revenue they spent on (or other capital items), and similarly charter (if any) special education services. We looked for the following and district bond and loan proceeds for the purpose data and supporting detail: of building schools, excluding proceeds resulting ● Revenues: We included all revenues received by districts from restructuring of debt. Our previous Revenue and public charter schools. Our goal was to determine Study methodology for fiscal years 2003, 2007, and the total amount of revenue received to run all facets 2011 excluded bond and loan proceeds and Adult of a school system, regardless of source. For charter Education and Pre-K to enhance entire state-to- schools, we included one-time revenues associated state comparability in an environment with varied with starting the school, such as the federal Public educational settings. We changed our methodology Charter School Program and, in some cases, state for FY 2014 and FY 2016, making it more inclusive of and private grants. Fund transfers are not considered all revenues, because it is common for all schools in revenue items, and are not included in the analysis. urban educational settings to provide these auxiliary services and to take on debt for building construction, Arguably, one-time revenues could have been excluded renovation, and maintenance. For the longitudinal since they are not part of a charter school’s recurring analysis shown in FIG. 6 adjustments were made to revenues. However, they are a notable part of the the current analysis data to conform to the Revenue funding story for the charter sector; when considering Study methodology. For FIG. 6 only, Adult Education how much money is provided to run charter schools, and Pre-K revenues and enrollments were removed these revenues cannot be and were not ignored. from FY2014 data. Also removed, for FIG. 6 only, were Furthermore, we also included onetime grants of bond and loan proceeds and any identified “in-kind” various kinds to districts. revenues. ● Exclusion of Revenue: The only revenue item we Funds initially received by traditional public schools excluded from our analysis was funds resulting from that were passed along to charters usually were flagged the restructuring of debt, as those are not “new as pass-through funds in the documentation we used revenues” but merely a re-packaging of existing assets to determine charter school revenue. In some cases we and obligations. were able to identify additional cases of TPS providing Selection of Schools: All charter schools in each locality ● services to charter students, usually involving special were included in this study with the exception of education, through examining expenditure data. In schools for which we could not obtain valid revenue all cases where we were able to determine that TPS and enrollment data. If we could not obtain revenue funds either passed through to charters or were spent data, the enrollments for those schools were excluded on charter school students we counted that as charter from the analysis. If we could not obtain enrollment school revenue and not TPS revenue. For example, data, the revenues for that school were excluded from the New York City school district made $246 million in the analysis. in-kind expenditures supporting the charter schools in the city in FY16. We reduced the district’s revenue by Demographic Data: To better understand the funding ● $246 million and increased the charter sector total by gaps in each location, we collected data on students the same amount, as that revenue supported charter eligible for free or reduced price lunch programs, students. students that were English Language Learners, and where available, special education programs. These ● Enrollment: Where more than one form of enrollment data appear in Table 2. Because some schools choose data were available, we used the figures related to the 37 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

