1 Running Head: CHARTER SCHOOL SPENDING AND SAVING IN CALIFORNIA Charter School Spending and Saving in California WORKING DRAFT February 2, 2015 Sherrie Reed PhD Candidate, University of California, Davis Director of Research, New Tech Network Heather Rose, PhD Associate Professor, University of California, Davis
2 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 2 Abstract Examining resource allocation practices, including savings, of charter schools is critical to understanding their financial viability and sustainability. Using nine years of finance data from California, we find charter schools spend less on instruction and pupil support services than traditional public schools. The lower spending on instruction and pupil support is offset, not by administrative costs, but by higher spending on operations, consultant services and a greater rate of saving. Spending on consultant services by charters may suggest efficiency in the early years of operation. Further, the greater saving rate of charter schools implies preparation for economic uncertainty, vital for financial viability.
3 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 3 1. Introduction to Charter School Spending and Saving Charter schools represent the primary vehicle for school choice in the U.S. Yet, the long-term viability of charter schools is unknown. While nearly 6,000 charter schools are currently operating across the nation (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2013a), the Center for Education Reform reports that over 1,000 charter schools have closed since 1992 (Consoletti, 2011). The closure of charter schools is natural part of the market in which charter schools operate, where charter schools not meeting consumer demands are driven out of business (Huerta & Zuckerman, 2009). The Center for Education Reform describes five primary reasons for charter school closure including financial deficiencies, mismanagement, poor academic performance, insufficient facilities and the absence of a good working relationship with the charter authorizing agency. The most prominent reason--contributing to 42% of charter school closures--is financial deficiencies (Allen, Consoletti, & Kerwin, 2009; Consoletti, 2011), which may stem from inadequate revenue or ineffective resource allocation. The fiscal challenges of charter schools are a concern for multiple reasons. The charter school movement has long suggested that school choice provides quality schooling opportunities for students who might not otherwise have access (Resmovits, 2014). If quality charter schools are closing merely due to financial problems, it is critical to understand the funding and spending patterns that may contribute to the financial viability of schools. In addition, advocates of charter schools often suggest charter schools are cost effective, delivering higher performance at a lower cost (Resmovits, 2014; Winters, 2012). If this is the case, understanding how charter schools achieve this cost efficiency has important implications for education finance policy more broadly. Finally, the federal government, many state governments and numerous philanthropic organizations invest substantial sums of money to promote the successful implementation of charter schools. This investment of taxpayer and philanthropic money is wasteful if charter schools are unable to remain fiscally solvent and operational. Current research on charter school finance is inconclusive and often conflicting. Much of the research in the field of charter school finance focuses on the adequacy and equity of charter school funding, concluding that charter schools receive less public funding than traditional public schools
4 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 4 (Batdorff, Maloney, May, Speakman, Wolf & Cheng, 2014; Consoletti, 2011; Nelson, Muir & Drown, 2003; Speakman & Hassel, 2005). In contrast, other research indicates that charter schools receive greater funding than traditional public schools (TPS) when philanthropic funding is included (Baker, Libby & Wiley, 2012). However, researchers Gary Miron and Luis Huerta argue that the study of revenues alone is misleading because it does not account for the types of students enrolled and services delivered (in Resmovits, 2014). Examining charter school spending, then, provides a more complete picture of the fiscal practices that lead to efficient and sustainable operations by illuminating how limited funds are apportioned rather than simply looking at the total amount available for spending. The research about charter school resource allocation to-date provides some insight as to how charter school resource allocation differs from that of traditional public schools. On average, charter schools receive less revenue, spend less overall (Arsen & Ni, 2012; Miron & Urschel, 2010, Perez et al., 2006; Zimmer et al., 2003) and save more than traditional public schools (Arsen & Ni, 2012), providing evidence of efficiency and financial viability. However, this lower overall spending manifests in lower spending on instruction and student support services (Arsen & Ni, 2012; Miron & Urschel, 2010, Perez et al., 2006; Zimmer et al., 2003), and higher spending on administration (Arsen & Ni, 2012; Miron & Urschel, 2010, Perez et al., 2006; Zimmer et al., 2003), practices which may undermine consumer demand for charter schools if families believe fewer funds are directed towards the classroom. The existing research of charter spending, however, contains numerous limitations. Todate one national study of charter school spending exists (Miron & Urschel, 2010), but differences in funding mechanisms, reporting requirements and policy contexts across states limit the conclusions that can be drawn. This national study includes only eight of the nearly 1,000 charter schools in California, the state with the largest share of the nation s charter schools, and lacks any data for charter schools in Florida, the state with the second largest share of the nation s charter schools. Two studies which examine charter school resource allocation practices in California (Perez, et al., 2006; Zimmer et al., 2003) use only personnel staffing data and survey data about the perception of fiscal flexibility and
5 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 5 autonomy, possibly missing important findings for spending on equipment, materials, and facilities. Also, all of the existing research uses a single year of data, where shifts in the number of charter start-ups or a charter policy may potentially skew findings. Further, little research accounts for the length of operating history of charter schools, despite evidence that it matters (Zimmer et al., 2003), as charter schools are often plagued with heavy start-up costs in the first few years (Hayes & Keller, 2009). Finally, only limited research examines charter school savings patterns, important to paying off short-term debts and surviving revenue deficits, common in times of economic uncertainty (Wohlstetter, Smith & Farrell, 2013). This study adds to the existing body of research on the resource allocation practices of charter schools by capitalizing on publicly available data for California charter schools. California represents an important segment of national charter school community, as California is often cited as a model for charter school legislation and equitable funding (NAPCS, 2013b). California charter schools account for over 18% of all charter schools and 21% of all charter school students in the U.S. (NAPCS, 2013a). California also leads the nation in the number of charter schools in a single state. California s 1,000 charter schools make up ten percent of public schools in the state and enroll seven percent of the state s K-12 students. 1 Since , California charter schools have reported financial data, providing nine years of data to analyze. We use these multiple years of detailed charter school financial records, combined with relevant information on the duration and location of charter school operation, as well as the characteristics of enrolled students, to address the gaps in the literature and answer each of the following research questions: 1. How do charter schools in California allocate resources (i.e. instruction, administration, pupil support, operations and savings)? 2. How does resource allocation differ between charter schools and traditional public schools? 1 1 Numbers representing California charter schools and student enrollment are calculated based on administrative data from California Department of Education.
