Study finds charter schools cost Oakland district big

For years, Oakland public school officials have watched thousands of city students leave their schools and enroll in charters, with more than $10,000 in state funding following each of them out the door.

In Oakland — and in other districts across the state — district leaders have frequently complained they have been unable to reduce costs or close enough schools to offset that lost revenue. That means, they say, the growing number of charter schools are pulling resources away from traditional schools.

But they haven’t been able to put a price tag on it, until now.

In Oakland, the district had a net loss of $57.4 million in revenue last school year, even after taking into account the savings of not having to educate the 15,500 students who chose to attend one of the city’s 40 charter schools instead, according to a University of Oregon study released Tuesday.

The study came up with the $57.4 million price tag by comparing what the district would gain in

state funding if all students currently enrolled in charters actually attended public schools and then what it would cost to educate them. The difference is the net loss.

Oakland has more charter schools per capita than any other district in California and has struggled to balance its budget in recent years, with schools forced to make $9 million in mid-year cuts this year.

The report, called a first-of-its-kind analysis of such costs, also included net-loss analysis for East Side Union High School District in Santa Clara County and San Diego Unified.

“The high costs of charter schools have led to decreases in neighborhood public schools in counseling, libraries, music and art programs, lab sciences, field trips, reading tutors, special education funding, and even the most basic supplies like toilet paper,” said the researcher, political science Professor Gordon Lafer. “Unlimited charter school expansion is pushing some of California’s school districts toward a financial tipping point, from which they will be unable to return.”

The research was sponsored by In the Public Interest, a nonprofit opposed to the privatization of public services and critical of charter schools, which are public schools but independently run.

While both traditional and charter schools are taxpayer funded and subject to state and local oversights, traditional school advocates say charter schools represent the privatization of public education, with support from big-money donors with special interests. Charter school supporters say traditional schools have failed too many students, and families want choice.

“This report is yet another tactic by special interests to prioritize politics over kids — it is pure propaganda and is far from impartial as the author claims,” said the California Charter School Association in a statement. “Local districts must own their role as fiscal stewards responsible for their budgets and stop ignoring the hard decisions that lie ahead — like crushing unfunded pension liabilities or underused facilities — and come up with a range of solutions that ultimately benefit all public students.”

The study did not take into account how many of the students enrolled in charters would have chosen private schools or home schooling if charters weren’t an option.

“The first question to really ask and entertain is, why do charters even exist?” said David Castillo, executive director of Oakland Charters, a nonprofit that supports city charter schools and their leadership boards. “There’s something charters are offering that families are attracted to.”

School districts “no longer have a monopoly on providing public education,” he added.

Yet, district officials say that charter schools have unfair advantages. They can turn students away when full, for example, which traditional districts can’t do. In addition, charters serve disproportionately fewer special needs students, especially those with the most severe disabilities. And in Oakland, for example, the district serves far more newcomer students who arrive mid-year, many who are unaccompanied minors who don’t speak English and who are years behind academically.

“The greater a student is in need, the more it costs to educate that student,” said Oakland Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell at the official release of the report at Castlemont High School.

Oakland Unified’s enrollment has significantly declined over the past two decades, with 37,000 students this year, down from 54,000 in 2000. During that same period, charter enrollment has gone from about 1,000 to 15,500.

District officials have not closed many schools to address the lower enrollment, saying it’s not an effective way to save money. When the school board closed five schools several years ago, two converted to charters, ultimately leading to a loss of 500 students, said board President Aimee Eng.

“We really have limited options,” she said.

The report released Tuesday wasn’t “the be-all, end-all,” JohnsonTrammell said, but it’s a start in compiling information that the district and state policymakers should have in order to address the needs of all students.

The report recommended that all state school districts be required to identify the economic impact of charter schools and that each charter school application include a specific assessment of associated cost to the districts.

The author also recommended amending state law to allow districts to consider financial impact to the district when assessing charter school applications. Currently, school boards can’t base a decision on what the lost enrollment would mean for the district.

“We want to encourage our policymakers to look at what’s happening in Oakland,” Eng said. “We encourage policymakers to dig in deeper.”