Schools that run on less
This editorial in the Wall Street Journal cites a study by Ball State that found charter schools receive on average 19 percent less revenue than district schools.
It is not uncommon for charter schools, which (in most states) exist separate from districts, to run on 90, 80, or even 60 percent of the money of neighboring schools. It is not always clear why this is, though there is a dynamic between the comprehensive factory model of school on one hand (that is inflexible in design and relies on economies of scale) and centrally controlled finances on the other (removing incentive for schools or teachers to save money). Streams of dedicated money into districts also add to the problem—preventing school leaders from the kind of maneuverability they need in times of financial stress.
When schools are started new, independently, and with lump-sum public payments from which they may construct a budget, school leaders often find quickly that it is possible to design a school that works well for less.
February 9, 2011 - 12:14pm
They run on 19% less money, but are more likely to be less effective than public schools (according to research often cited by Diane Ravitch).
Perhaps you get what you paid for?
March 27, 2011 - 3:28am
With half the public school budget going towards busing and other unfunded mandates like mainstreaming kids who are totally and permanently disabled, how the heck are our schools supposed to function?
The anti-abortion movement gives us more and more kids whose parent(s) knew they were unable to raise them in the first place. Mandatory birthing of - three-, four- and five-month fetuses - gives us more and more kids with lifelong physical and mental disabilities. All these short-changed kids come through the public school systems, eating up more and more tax dollars.
And guess who screams the most about taxes? Yup - the anti-abortion crowd.
This is nuts.
Post new comment