6 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 6 3. How does resource allocation differ between newly founded charter schools and charter schools with a long operating history? 4. How do school characteristics (i.e. total enrollment, percent of students eligible for free and reduced lunch and geographic location) explain noted differences in resource allocation between charter schools and traditional public schools? 2. Policy Context Since their advent in Minnesota 1991, charter schools continue to grow, both in numbers of charter schools operating and numbers of students served. In , over 5,500 charter schools operated in 39 states and two territories, accounting for nearly six percent of the nation s public schools and four percent of K-12 public school students (NAPCS, 2013a). Recent legislative action to expand charter school operations in several states indicates the number of charter schools in the U.S. will continue to grow. In 2012, two additional states, Washington and Mississippi, approved charter school laws (NAPCS, 2013). Other states, such as Hawaii, Idaho and Missouri, lifted the caps on the numbers of charter schools allowed to operate within the state (NAPCS, 2013). Further, the federal government provides financial incentives for states to improve charter laws and increase the number of charter schools through Race to the Top grants and the National Charter School Grant Program. Noteworthy philanthropists like Reed Hastings and Walton Family Foundation, and advocacy foundations such as Thomas B. Fordham Institute and National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, also lend their influential support to ensure the growth of charter schools. The growth in the number of charter schools provides educational options for an increasing number of students. In , charter schools in the United States enrolled nearly two million students (NAPCS, 2013a). The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools estimates that another one million students across the nation are on charter school wait lists, providing evidence of the demand for more charter schools (Kern & Gebru, 2014). 2.1 California Charter Schools
7 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 7 Since the passage of the Charter School Act of 1992, California has been a leader in the charter school movement. California was the second state to enact charter school legislation and its present-day charter school legislation is a model for other states. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS, 2013b) points to California as a leader in the areas of equitable operational funding, equal access to categorical funding, and equitable access to capital funding and facilities. Additionally, the Charter Schools Development Center and the California Charter Schools Association, California s charter school advocacy organizations both headquartered in Sacramento, are important leaders in shaping both state and national policy for charter schools. In order to operate as a public school in California, a charter school must be authorized by a public school district governing board, a county office of education governing board or the State Board of Education. Charter schools are initially authorized on the merits of a charter application outlining operating principles and measurable outcomes for which the school will be accountable. Typically, authorizers grant operating permission for five years, with a renewal application and review process necessary to continue operation for a subsequent five years. During the initial five year term, newly founded charter schools often experience non-recurring costs associated with initial planning and getting the school up and running (Hayes & Keller, 2009). The charter renewal process varies by charter authorizing agency, but the authorizer is responsible for oversight of the charter school for adherence to local, state and federal education regulations, including financial regulations. It is presumed therefore that, charter schools demonstrate financial stability and document success on measurable outcomes in order to earn the renewal for continued operation. Charter schools operating for six to ten years are often in their second term and those operating for more than 10 years have typically passed two renewal processes. 2.2 Charter School Funding California Education Code (1999) defines the sources and means for funding charter schools. Like all public schools in California, general purpose funding for charter schools is based
8 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 8 on the average daily attendance (ADA) rate of enrolled students. 2 Charter schools receive a weighted per- ADA rate that varies by grade levels and needs of enrolled students. Charter schools receive an amount equal to the statewide per pupil funding average for elementary districts for each student in grades kindergarten through five, an amount equal to the average for unified (K-12) districts for students in grades six through eight, and a rate equal to the average for high school districts for students in grades nine through 12. Charter schools also receive Economic Impact Aid, which provides additional per-ada funding for low-income and English language learners. During the time period examined in this study, charter schools in California also received categorical funding. In lieu of nearly 50 categorical programs available to traditional public schools, charter schools receive per pupil funding through the Charter School Block Grant. In addition, charter schools receive a share of state special education funds and are eligible to receive funds from a few large state categorical programs such as class size reduction and transportation. If eligible, charter schools also receive federal categorical funding provided through the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) for educational programs for low-income students or English language learners, professional development for teachers, and the drug-free and safe schools initiatives (CDE, Charter School Categorical Block Grant Programs, nd). Public funding for charter schools is distributed in one of two ways in California. In direct funded charter schools, the state disburses charter school funding directly to charter schools. Direct funded charter schools manage their own fiscal activities independently of their charter authorizing agency (CDE, Charter School Direct Funding Option, nd.); all spending decisions are made in accordance with charter school governing board by-laws and operating procedures. Direct funded charter schools usually have financial personnel on staff or contract with private accounting firms to manage accounts receivable, 2 Charter school funding in California is straightforward compared to the funding of traditional public schools. Until funding for traditional public schools varied throughout the state based on a complex formula of local and state sources. For more information on California s public school funding formula see Weston, Sonstelie and Rose (2009).