39 Appendix A — cont. not to participate in the free and reduced price lunch Negative Revenue Amounts program even though they enroll significant numbers If an analyst backs out revenue amounts for items that of low-income children, these data exclude district and are exclusions based on the revenue study methodology, charter schools that reported zero free and reduced the actual line item amounts are removed, flagged to be price lunch students. excluded in totals, or a negative revenue item is added to the file. The method used is dependent upon the Revenue Source Classifications specificity of the data record available to the analyst and The revenue analysis classifies revenues by source. The six based on the nature of the adjustment and data structure. source classifications – which apply to both districts and When any adjustment amount is added to the file it is charter schools -- include the following: added to the most appropriate source category and is specific to districts versus charter schools. – Revenues whose origins are federal taxation Federal ● and public usage fees. These revenues may include Negative revenue amounts can occur when one side of federal impact aid, Title I, mineral rights and access an accounting entry is classified into one source category payments, federal charter school startup revenues, and the other side of the accounting entry is classified into ARRA funds, and federal “State Fiscal Stabilization a different source category. Negative revenue amounts Fund” grants, and any other obviously federal revenue. occur naturally in most financial systems for a variety of reasons. They have a small net effect on the categorical State – Revenues whose origins are state taxation and ● totals for Federal, State, Local, and Other revenues used in public licensing and usage fees. These revenues may this study. originate from sales taxes, property taxes, licensing fees, auto registrations, lotteries, or any other state origins. Expenditures ● Local – Revenues whose origins are local taxation and public per capita and usage fees. The most common For the purpose of this study, we included all expenditures local source is local property taxes and may also include made by a district or a public charter school with the piggy-back sales taxes, per capital taxes, local capital exceptions below: bonds, and any other allowed local revenue sources. Identifying Special Education Expenditures: All ● Other – Revenues from non-tax, nonpublic sources. ● financial accounts were evaluated to determine if the These revenues include gate receipts, meal sales, fund, program or source identified the expenditure as philanthropy, fundraising, interest on bank accounts supporting special education programming. In the and investments, and any other non-tax revenues. case of some charter schools where the state does not collect detailed financial data, we used the school’s ● Public-Indeterminate – A revenue item is classified program designation. as Public-Indeterminate if it can be determined that the item is from public taxation but due to lack of ● Intra-agency Transfers: Transfer payments between the state’s accounting record specificity it cannot be accounts could lead to double counting of determined if it is from a Federal, State, or Local source. expenditures and therefore were excluded from the In some cases, districts in our study will show a negative analysis. value for Public-Indeterminate. When financial files In-Kind Payments: Where noted, we excluded any non- ● indicate that the district has received funds on behalf cash services provided by the district that supported of charter schools, and it is unclear whether those public charter schools. Our intention is to determine funds originated from Local, State or Federal sources, how much funding supports students in each type of we record the pass-through of those funds to the education setting. When the district documentation charter schools as Public-Indeterminate revenue for the indicated In-Kind services were provided to public district. If the district does not have any revenue already charter schools but the charters did not record those classified in this category, it results in a negative value. services on their balance sheets, we included those – If the State’s financial detail lacks Indeterminate ● in-Kind services as part of the costs of operating the sufficient specificity to classify a revenue item into public charter schools. any of the other five source classifications, then that revenue item is classified as “Indeterminate.” 38 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

40 Appendix A — cont. Inflation Adjustments Tables and Charts Inflation-adjustments were used in the revenue study for If no citation accompanies a table or chart, the information therein was compiled by the research team according to the comparative longitudinal metrics and discussions. All inflation adjustments are made to 2007 dollars. Therefore, the process outlined above. When we relied on the data FY03 dollar amounts were adjusted by a factor of 1.13 to or publications of other organizations, we provide the 2007 dollars, FY07 metrics remained at face amount, FY11 relevant citation. amounts were adjusted by a factor of 0.92, FY14 funds by 0.88, and FY16 funds by 0.85. The source for these inflation Weighted Average Calculations adjustment factors is the Bureau of Labor Statistics – their The totals presented in each table are weighted averages CPI Inflation Calculator at: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/ based on enrollments in each city. We generate them by cpicalc.pl. taking the revenue totals for each metropolitan area in the table, adding them up, then dividing that aggregate by the Rounding total combined student enrollment for those metropolitan Dollar values are rounded to the nearest dollar for each areas. We do this separately for the TPS and charter chart, so some totals may be off by $1 compared to the sectors. The average funding gap, then, is the total charter sum of the visible values on a chart. Similarly, some average minus the total TPS average. This straightforward values may differ by $1 for the same metric depending on method automatically generates a per-pupil average that the analysis source for that metric. Percentages also are is a “true” mean for the aggregated set of cities, given their rounded to the nearest whole number, which may cause different enrollments. The relative contribution of each apparent differences by a percentage. metropolitan area to our 14-city averages is presented in Table A1. Table A1: Percent of Students from Study Locations, FY16 Percent of Total Percent of Total Overall Funding Ranked Regions State (Districts) (Charters) Disparity Grade A Houston TX 9.63% 8.49% MA C Boston 3.04% 2.39% D New York City 43.76% 22.57% NY Denver 3.34% 4.31% D CO Shelby TN 4.45% 5.55% D D TX 2.37% 1.80% San Antonio F Los Angeles CA 23.76% 27.10% F Washington, D.C. DC 2.17% 9.54% F OK 1.76% 0.72% Tulsa F Camden NJ 0.41% 1.75% F Indianapolis IN 1.32% 4.62% F Oakland CA 1.66% 3.58% F Little Rock AR 1.03% 0.92% 1.95% GA 6.01% F Atlanta 39 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

