Charter School Funding: Dispelling Myths about EMOs, Expenditure Patterns, & Nonpublic Dollars

School Choice Demonstration Project. Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, 201 Graduate Education Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Tel: 479-575-3172; Fax: 479-575-3196; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: https://scdp.uark.edu/

N

39

Walton Family Foundation
Charles Koch Foundation

Charter Schools; Educational Finance; Misconceptions; School Administration; Institutional Characteristics; Expenditure per Student; Educational Equity (Finance); Low Income Students; Funding Formulas; Public Schools; Private Financial Support; Philanthropic Foundations

Massachusetts (Boston); District of Columbia; Tennessee (Memphis); Oklahoma (Tulsa); Texas (San Antonio); Georgia (Atlanta); California (Oakland); California (Los Angeles); Indiana (Indianapolis); Michigan (Detroit); Colorado (Denver); New Jersey; Texas (Houston); Arizona (Phoenix); New York (New York); Arkansas (Little Rock); Illinois (Chicago)

Three decades after the first charter school law passed in the United States, myths about these public schools not only persist but continue to fuel strong claims and divisive debates. Commentators point to education management organizations (EMOs), for-profit organizations which manage or operate a network of charter schools, as examples of private entities supposedly profiting off public education. In this report, the authors dispel three common myths about charter schools and their funding, spending, and management. They draw upon comprehensive school funding data collected from traditional public schools (TPS) and public charter schools in 18 cities during fiscal year (FY) 2018.

ERIC

2022

ED619348