9 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 9 payable and personnel payroll. The percent of charter schools that are direct funded has steadily increased from 61% in to 72% in On the other hand, between 28% and 39% percent of charter schools in California operate as dependent charter schools, where funding and operations are closely tied with the authorizing district. In dependent charter schools, also known as locally funded charter schools, funding flows from the state to the local education agency that authorized the charter, most typically a public school district. In the case of locally funded charter schools, the charter authorizing agency often manages part or all of the fiscal activities of the charter school and retains fees for these services as agreed upon between authorizer and charter school operator. Remaining funds are then disbursed from the charter authorizing agency to the charter school. The local funding of dependent charter schools makes it difficult to disentangle charter school fiscal information from that of the charter authorizing agency, a common data limitation noted in prior literature (Miron & Urschel, 2010; Zimmer et al., 2003). 2.3 Charter School Financial Reporting In California, fiscal reporting was first required for charter schools in , though traditional public schools reported fiscal data for decades. Currently, all public schools, including charter and traditional public schools, report financial information to the California Department of Education (CDE) as required annually. Traditional public school districts report financial data using the Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS). Charter schools may be included with the charter authorizing district s financial reporting in SACS or charter schools may report finance data independently of their authorizer using either SACS or the Charter School Alternative Reporting Form (also known as the Alternative Form ), depending on agreements with the authorizing agency. Almost all locally funded charter schools and one-third of the directly funded charter schools report financial data with their authorizing agency in SACS each year. Consequently, the charter schools that report separately from their authorizer, on either the SACS or Alternative Form, are the remaining two-thirds of direct funded charter schools and include almost no locally funded charter schools.
10 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A Data and Methods This study draws on the financial data reported annually by all traditional public school districts and charter schools in California, which is publicly available from CDE. We include nine years of finance data, beginning with , the first year in which charter schools were mandated to report financial data, through , the most recently available data at the start of this analysis. The use of nine years of data addresses the limitation of cross-sectional data and single year studies present in the existing literature and allows me to examine whether or not patterns persist over time as individual charter schools mature and additional charter schools enter the market. 3.1 Sample The sample of charter schools for this study includes those charter schools reporting both schoollevel financial data separate from their authorizing agency, just under half of all charter schools. Table 1 provides detailed information about the number of the charter schools operating in the state, the charter schools excluded, and the percent of charter students served, for each of the nine years included in this analysis. We do not have school-level finance data for the 48% to 57% of charter schools that report their financial data with their authorizer in any given year. For example, in , 487 of the 991 charter schools reported with their authorizing agency. By necessity, these charter schools are excluded from the charter school sample. We also exclude the 3% of charter schools that fail to report any finance data. 3 Lastly, a handful of charters are excluded because they are missing student enrollment data; in , only one school met this criteria, but in , eight schools are excluded for this reason. 4 After exclusions, between 38% and 48% of operating charter schools in any given year are included in the sample. These charter schools are almost exclusively direct funded charter schools and serve nearly half of the charter school students in the state. Though slightly less than half of California charter schools are 3 The reasons that charter schools fail to report finance data is unknown. According to CDE, these schools are expected to report finance data at the school level, but no data appears in either the SACS or Alternative Form data files. It is possible that these charter schools actually report with their charter authorizing agency instead. Review of the list of schools that fail to report in each year demonstrates that the problem is limited to few schools who fail to report in multiple years, of which between 50% and 80% are direct funded. 4 The reason charter schools fail to report enrollment data is also unknown. However, review of the schools who fail to report shows the problem is again limited to a few schools who fail to report in multiple years.
11 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 11 included, the final sample is more robust than other studies of charter school spending. Unlike previous studies, the final sample includes multiple years of finance data. Further, the sample includes substantially more charter schools than other single state studies, with Arsen and Ni (2012) examining just over 250 charter schools in Michigan and our study including over 450 in alone. The comparison group in this paper includes all traditional public schools in California, 5 whose financial data are reported at the school district level. 6 Because of district-level reporting, these data necessarily include the locally funded and direct funded charter schools electing to report with their authorizing district. The inclusion of these charter schools in the comparison sample is unlikely to substantially affect the aggregate values computed for traditional public schools, because the charter schools represent only three to five percent of California s public schools and two and four percent of California s total K-12 enrollment. 5 We exclude schools operated by County Offices of Education (COEs). COES administer professional support to local education agencies within their boundaries and operate special programs for students with special needs or adjudicated youth. While spending on programs serving students are included in COE finance data, so are expenses unique to the administrative and professional development services offered. As such, the finance data does not accurately represent average per pupil spending and is therefore excluded from analysis. This exclusion follows the methods of Rose et al. (2003). 6 Common Administrative Districts serve the district administrative needs of multiple school districts and report financial data in aggregate. In Common Administrative Districts, school districts pool resources and share costs for services such as human resources, federal and state reporting and financial services. For the purpose of analysis, we treat them as a single unified school district. In , there were six Common Administrative Districts.
12 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 12 Table 1 Charter School Finance Data Sample Total Charter Schools Total Charter Students 8 166, , , , , , , , ,856 Exclusions Charters Reporting with District/COE/SBE Charters Not Reporting Finance Data Charters Not Reporting Student Enrollment Sample Charter Schools in Sample Charter Students in Sample 69,387 76,951 93, , , , , , ,470 % of CA Charter Schools % of CA charter students In this table, the number of charter schools includes those charters which are listed in CDE finance data for whom operating status was verified using the Public Schools Database also from CDE. In financial datasets, more charter schools are counted, but often prior to opening or after closing. For example in the financial data files included 512 charter schools with more than 50 not reporting finance data. However, only 460 were actually operating during the school years, bringing the number of charters failing to report data to 14. By , all 991 charter schools included in the financial data were legally operating. 8 In this table, the number of students enrolled in charter schools is calculated from CBEDS student enrollment files downloaded from California Department of Education.