41 Appendix B. Information Sources New Jersey Arkansas New Jersey Department of Education, School Finance Arkansas Department of Education California New York California Department of Education, the California New York State Education Department Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System Audited Annual Financial Reports from school districts (CALPADS) Oklahoma Colorado Oklahoma Department of Education Colorado Department of Education, the School Finance Unit Tennessee District of Columbia Tennessee Charter School Center Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury District of Columbia Public Charter School Board Tennessee Department of Education District of Columbia Department of Revenue Texas Georgia Texas Education Agency, Division of School Finance, Georgia Department of Education, Office of Finance Information Analysis Division, and Division of Charter and Business Operations and Charter Schools Office Schools Georgia Charter Schools Association Texas Resource Center for Charter Schools Fulton County Schools Finance and Business Houston Independent School District Atlanta Public Schools Financial Services and Charter Dallas Independent School District Schools Office Nationwide Indiana The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Indiana Department of Education, School Finance The National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers Graduate School of Education Louisiana Louisiana Department of Education, School Finance Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, School Finance Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Charter Schools Office NCES Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services 40 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

42 Appendix C. Summary Tables for Each Location Below are tables which summarize the data presented in the report for each location. They are ordered from the metropolitan area with the revenue disparity most favorable to charters to the area with the disparity most favorable to traditional public schools. Table C1: Revenue Disparities for Houston, FY16 (Grade of A) Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student District Per Student Disparity Per Student Type Revenue Revenue ($) (%) $11,557 $11,040 ($517) -5% Total $10,721 Total without SPED ($114) -1% $10,607 $8,246 $0 Local Public -100% ($8,246) State Public $1,455 $8,811 $7,356 506% Federal Public $1,396 $1,343 ($53) -4% Nonpublic $460 $426 93% $885 $0 ~ $0 Public Indeterminate $0 Indeterminate $0 $0 ~ $0 Table C2: Revenue Disparities for Boston, FY16 (Grade of C) Disparity Per Student District Per Student Disparity Per Student Charter Per Student Type Revenue ($) (%) Revenue Total $23,288 $20,423 ($2,865) -12% Total without SPED $17,900 $18,862 $962 5% $16,598 Local Public $0 ($16,598) -100% State Public $4,600 $9,958 217% $14,557 $1,097 $226 21% Federal Public $1,322 Nonpublic $994 $4,543 $3,549 357% $0 $0 $0 ~ Public Indeterminate Indeterminate $0 $0 ~ $0 Table C3: Revenue Disparities for New York City, FY16 (Grade of D) District Per Student Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student Type Revenue ($) (%) Revenue Total $28,141 $22,701 ($5,440) -19% Total without SPED $25,561 ($5,219) -20% $20,342 $17,173 $9,278 Local Public -46% ($7,895) State Public $10,044 $5,857 ($4,187) -42% Federal Public $1,286 $699 ($587) -46% Nonpublic $1,401 $2,981 $1,580 113% Public Indeterminate ($1,762) $3,885 $5,648 -321% -1176% $2,596 $2,837 Indeterminate ($241) 41 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

43 Appendix C — cont. Table C4: Revenue Disparities for Denver, FY16 (Grade of D) District Per Student Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student Type Revenue ($) (%) Revenue Total $12,248 ($2,982) -20% $15,230 Total without SPED $14,079 $10,932 ($3,147) -22% Local Public $9,025 $114 ($8,911) -99% State Public $7,634 $4,540 147% $3,094 Federal Public $1,686 $698 ($989) -59% Nonpublic $1,415 $1,534 $119 8% Public Indeterminate $10 $2,268 $2,258 23440% $246 ~ Indeterminate $0 $246 Table C5: Revenue Disparities for Shelby County, FY16 (Grade of D) Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student District Per Student Type Revenue Revenue ($) (%) $11,174 $8,902 ($2,273) -20% Total $9,764 $8,792 ($972) -10% Total without SPED $6 $4,742 -100% ($4,736) Local Public State Public $1,189 ($3,788) -76% $4,977 Federal Public $2,134 $837 ($1,297) -61% Nonpublic $268 $1,246 $978 365% Public Indeterminate ($947) $5,623 $6,570 -694% $359 Indeterminate $0 $359 ~ 42 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

