Reprint:The Idaho Charter School Network would like to set record straight on charter school funding

Contrary to statements made by superintendent Wiley Dobbs in a recent Times News feature about Twin Falls School District’s look at charter schools, by District Superintendent, Wiley Dobbs, public charter schools do not receive 30% more funding than traditional public schools.

The truth is that state funding for all public schools, traditional or charter is determined by the state funding formula. It is based on three factors: teacher experience, program size and grades served. A public charter school and a traditional public school with the same variables in each of the three categories would receive the exact same amount of state funding. Smaller schools (traditional or charter) with a student population of under 200 can take advantage of the small school funding formula offered by the State of Idaho, which offers a slightly higher funding per pupil.

The truth is that there ARE discrepancies in funding among charter and traditional public schools when it comes to raising money for facilities and additional operational expenses. Public charter schools, unlike traditional public schools are not allowed to levy bonds for facilities or operational expenses. They must pay all of their expenses on their state allowance alone. When charters schools are located in districts that are passing facilities and maintenance bonds, charter schools are not included in the receipt of these funds and therefore cost tax payers substantially less money to operate than their traditional public school counterparts. In districts where bonds are not being passed, state funding for traditional public schools is exactly the same as it is for public charter schools.

Historically, Idaho public charter schools have benefited from a federal Charter School Programs grant which provides monies for start up expenses—books, chairs, desks, etc.  These funds have been made available to Idaho through a competitive grant process and are not guaranteed to continue. Recent awards have been in the amount of approximately $175,000 per school per year for the first three years of operation. While the potential receipt of these funds might make starting charter schools an attractive option, one should consider that these funds are available for the first three years of operation and only IF Idaho continues to write winning proposals to the Federal Department of Education for these monies.

Historically, Idaho has won these monies, but the feds have indicated that in order to be funded, states must show that they are not limiting the number of charter schools. The cap of six charter schools per year as imposed by Idaho statute and the increased demand for charter schools will no doubt hinder Dobbs’ and others’ plan for expansion of choice for Idaho kids—at least choice that is provided through charter schools. If we want to be serious about expanding choice through charter schools and we want to continue to receive federal dollars to assist in the start up of these schools, we need to get serious about removing or increasing the cap imposed on charter school growth in Idaho. Idaho is one of the few states in the country that still has caps on charter school growth.

Of course, districts have several other options to consider when planning for choice in education such as open enrollment, magnet schools or academies, or even by offering choice within a single school by creating “schools within schools” whereby parents could choose the different track they want for their child. There are several options available especially in a district that already has facilities for the schools.

The Idaho Charter School Network commends Mr. Dobbs for his exploration of choice for his already high performing district, and we look forward to working with the district as they explore the options available for providing choice.

Educational Choice . Kerri Pickett-Hoffman