13 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A Categorizing Expenses We use SACS and Alternative Form data to compare spending patterns of charter schools and traditional public school districts in California. The financial data from both formats align considerably well and include detailed accounts, using over 100 object codes. Object codes describe and categorize the source of revenue (e.g., general revenue, property tax income and grants) the items purchased (e.g., instructional materials and computer equipment), services purchased (e.g., legal, professional development and consulting), and staff hired (e.g. teachers and administrators). 9 We adopt methods previously designed by Rose, Sonstelie, Reinhard, and Heng (2003) for the study of resource allocation in traditional public schools in California. In their study, Rose et al. (2003) created eleven expense categories based on the purpose of expenditures: teachers, instructional aides, administrative personnel, pupil service personnel, other personnel, instructional materials, maintenance and operations, other services, capital equipment, food service, and tuition and transfers. In the analysis, we collapse the 11 categories identified by Rose et al. (2003) into four larger groups--instruction, student support, administration, and operations--to align with the existing literature about charter school spending. Instruction includes teacher and instructional aide salaries and benefits, as well as instructional materials. Pupil support services include guidance, psychological, and health services and special education related services. Administration is limited to the salaries and benefits for certified administrators serving at the school and district level. The operations category includes salaries and benefits for clerical and janitorial personnel, the acquisition, rental and/or maintenance of facilities, and the acquisition and maintenance of capital equipment such as computers. We also isolate two additional categories: consulting services and savings. Hypothesizing that charter schools may be purchasing administrative and pupil support services from consultants, separate out the consultant expenses from other services. Finally, we generate annual savings, which is simply total revenue minus total expenses in 9 Both the SACS and Alternative Form utilize the same accounting object codes despite different reporting formats. The consistency in codes in both reporting formats allows for accurate comparisons and valid analysis when categorizing expenses. A detailed crosswalk of the codes from both the SACS and Alternative Form as used in this analysis is available from the author.
14 Percent of total enrollment Per pupil dollars C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 14 the other five categories. Annual savings is essential to understanding charters ability to save for economic uncertainty and long-term financial viability. In total, we include six main expense categories. 3.3 Method of Analysis In order to examine differences in resource allocation between charter schools and traditional public schools, we begin by comparing mean per-pupil spending in each expense category. These descriptive statistics show notable and statistically significant differences between charter schools and traditional public schools in a variety of spending categories. We also compare mean per-pupil spending between charter schools of various lengths of operating history, with few noteworthy differences. Recognizing the numerous possible explanations for the observed mean differences between charter schools and traditional public school districts, we also estimate a series of regressions to better understand the extent to which various factors may explain the difference in resource allocation. For each of our six expense categories (total expenditures, instruction, pupil support, administration, operations, consulting and savings), we estimate a regression in which the dependent variable is per pupil spending in that category. We use the same set of independent variables in each of the models. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for each of the dependent and independent variables. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Regression Variables Charter Traditional Public Schools 25 th p Mean 75 th p 25 th p Mean 75 th p Dependent Variables (weighted by total enrollment) Instruction 3,506 4,140 4,607 5,029 5,438 5,743 Pupil Support ,120 1,214 Administration , ,124 1,243 Consulting 462 1,015 1, Operations 709 1,269 1, Savings Control Variables Middle school students High school students Eligible for free/reduced price meals Total enrollment ,294 6,257 Per pupil revenue (weighted) 7,071 8,171 8,773 8,065 9,044 9,795
15 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 15 The first independent variable is a dichotomous variable indicating whether the entity is a charter school or traditional public school district. The coefficient on this variable indicates the difference in spending between charter schools and traditional public school districts. 10 The second set of variables account for the characteristics of students a school serves. Prior literature suggests that charter schools are more likely to serve elementary students, who are presumably less costly to serve than secondary students (Arsen, Plank & Sykes, 1999; Miron & Urschel, 2010). In fact, the funding mechanism in California provides charter schools with less revenue for elementary students than those in higher grades. Furthermore, differences in grade levels served may also dictate differences in spending needs across categories; for example high schools may need more sophisticated science labs and more guidance counselors than elementary schools. Therefore, the regression models include control variables that account for the percent of students enrolled in elementary, middle and secondary grades, data collected annually by California Department of Education and later made publicly available. 11 Prior research also suggests that charter schools are less likely to serve high needs students (Miron & Urschel, 2010; Perez et al., 2006; Resmovits, 2014; Zimmer et al., 2003), such as those who are eligible for free and reduced price meals, who are presumably more costly to serve. This difference may explain overall differences in total revenue, as schools receive additional funding through federal and state categorical programs for students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch or special education, as well as spending in specific categories such as pupil support staff. To account for these factors, our regression models include the percent of students eligible for free and reduced lunch. These data are also publicly available from California Department of Education. 12 The total enrollment in a school may also influence spending. Prior research points out the difference in per pupil spending may be related to economies of scale, where the cost to educate each 10 With no additional controls in the model, the coefficient on the charter variable simply captures the mean difference in per-pupil spending
