More money, fewer students

School districts may “end up with more money AND fewer students as chartering expands,” says Charter Blog, citing studies in New York and Ohio.

About Joanne


  1. There are no long-run economies of scale for large school districts.

    Enrollment in charter schools does not make long-term enrollment projections less reliable.

    Charter school students are not inherently cheaper to educate than students who do not choose charter schools.

    The charter school reimbursement is significantly less than the average expenditure per student.

    Public schools are free to operate programs that would attract charter school students back into the system.

    All these facts mean that charter schools increase the resources of large, urban public school systems and reduce the burden of public education on the taxpayer.

  2. Hunter McDaniel says:

    CRW is exactly right. Claims by the school districts that charters “cost” them money are based on (a) deliberate ignorance of economics and (b) a presumption that they “own” the students (vs. maybe their PARENTS).

    What charters do cost the districts is their monopoly on CONTROL. And of course these same districts spend money with wild abandon on their own pet projects, so their concern about cost for charter schools rings a bit hollow to me.