44 Appendix C — cont. Table C6: Revenue Disparities for San Antonio, FY16 (Grade of D) District Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student Charter Per Student Type Revenue (%) Revenue ($) $10,934 ($3,214) -23% $14,147 Total Total without SPED $10,410 ($2,365) -19% $12,775 Local Public $0 ($3,722) -100% $3,722 $5,858 $8,378 $2,520 43% State Public Federal Public $2,646 $1,426 ($1,220) -46% Nonpublic $1,921 ($791) -41% $1,130 $0 ~ $0 Public Indeterminate $0 Indeterminate $0 $0 ~ $0 Table C7: Revenue Disparities for Los Angeles, FY16 (Grade of F) Disparity Per Student District Per Student Disparity Per Student Charter Per Student Type Revenue ($) (%) Revenue Total $17,813 $13,017 ($4,797) -27% Total without SPED $14,971 $13,001 ($1,970) -13% -46% ($1,624) Local Public $3,498 $1,874 State Public $10,573 ($2,175) -21% $8,398 $1,863 $939 Federal Public -50% ($924) Nonpublic $1,960 $640 ($1,320) -67% Public Indeterminate ($80) $1,166 $1,246 -1551% Indeterminate ($1,429) -100% $0 $1,429 Table C8: Revenue Disparities for Washington, D.C., FY16 (Grade of F) District Per Student Disparity Per Student Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Type Revenue ($) Revenue (%) $35,494 Total $25,236 -29% ($10,258) Total without SPED ($8,518) -27% $23,252 $31,770 $0 $0 $0 ~ Local Public $28,102 $19,299 ($8,803) -31% State Public Federal Public $7,119 $1,968 ($5,151) -72% Nonpublic $134 $3,938 $3,803 2836% Public Indeterminate $139 $31 ($107) -77% ~ Indeterminate $0 $1,224 $1,224 43 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

45 Appendix C — cont. Table C9: Revenue Disparities for Tulsa, FY16 (Grade of F) District Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student Charter Per Student Type Revenue (%) Revenue ($) $7,904 ($3,752) -32% $11,656 Total Total without SPED $7,580 ($3,101) -29% $10,681 Local Public $0 ($6,031) -100% $6,031 $3,750 $5,231 $1,481 40% State Public Federal Public $1,340 $1,007 ($332) -25% Nonpublic $536 $1,130 211% $1,666 $0 ~ $0 Public Indeterminate $0 Indeterminate $141 $140 83,021% $0 Table C10: Revenue Disparities for Camden, FY16 (Grade of F) Disparity Per Student District Per Student Disparity Per Student Charter Per Student Type Revenue ($) (%) Revenue Total $40,697 $26,027 ($14,671) -36% Total without SPED $35,679 $25,749 ($9,930) -28% -52% ($433) Local Public $838 $405 State Public $36,283 ($21,413) -59% $14,870 $3,057 $1,495 Federal Public -51% ($1,562) Nonpublic $519 $9,256 $8,737 1,683% Public Indeterminate $0 $0 $0 ~ Indeterminate $11 ~ $11 $0 Table C11: Revenue Disparities for Indianapolis, FY16 (Grade of F) District Per Student Disparity Per Student Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Type Revenue ($) Revenue (%) $15,380 Total $9,769 -37% ($5,611) Total without SPED ($4,468) -32% $9,357 $13,825 $4,575 $0 ($4,575) -100% Local Public $7,728 $6,898 ($830) -11% State Public Federal Public $2,039 $1,207 ($832) -41% Nonpublic $1,038 $1,665 $626 60% Public Indeterminate $0 $0 $0 ~ ~ Indeterminate $0 $0 $0 44 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