16 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 16 student decreases as the number of students increases (Andrews, Duncombe & Yinger, 2002; Duncombe, Miner, & Ruggiero, 1995; Monk & Hussain, 2000; Pandolfo, 2012). As fixed costs are spread across more students, the per-pupil cost of resources actually declines. Guided by this theory, charter schools which are typically smaller in size than traditional public schools are expected to spend more per pupil than traditional public schools in areas such as administration, which have noticeable fixed costs. Therefore, the regressions include a control for a school s total enrollment. This control enters the regression in log form to account for potential nonlinear relationship between size and spending. Although student characteristics and enrollment are important factors in determining spending patterns, ultimately the total revenue per pupil determines the funds available for spending in the various categories, therefore the regressions also account for total revenue per pupil. Another consideration when noting the spending differences between charter schools and traditional public schools is geographic location. Charter schools are often concentrated in urban areas (Ritter, Jensen, Kisida & McGee, 2010), where both salaries and property costs are higher. In California, 214 charter schools, or nearly one-quarter of California s charter schools, are located in Los Angeles (CCSA, California Charter Schools by the Numbers, nd). These Los Angeles charters enroll the largest number of students in any single school district in the country (NAPCS, 2013). Similarly, there are 55 charter schools operating in San Diego, 38 in Oakland, and 36 in San Jose (CCSA, California Charter Schools by the Numbers, nd). Furthermore, previous literature provides evidence of regional wage differences, where salaries are notably higher in urban areas such as Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose (Rose, Sengupta, Sonstelie & Reinhard, 2008; Rose & Sengupta, 2007). Therefore, if charter schools are disproportionately located in these areas, we may observe higher spending in categories that are wage intensive. We use county level fixed effects to control for regional differences, ensuring that any notable differences between charter schools and traditional public schools are not attributable solely to the concentration of charter schools in certain geographic locations. To account for the fact that multiple districts are located within a county and thus may have correlated error terms, we assume that the
17 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 17 error term in our model has a county-specific component and compute standard errors clustered at the county level. Finally, when we estimate the regressions, we include nine years of finance data. To ensure that time trends are not driving our results, we also include fixed effects for the year. The regression analysis substantiates the findings presented in the descriptive tables and also allows us to show what portion of the charter schools spending differences are attributable to these additional factors. 4. Findings and Discussion After briefly reviewing overall spending and revenue trends, this section will evaluate spending by category. We outline the similarities and differences in the spending patterns of traditional public schools and charter schools. We also explain differences between charter schools operating for varying lengths of time, where findings are notable. Throughout the section, we suggest possible explanations for our findings and consider how our findings align with or diverge from those in previous studies of charter school resource allocation. Summarizing nine years of data, Table 3 displays overall trends in revenue and expenses for charter schools and traditional public schools in California. Columns A and B show the spending in each category as a share of total expenditures for charter schools and traditional public schools. Columns C and D provide the average per-pupil revenue and the average per-pupil spending in each spending category for both charter schools and traditional public schools. Column C shows the differences in spending between charter schools and traditional public schools over this near decade, and column D shows the regression-adjusted differences. Although Table 3 gives the nine-year averages, the discussion below includes figures depicting the annual data and trends overtime. We convert the data for individual years to dollars using the all-urban consumers Consumer Price Index (CPI). Furthermore, Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2 provide spending by category for each of the nine years and Appendix Table A.3 shows the detailed regression results used to determine the regression-adjusted differences.
18 Operations Pupil Support Instruction C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 18 Table 3 Differences in Revenue and Spending between Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools ( dollars) A B C D E F Mean Percent of Total Current Expenses Mean Per Pupil Spending Mean Difference Regression Coefficient with Controls Charter TPS Charter TPS Charter TPS Charter TPS Total Revenue NA NA 8,171 9, * NA Total Expenditures NA NA 7,840 8,885-1,045* -129* Instruction ,140 5,438-1,298* -618* Teachers ,205 4,639-1,434* -928* Instructional aides * -43 Instructional materials * 353* Pupil Support , * -626* Pupil service personnel * -481* Tuition and transfers Administrative personnel , * -166* Consulting services , * 613* Operations , * 669* Maintenance and operations * 453* Other personnel * 28 Other services * 106* Capital equipment * 83* Annual Savings * 129* *p<.05
19 C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A Total Expenditures and Revenue Researchers agree that charter schools spend less than traditional public schools (Arsen & Ni, 2012; Miron & Urschel, 2010; Perez et al., 2006). Our analysis also supports this conclusion. In California, charter schools spend less than traditional public schools in every year since charters began reporting financial information in On average, charter schools across the U.S. spend 19% less than traditional public schools (Miron & Urschel, 2010), while in California the magnitude of the difference is not as great. Across the nine years examined, charter schools spent an average of $7,840 per pupil, about $1,000 per pupil less than traditional public schools. Figure 1 displays the average total per pupil spending for charter schools and traditional public schools across the nine years. The difference is largest in , when charters spend $1,352 less than traditional public schools, and smallest in , when charters spend only $774 less. While the differences vary slightly from year to year, the trend of lower spending is consistent, with charter schools spending an average of 12% less than traditional public schools. The lower spending by charter schools may in part be due to the fact that they receive less revenue, though the entire 12% gap in spending is not explained by lower revenue. In California, charter schools receive an average of 10% less per pupil in state and federal revenue than traditional public school districts, with the gap as small as 6% in and as great as 14.5% in In addition per pupil total spending, Figure 1 depicts the trends for annual per pupil revenue for both charter schools and public school districts from until
20 Per Pupil Dollars C H A R T E R S C H O O L S P E N D I N G A N D S A V I N G I N C A L I F O R N I A 20 Figure 1 Revenue and Expenditures for Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools ( dollars) $10,000 $8,000 $6, Revenue--TPS Expenditures--TPS Revenue--Charter Expenditures--Charter While some might hypothesize that long-term charter schools are more likely to mirror traditional public schools in spending patterns than new charter schools (Arsen & Ni, 2012), the greatest difference in overall spending is between long-term charter schools, rather than newly-founded charters, and traditional public schools. Newly founded charter schools actually spend more per pupil on all expenses combined than long-term charter schools. On average, long-term charter schools spend 16% less than traditional public schools, or about $1,400 per pupil less. In contrast, newly founded charter schools spend only 7%, or $600 per pupil, less than traditional public schools. In other words, newly founded charter schools spend an average of $800 more per pupil than long-term charters. Though this gap is notable, the magnitude of the difference fluctuates markedly over the decade as seen in Figure 2. In , newly founded charter schools spent only $276 per pupil more than long-term charters, but in the difference peaked at over $1,200 per pupil. Despite the fluctuations, the higher spending by newly founded charter schools compared to those operating for a much greater length of time persists in every year in the past decade.
