Virginia Charter
Schools Funding and National Charter School Trends
Cecelia W. Krill
Associate Professor
Educational leadership and Policy Studies
Virginia Tech
January 2001
Background
The 1998 Virginia General Assembly
passed legislation that authorized local school boards to accept charter school
applications. Some specific requirements for school divisions resulted from
actions in the last session, including § 22.1-212.14, “Funding of public
charter schools; services provided”, subsection A, which states:
For
the purposes of this article, students enrolled in a public charter school
shall be included in the average daily membership of the relevant school
division; however, public charter schools shall not be reported in fall
membership for purposes of calculating the state and local shares required to
fund the Standards of Quality if the enrollment at the public charter school is
less than 100 students and constitutes less than five percent of the total
enrollment of the relevant grades in that school division.
Standards of Quality
The Standards of Quality (SOQs)
include funding for (a) basic aid, (b) special education, (c) vocational
education, (d) remedial education, (e) gifted education, and (f) related fringe
benefits for each of these programs. Each of the six accounts within the SOQs
represents the instructional cost for that program based on the required number
of instructional teaching positions.
In Virginia the September 30th
membership report is used to determine the level of SOQ funding for each local
school division based on state funded instructional positions. State funding
for other SOQ requirements continues to be provided based on the state’s
projected membership for any given fiscal year until the March 31st
membership report, after which increases or decreases in state funding are
made, usually in the May and June fund transfers.
Intent of the Law
Kent Dickey, Director of the Office
of Budget, Virginia Department of Education, explained that, by excluding
charter school enrollments of less than 100 students who represent less than
five percent of the local division enrollment in the corresponding grades,
legislators intended to protect state funds from being expended for very small
charter school classes, especially at elementary grade levels.
The concern about the small size of
potential charter schools is legitimized by the most recent “Fourth Year
Report” on charter schools issued in January 2000 by the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement of the U. S. Department of Education in conjunction
with RPP International. The report states:
·
[I]n 1998-99 more than 3
times as many charter schools as compared to other public schools enrolled
fewer than 200 students (65 percent and 17 percent respectively). Nearly 4
times as many charter schools as compared to other public schools enrolled
fewer than 100 students (35 percent and 9 percent respectively).
·
Newly created charter
schools were especially likely to be smaller than other public schools, with a
median enrollment of 128 students. Charter schools that were pre-existing
public schools had a median enrollment of 368, much closer to the median
enrollment of all public schools [475 students].
·
Only 8 percent of charter
schools enrolled more than 600 students, as opposed to 35 percent of all public
schools. Only 1 percent of charter schools enrolled more than 1,000 students,
as compared to 11 percent of all public schools. (p. 20)
The report also confirms the legislators’ concern regarding grade configuration and class size. Grade level configuration comparisons between public schools and public charter schools provided the following descriptions:
·
In 1998-99, about one-half
(52 percent) of all charter schools were structured according to a traditional
grade-level configuration of elementary, middle, or high school as compared to
more than three-fourths (78 percent) of all public schools in the 27 charter
states (in 1997-98).
·
In comparison to other
public schools, almost 3 times as many charter schools spanned kindergarten
through 8th grade (15.7 percent), almost 4 times as many charter
schools spanned kindergarten through 12th grade (8.0 percent),
almost twice as many charter schools spanned the middle-high grades (9.9
percent), and over twice as many charter schools had “other “ grade
configurations (5.0 percent).
·
The highest percentage of
both charter and other public schools were elementary schools—but nearly twice
as many other public schools were elementary (47 percent) as compared to
charter schools (25 percent).
·
The high school grade
configuration was the only one with approximately equal percentages in both
charter (17 percent) and other public schools (15 percent). (p. 22)
However, in comparing student-teacher ratios, the report does not describe significantly smaller class sizes in public charter schools than exist in all public schools:
·
In 1998-99, most charter
schools had a slightly lower teacher to student ratio than did all public
schools in the 27 charter states (1997-98). The median student to teacher ratio
for charter schools was 16.0 as compared to 17.2 for all public schools
.
·
The most notable difference
between the charter school and the all public school median student to teacher
ratio was at the un-graded schools, with un-graded charter schools having a much
higher student to teacher ratio, 18.8 students per teacher, as compared to 8.8
students per teacher in other public schools.
·
A higher proportion of all
public schools had student to teacher ratios in the mid-range (16-20 students
per teacher), while charter schools were more likely to have both smaller and
larger class sizes. Some cases of high student to teacher ratios for charter
schools—especially at the high school level—may reflect the school’s use of
non-traditional educational approaches such as self-paced computer assisted
instruction and distance learning. (p. 24)
The
full text of the fourth-year report is available through the U. S. Department
of Education’s home page: http://www.ed.gov and is for sale from the U. S. Government
Printing Office.
In discussing the rationale for not including charter
school students in the September 30th membership count, Pam Curry of
the Senate Finance Committee indicated that SOQ funding for instructional
positions based on a September 30th enrollment count that excluded
charter school students would have limited potential to adversely affect a
local school division. She explained that in the process of determining funding
levels, once the total costs for the SOQ accounts are calculated, that total
cost is divided by the September 30th membership numbers to
determine per pupil cost for each division. That per pupil cost is then
multiplied by the number of all students, including charter school students, in
the school division.
For example, because allocations are determined by a
formula that is based on 30 students per teaching position at the elementary
level, Ms. Curry indicated that the only instance where a local school division
would be adversely affected by the non-inclusion of charter school students is
when their inclusion would otherwise have boosted enrollment above 30 students
in a class, which at 31 students would qualify the division for an additional
SOQ funded elementary position.
Ms.Curry also noted that the legislators were assuming
that the charter school would be a K-8 or K-12 charter school, which would
indicate very small class sizes if the enrollment were under 100 students.
Summary and Recommendations
Virginia’s charter school
legislation provides for the exclusion of public charter school students in the
local school division’s September 30th membership count. That
provision is based on three interacting assumptions: (a) that charter schools
will be K-8 or K-12 in their grade configurations, (b) that charter schools
will be of very small size, and (c) that charter schools will, therefore, have
a very low student to teacher ratio.
The fourth annual report on charter
schools issued by the U. S. Department of Education provides a description of
charter schools that is relevant to the Virginia legislation. Annual reports
will need to be studied in order to determine trends in school size and grade
configuration in charter schools nationally.
Given the newness of this provision
in charter school legislation in Virginia, it is important that the potential
impact of the non-inclusion of charter school students in the September 30th
membership reports be clearly determined and that any adjustments to the
legislation and/or the SOQ funding process be considered in the best interests
of both potential charter school applicants as well as their local school
divisions.
Reference
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (2000). The state of charter schools: Fourth-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
______________________
Cecelia W. Krill joined the faculty in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Virginia Tech's Northern Virginia Center in August, 1999 after nearly 20 years as an educator in the public schools as teacher, principal, associate superintendent for instruction, and superintendent of schools.
She earned a Ph.D. from University of Wisconsin-Madison in Educational Administration with a minor in Curriculum and Instruction. A Masters in Education was earned from the University of Virginia in Curriculum Development. Undergraduate studies were completed at St. Norbert College near her hometown of Green Bay, WI.
Dr Krill has taught courses at Virginia Tech at both masters and doctoral levels, including school-based budgeting, school personnel, and governance and policy in education courses.
EPI Policy Paper Number 7
Posted: February 7, 2001
By The Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech
sjanosik@vt.edu