46 Appendix C — cont. Table C12: Revenue Disparities for Oakland, FY16 (Grade of F) District Per Student Charter Per Student Disparity Per Disparity Per Student Type Revenue Student ($) (%) Revenue Total $23,332 $14,735 ($8,597) -37% Total without SPED $20,745 $14,735 ($6,010) -29% Local Public $10,293 $2,018 ($8,275) -80% State Public -3% $9,342 $9,062 ($280) Federal Public $877 ($887) -51% $1,754 Nonpublic $1,943 $2,690 $747 38% Public Indeterminate $0 $89 $90 -18,283% Indeterminate $1,023 $769 ($253) -25% Oakland handles SPED support and reporting for charter schools differently than all other cities in our study. The Oakland Unified School District, the Alameda Office of Education, and Alameda Unified School District, all with charters located within the boundaries of Oakland, imbed financial data for the charters in each district’s financial reporting to the California Department of Education, just as Los Angeles Unified does. However, the two cities differ in the level of detail captured in the reporting. Los Angeles provides the same level of detailed reporting for the charter schools as it does for the district, making it possible to determine how much is spent on special education. Oakland Unified, however, does not report charter school financial data with the same level of detail as reported for the school district. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how much has been spent on special education for students attending Oakland charter schools. Table C13: Revenue Disparities for Little Rock, FY16 (Grade of F) District Per Student Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student Type ($) (%) Revenue Revenue $14,917 ($5,783) -39% $9,134 Total $13,531 $8,746 ($4,785) -35% Total without SPED Local Public $6,755 $0 ($6,755) -100% State Public $7,390 $1,408 24% $5,982 Federal Public $1,555 $1,033 ($522) -34% Nonpublic $625 $678 $52 8% Public Indeterminate $0 $34 $34 ~ $0 Indeterminate $0 $0 ~ 45 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

47 Appendix C — cont. Table C14: Revenue Disparities for Atlanta, FY16 (Grade of F) District Per Student Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student Type Revenue ($) (%) Revenue Total $9,382 ($8,894) -49% $18,276 Total without SPED $16,516 $9,371 ($7,145) -43% Local Public $13,878 $2,866 ($11,012) -79% State Public $4,717 $314 7% $4,403 Federal Public $1,978 $489 ($1,488) -75% Nonpublic $461 $634 $174 38% Public Indeterminate ($2,444) $675 $3,119 -128% ($26) -28% Indeterminate $93 $67 Table C15: Revenue Disparities for New Orleans, FY16 (Exception Case) Charter Per Student Disparity Per Student Disparity Per Student District Per Student Type Revenue Revenue ($) (%) $80,838 $12,490 $(68,348) -85% Total $77,059 $11,203 $(65,856) -86% Total without SPED $4,179 $37,999 -89% $(33,820) Local Public State Public $5,088 $1,289 34% $3,799 Federal Public $31,402 $1,837 $(29,566) -94% Nonpublic $6,335 $633 $(5,702) -90% Public Indeterminate $(4,008) $658 $4,666 -116% $(5,214) Indeterminate $5,310 $96 -98% 46 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

48 Appendix D. Indeterminate Revenue Streams Some sources of revenue for public charter and traditional public schools are documented to vaguely for us to clearly assign them to our primary categories of Federal, State, Local, and Nonpublic funds. If it is clear that the revenue is from a public source, but we cannot determine conclusively which level of government provided it, we classify it as “Public Indeterminate.” If all we can tell is that it is revenue, and cannot discern the source of the revenue, we classify it as “Indeterminate.” Public Indeterminate and Indeterminate funds are included in our calculations of total per-pupil revenues by sector presented in Table 1, consistent with our approach of accounting for all revenue from all sources. We present them in an appendix here, instead of in the main text, because they are unpredictable and idiosyncratic. Table D1: Public Indeterminate Revenue Disparity Per Student, FY16 Charter Per District Per Disparity Per Overall Funding State Ranked Regions Student Revenue Student Revenue Student ($) Disparity Grade A Houston TX $0 $0 $0 C Boston $0 $0 $0 MA D NY ($1,762) $3,885 $5,648 New York City D Denver CO $10 $2,268 $2,258 D Shelby TN ($947) $5,623 $6,570 $0 $0 D San Antonio TX $0 F Los Angeles $1,166 $1,246 CA ($80) Washington, D.C. $139 $31 ($107) F DC Tulsa OK $0 $0 $0 F Camden NJ $0 $0 $0 F F Indianapolis IN $0 $0 $0 F CA $0 $89 $90 Oakland F Little Rock AR $0 $34 $34 F Atlanta GA ($2,444) $675 $3,119 $2,527 Weighted Average: ($877) $1,650 47 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