December 2008 Report No. 08-68 The Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program Saves State Dollars at a glance The corporate income tax credit scholarship program produces a net savings to the state.
Overview of State Funding for Public Education in Idaho Idaho s public schools receive revenue from state, local, and federal sources. This brief focuses on the allocation of state funds for public education,
GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives December 2002 SCHOOL FINANCE Per-Pupil Spending Differences between
State Special Education Finance Systems, 1999-2000 Part II: Special Education Revenues and Expenditures Thomas Parrish, Jenifer Harr, Jean Wolman, Jennifer Anthony, Amy Merickel, and Phil Esra March 2004
Essential Programs & Services State Calculation for Funding Public Education (ED279): Maine s Funding Formula for Sharing the Costs of PreK-12 Education between State and Local: 1. Determine the EPS Defined
UT D MA F AR F MD F HI FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 F AZ D D D B C D DE Gra CA FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 F F C F NM Minnesota B C B FL Gr CO CT ID IL FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 FY2003
Fiscal Impact of School Vouchers and Scholarship Tax Credits One argument made by policymakers who advocate for private school choice is that policies such as school vouchers and scholarship tax credits
Chapter Three OVERVIEW OF CURRENT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS The first step in understanding the careers of school administrators is to describe the numbers and characteristics of those currently filling these
70 East Lake Street Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60601 312-332-1041 www.ctbaonline.org Issue Brief Illinois School Funding Formula and General State Aid August 2006 For more information please contact Chrissy
RI s Education Funding Formula Introduction and Its Impact on Cumberland Students 02/04/2014 Overview of the Funding Formula & Basic Education Plan (BEP) Enacted in June 2010 Regulations developed by the
Education Funding in South Carolina OVERVIEW South Carolina has one of the nation s most complicated public school funding systems. Funding for K-12 schools has rapidly increased year after year, far outpacing
Analysis of Special Education Enrollments and Funding in Pennsylvania Rural and Urban School Districts By: William T. Hartman, Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University September 2015 Executive Summary This
DOCUMENT REVIEWED: Connecticut s Charter School Law and Race to the Top AUTHOR: Tori Tusheit PUBLISHER/THINK TANK: Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCan) DOCUMENT RELEASE DATE: February 2010
Financing Education In Minnesota 2013-14 A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department November 2013 Financing Education in Minnesota 2013-14 A Publication of the Minnesota
PROPOSED FY 2015-16 MINIMUM FOUNDATION PROGRAM FORMULA The FY 2015-16 Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) formula was adopted by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on March 6, 2015. The
California Virtual Academy @ San Diego Education Protection Account (EPA) Spending: Plan and Actual Fiscal Year 2013-14 Proposition 30, The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, approved
CHAPTER 16-7.2 The Education Equity and Property Tax Relief Act 1 SECTION 16-7.2-1 16-7.2-1 Legislative findings. (a) The general assembly recognizes the need for an equitable distribution of resources
Cardiff Elementary School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the 2010 11 School Year Published During 2011 12 Every school in California is required by state law to publish a School
PROFILE OF CHANGES IN COLORADO PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING 988-89 TO 998-99 Prepared for THE COLORADO SCHOOL FINANCE PROJECT Colorado Association of School Boards Colorado Association of School Executives Colorado
MISSOURI Gerri Ogle Coordinator, School Administrative Services Department of Elementary and Secondary Education I. GENERAL BACKGROUND State The major portion of state funds for elementary and secondary
The costs of charter and cyber charter schools Updated January 2014 Research and policy implications for Pennsylvania school districts Education Research & Policy Center 400 Bent Creek Blvd., Mechanicsburg,
San Diego Unified School District California PAGE DATA 2 Background Information 3 Trends in Overall Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency READING 4 Reading Performance and Improvement at the Proficient
1107 9th Street, Suite 310 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 444-0500 www.cbp.org email@example.com Moving Forward: Addressing Inequities in School Finance Through the Governor s Local Control Funding Formula
Informational Issue: School Finance Case Studies The school finance formula directs the distribution of total program funding to Colorado school districts based on factors designed to recognize the characteristics
State Special Education Funding Formulas November 2013 www.whiteboardadvisors.com 1 Executive Summary Whiteboard Advisors and the Foundation for Excellence in Education conducted a national survey about
MEASURING UP TO THE MODEL: A RANKING OF STATE CHARTER SCHOOL LAWS SIXTH EDITION JANUARY 2015 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 5 The 2015 State Law Rankings 8 of a Strong Law 10 Leading States for the 20
FUNDING NOTE: Opportunities to Coordinate 21st Community Learning Centers Funding with the Child Care and Development Fund January 2011 The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by the Office
Chicago Public Schools Renaissance 2010 Schools Program Name: Implemented: Program Type: Legal Authorization: Student-Based Budgeting 2005-2006 School Year Pilot Program School Board Policy School Empowerment
Testimony before the Basic Education Funding Commission October 21, 2014 Good morning. My name is Patrick Dowd and I am the executive director of Allies for Children, a nonpartisan, child advocacy nonprofit
Initiative 1351 Fiscal Impact Initiative 1351 (I-1351) will not increase or decrease state revenues. State expenditures will increase through distributions to local school districts by an estimated $4.7
FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 C F D Grade based on % of Actual Funding Disparity Florida By Meagan Batdorff Introduction This chapter compares district and charter school revenues statewide, and for Miami- Dade
KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS 1420 SW Arrowhead Road, Topeka, Kan. 66604 785.273.3600 800.432.2471 www.kasb.org Special Report: February, 2014 School Funding, At-Risk and All-Day Kindergarten and
Update Pennsylvania s Charter School Law Comprehensive updates must be made to Pennsylvania s Charter School Law in order to ensure academic and financial accountability for students, parents, and taxpayers.