49 Appendix D — cont. Table D2: Non-Specified Indeterminate Revenue Disparity Per Student, FY16 District Per Charter Per Disparity Per Overall Funding State Student Student Ranked Regions Student ($) Disparity Grade Revenue Revenue A Houston TX $0 $0 $0 C Boston MA $0 $0 $0 D New York City ($241) $2,596 $2,837 NY D CO $0 $246 $246 Denver D Shelby TN $0 $359 $359 D San Antonio TX $0 $0 $0 ($1,429) F $0 Los Angeles CA $1,429 F $0 $1,224 $1,224 DC Washington, D.C. Tulsa OK $0 $141 $141 F Camden NJ $0 $11 $11 F $0 Indianapolis IN $0 F $0 F CA $1,023 $769 ($253) Oakland F Little Rock AR $0 $0 $0 F Atlanta GA $93 $67 ($26) $513 Weighted Average: $253 $766 48 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

50 Research Team Corey A. DeAngelis, Ph.D. Dr. DeAngelis is an education policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. His research focuses on the effects of school choice programs on student achievement and non-academic outcomes. He received his Ph.D. in Education Policy from the University of Arkansas. He additionally holds a Bachelor of Business Administration and a Master of Arts in Economics from the University of Texas at San Antonio. Patrick J. Wolf, Ph.D. Dr. Wolf is a Distinguished Professor of Education Policy and 21st Century Endowed Chair in School Choice at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He previously taught at Columbia and Georgetown. He has authored, co-authored, or co-edited five books and over 150 journal articles, book chapters, and policy reports on school choice, civic values, public management, special education, and campaign finance. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University in 1995. Larry Maloney Mr. Maloney is president of Aspire Consulting and has investigated expenditure patterns of the nation’s public schools on behalf of states and individual school districts since 1992. Mr. Maloney participated in the research team for the Fordham Institute revenue study in 2005, the Ball State University revenue study in 2010, and the University of Arkansas study in 2014. Recent projects include evaluations of revenues and expenditure patterns of eleven major metropolitan school districts and the charter schools located within their boundaries. Mr. Maloney co-authored a series of reports for the Fordham Institute on future retirement costs for three school districts, as well as conducting a school-by-school expenditure analysis for the Washington, D.C. region. He served as the evaluator for a U.S. Department of Education program designed to enhance the level of products and services provided by state charter associations. Additionally, he provided the financial analysis for the U.S. Government Accountability Office study of Title 1 expenditures and the U.S. Department of Education National Charter School Finance Study.. Jay F. May Mr. May is founder of, and senior consultant for, EduAnalytics, LLC, a consulting practice focused on hands-on data-based initiatives to improve student performance. Mr. May’s client work includes developing technology infrastructure for various aspects of student performance management – student information systems, instructional data management systems, assessment results delivery and analysis frameworks. Mr. May, a CPA, has expertise in K-12 education finances and provides research, consulting, and analysis for various aspects of funding equity and allocation. He is a co-inventor ® ® - a patented software tool for - the Finance Analysis Model for Education of In$ite school-level and district-level expenditure analysis. 49 Charter SChool Funding: (more) inequity in the City

Related documents

7340.2H  Bsc dtd 3 29 18

7340.2H Bsc dtd 3 29 18

ORDER JO 7340.2H Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: March 29, 2018 Contractions SUBJ: contractions used by ed word and phrase This handbook contains the approv personnel of the Federal Av...

More info »
12.09   America's Best and Worst Cities for School Choice

12.09 America's Best and Worst Cities for School Choice

Amer ica’s Amer ica’s Best (And Worst) Cities for December 2015 School Choice PRISCILLA WOHLSTETTER & DARA ZEEHANDELAAR WITH DAVID GRIFFITH Nor m ber M. J. Petrilli thern a nd Mi chael d Forewor by A

More info »
Microsoft Word   cust subm Book 251 Cover.doc

Microsoft Word cust subm Book 251 Cover.doc

Summary of Reciprocity Agreements Between Texas and Other Jurisdictions Vehicle Titles and Registration Division Austin, Texas Issued November 2002

More info »
Microsoft Word   1. Final City Charter Sept 2012.doc

Microsoft Word 1. Final City Charter Sept 2012.doc

CITY CHARTER AMENDED AS OF NOVEMBER 2, 2010 CITY OF LONG BEACH CITY HALL 333 W. OCEAN BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CA 90802 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT 562-570-6101

More info »
Online Charter Study Final

Online Charter Study Final

Online Charter School Study 2015

More info »
Eli Hertz Reply 11 6 05c

Eli Hertz Reply 11 6 05c

R Even the most sacred precepts of international law can be manipulated to e pervert the truth. In its Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, the UN's Interna - p l tional Court of Justice ruled that Israel...

More info »
ES128202 PREMS 094415GBR2650 Have you say texte web.pdf

ES128202 PREMS 094415GBR2650 Have you say texte web.pdf

“Have Your Say!” Manual on the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life

More info »
What Can We Learn from Charter School Lotteries?

What Can We Learn from Charter School Lotteries?

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM CHARTER SCHOOL LOTTERIES? Julia Chabrier Sarah Cohodes Philip Oreopoulos Working Paper 22390 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22390 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONO...

More info »
Department of Defense   Law of War Manual (June 2015)

Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015)

D E A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E P N A L O F W A R M A W U A L J U N E 2 0 1 5 O F F I C E O F G E N ER A L C O U N S E L D P A R T M E N T E O F D E F E N S E

More info »
Inside Online Charter Schools

Inside Online Charter Schools

A REPORT OF THE NATI ONAL STUDY OF ONLINE CHARTER SCHOOLS Online Charter Inside Schools October 2015 Brian Gill Lucas Walsh Claire Smither Wulsin Holly Matulewicz Veronica Severn Eric Grau Amanda Lee ...

More info »
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW   VOLUME I RULES

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW VOLUME I RULES

Customary International Humanitarian Law Henckaerts Volume I: Rules and In 1996, the International Committee of the Red Cross, alongside a range of Doswald-Beck Customary International renowned expert...

More info »
Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report

Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report

Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report Submitted to: Senate Education Committee Senate Finance Committee House Education Committee House Finance Committee Capital Development Committee ...

More info »
C:\Users\cb47108\AppData\Local\Temp\S1177enr

C:\Users\cb47108\AppData\Local\Temp\S1177enr

S. 1177 One Hundred Fourteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen An ...

More info »
Michigan School Finance at the Crossroads

Michigan School Finance at the Crossroads

MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE AT THE CROSSROADS: A QUARTER CENTURY OF STATE CONTROL Michigan State University Education Policy Report January 2019 David Arsen, anner Delpier, T and Jesse Nagel Copyright © 2...

More info »
Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions

Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions

Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions 2015

More info »
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE  1960   With Watermark

CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE 1960 With Watermark

Part C -- 1960* CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE __________ * Editors Note: Part C of this publication is the Charter of the city of Syracuse -- 1960, being Local Law No. 13 of 19 60, as amended. The C...

More info »
mcl act 279 of 1909

mcl act 279 of 1909

THE HOME RULE CITY ACT Act 279 of 1909 AN ACT to provide for the incorporation of cities and for revising and amending their charters; to provide for certain powers and duties; to provide for the levy...

More info »
BergmanMcFarlin school_choice

BergmanMcFarlin school_choice

∗ Education for All? A Nationwide Audit Study of Schools of Choice Peter Jr. Bergman Isaac McFarlin y Universit Teachers College, Columbia University of Florida and NBER December , 2018 Abstract: Scho...

More info »
crpe policy framework online charter schools final 0

crpe policy framework online charter schools final 0

The Policy Framework for Online Charter Schools October 2015 Robin Lake, and Larry Miller Rosa Pazhouh,

More info »