For Immediate Release: Thursday, July 19, 2012 Contact: Jim Polites 860.713.6525 2012 CMT, CAPT RESULTS SHOW SOME INCREASES, WHILE GAPS IN ACHIEVEMENT PERSIST The Connecticut State Department of Education
School Finance 101 MASA / MASE Spring Conference Joel Sutter Ehlers Greg Crowe - Ehlers 3/13/2014 1 Overview Minnesota has one of the most complex school funding systems of any state It is not a logical,
While New Orleans is at the vanguard of a number of public education innovations, it was not the first public school system to put into place an open enrollment policy. School districts in Cambridge, San
Oklahoma City Public Schools Oklahoma PAGE DATA 2 Background Information 3 Trends in Overall Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency READING 4 Reading Performance and Improvement at the Proficient
January 2010 Report No. 10-07 Youth Entering the State s Juvenile Justice Programs Have Substantial Educational Deficits; Available Data Is Insufficient to Assess Learning Gains of Students at a glance
Assessing the Enrollment Trends and Financial Impacts of Charter Schools on Rural and Non-Rural School Districts in Pennsylvania By: Kai A. Schafft, Ph.D., Erica Frankenberg, Ed.D., Ed Fuller, Ph.D., William
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION K-12 ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 1557 RELATING TO: SPONSOR(S): Remedial Instruction Representative Ryan COMPANION BILL(S): SB 1524 ORIGINATING COMMITTEE(S)/COMMITTEE(S)
P O L I C Y B R I E F THE MISSOURI K-12 FOUNDATION FORMULA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Missouri legislature designed the K-12 funding formula to ensure every school district in the state receives a basic funding
Education Research & Policy Center Pennsylvania Charter Schools: Charter/Cyber Charter Costs for Pennsylvania School Districts October 2010 ERPC Advisory Committee. Mr. Dale R. Keagy, CPA Retired School
PROPOSITION 30 TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS..Increases personal income
Are Arizona Public Schools Making the Best Use of School Counselors? Results of a Three-Year Study of Counselors Time Use Arizona School To Work Briefing Paper #16 April 1999 by Judith A. Vandegrift, Morrison
Tax Relief and Local Government The primary focus of state and local government is to provide basic services, such as public safety, education, a safety net of health care and human services, transportation,
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2065 62nd Legislature 2011 1st Special Session Passed by the House May 25, 2011 Yeas 71 Nays 25 Speaker of the House of Representatives Passed
Broward County Public Schools Florida PAGE DATA 2 Background Information 3 Trends in Overall Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency READING 4 Reading Performance and Improvement at the Proficient
JULY 11, 2007 VOLUME 3, NUMBER 5 Employers nationwide need to understand what is happening in Massachusetts. THE MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT: WHAT MUST EMPLOYERS DO? by Katherine J. Utz* firstname.lastname@example.org
F l o r i d a H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) EDUCATION FACT SHEET 2010-11 What is the Florida Education Finance Program? The Florida Education Finance
Funding Public Education Issues of Adequacy, Equity and Sufficiency By Jo Anne Anderson, Melanie D. Barton and Amy L. Braman USC INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND POLICY RESEARCH - PUBLIC POLICY & PRACTICE
VIRGINIA Description of the Formula The foundation formula is based on pupils in average daily membership (ADM) for the current year. Basic program funding is determined by multiplying total ADM by a per
2015 Legislative Positions Adopted by the Delegate Assembly In Savannah, Georgia, on June 13, 2014 GSBA represents the collective resolve of our members, the 180 elected boards of education. These legislative
CA F C F NM B C B FL G FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 F CO D D D D D F GA Gr FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 F CT C D F SC Pennsylvania F D D MA Gra ID IL FY2003 FY2007 FY2011 FY2003
B C B FL C F D D D F GA Grade based on % of Actual Funding Disparity F D F OH WI F Grad F D D A C F MA MO Grade based on % of Actual Funding Disparity Georgia D D D F F F By Meagan Batdorff Introduction
UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING FULL-TIME VIRTUAL SCHOOLS A STUDY OF STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, SCHOOL FINANCE, AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN SCHOOLS OPERATED BY K12 INC. Gary Miron and Jessica L. Urschel Evaluation,
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPPORT PROGRAM BASED ON THE FINAL COMPUTATIONS FOR THE 2011-12 YEAR The Public School Support Program (PSSP) is a plan of financial support
STATE OF COLORADO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY STATE CAPITOL BUILDING RM 029 200 EAST COLFAX AVENUE DENVER CO 80203-1784 M110300000 SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO Legislative Council Staff
California Charter Schools Serving Low-SES Students: An Analysis of the Academic Performance Index March 11, 2002 By Simeon P. Slovacek, Ph.D. Antony J. Kunnan, Ph.D. Hae-Jin Kim, M.A. This report presents
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2015 HOUSE BILL 1080 RATIFIED BILL AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. Subchapter III
Understanding Senate Bill 13-213 Proposed Future School Finance Act August 2013 Colorado Department of Education Public School Finance 201 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203 UNDERSTANDING SENATE BILL 13-213
OVERVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM To The Illinois State Board of Education By Augenblick, Palaich and Associates Denver, Colorado September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE
Policy Position Charter and Cyber Charter School Law March 2013 Background The passage of Pennsylvania s charter school law in the late 1990s gave children and families more choices within public education
SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO Legislative Council Staff State Capitol Building, Room 029 200 East Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3521 April 2012 STATE OF COLORADO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COLORADO
TENNESSEE BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 2.0 HANDBOOK FOR COMPUTATION Revised April 2014 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF LOCAL FINANCE 710 JAMES ROBERTSON PARKWAY NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243-0381 FY
Proposition 38 Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. OVERVIEW This measure raises personal income taxes on most California taxpayers from 2013 through 2024. The revenues raised
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service DATE: January 31, 2014 MEMO CODE: SP 19-2014 3101 Park Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22302-1500 SUBJECT: TO: Community Eligibility Provision:
JACK O CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction C A L I F O R N I A D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T I O N 1500 N. Street P. O. Box 944272 Community Day School Funding Sacramento, CA 94244-2720
Evaluating the Impact of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Look at the Great Lakes States Appendix B June 27 EPRU EDUCATION POLICY RESEARCH UNIT Education Policy Research Unit Division
Sky Mountain Charter Eric Schoffstall Principal, Sky Mountain Charter About Our School About Our School Sky Mountain is an Independent Study Charter School that is managed by Innovative Education Management,
Is Administration Leaner in Charter Schools? Resource Allocation in Charter and Traditional Public Schools David Arsen Professor Department of Educational Administration Michigan State University and Yongmei
SCHOOL FINANCE FACTS OCTOBER 2011 A Decade of Disinvestment: Education Spending Nears the Bottom Adecade of disinvestment has left s spending for public schools lagging the nation by a number of measures.
NCEE EVALUATION BRIEF December 2013 OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY, SUPPORT, AND MONITORING OF SCHOOL TURNAROUND The federal School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, to which $3 billion were allocated under the
CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA credo.stanford.edu April 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA... 7 CHARTER SCHOOL IMPACT BY DELIVERY
2 nd Interim Financial Report Albany Unified School District Regular Board Meeting: March 10 th, 2015 Allan Garde, CBO Revenues The First Interim was approved in December. What changed since then? LCFF
19814 DEFINITIONS. (SEE PAGE 6, ARTICLE 4 (CHARTER SCHOOLS) LANGUAGE AT SECTION 19850) AUDITS OF K-12 LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES The content of the audit report sections and subsections specified in Section
Michigan League for Human Services November 2004 Proposal A, School Aid, and the Structural Deficit This year marks the 10 th anniversary of the passage of school finance reform, known as Proposal A. Proposal
Charter School Business Plan Requirements for Applicants SUNY Charter Schools Institute 41 State Street, Suite 700 Albany, New York 12207 (518) 445-4250 (518) 320-1572 (Fax) www.newyorkcharters.org Table
North Carolina by Meagan Batdorff Summary and Highlights This snapshot examines the revenue sources and funding equity for district public schools and charter schools in North Carolina and, in particular,
Arkansas School Finance Manual 2015-2016 1 ADE Website 2 3 4 5 School Finance Manual Purpose-The purpose of the manual is to provide guidance and resources for school districts to become better informed
Charter Schools 101: Common Goals of Charter Schools and WIBs Amy Blumberg, MPA Miles Durfee, MPA David Meyer & Elizabeth Hessom, SIA Tech May 13, 2015 AGENDA Introduce Presenters Background on charter
Taken from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/williamsimfaq.asp Last modified: August 30, 2007 Questions: Kenneth McDonald KMcDonald@cde.ca.gov 916-319-0447 Williams Settlement Legislation IM FAQs Williams
The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement SLMQ Volume 22, Number 3, Spring 1994 Keith Curry Lance, Director, Library Research Service, Colorado Advocates of school library media
English Learners Connecticut Legislation Sec. 286-298 and 338-339 Sec. 286. Section 10-17f of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2015):
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPALITY EFFORTS TO PASS MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE LEGISLATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By Molly Hogan For Ensuring Opportunity Campaign Mills College Public Policy
Data Housed at the North Carolina Education Research Data Center District-level data Community Index Data, Year 2004 Each file has one record per Local Education Agency with the percent of students (a)
[Type text] LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION SCHOOL FUNDING COMPLETE RESOURCE Updated February 2011 [Type text] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 4 STATE OPERATING REVENUE... 8 Adequacy State Model Amount...
February 2003 Report No. 03-17 Bright Futures Contributes to Improved College Preparation, Affordability, and Enrollment at a glance Since the Bright Futures program was created in 1997, Florida s high
Governor Snyder s FY2016 Education & School Aid Budget Recommendations February 23, 2015 The annual budget is the single most powerful expression of the state s priorities. It is during the budget process