Maryland Charter Schools to Get Same Funding as Public Schools

Last week, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (the intermediate level appeals court in the state) issued this opinion in the case of City Neighbors Charter School vs. Balitmore City Board of School Commissioners. At issue in the case is the amount of funding the public school board must give to charter schools. Under Maryland law, the boards of education must

disburse to a public charter school an amount of county, State, and federal money for elementary, middle, and secondary students that is commensurate with the amount disbursed to other public schools in the local jurisdiction. (Emphasis in orginal)

Interestingly enough, it appears as though the application process requires the charter applicant to request a per pupil funding level, which the charter schools in the case did, setting their request far below the city's average per pupil expenditure. According to the facts laid out in the Court's opinion, the City school board authorized a cash payment of $5,011 and in kind services valued at $2,943, a total of $7,954 or less than 75% of the public school funding of $10,956, which was the per pupil expenditure of the Baltimore city public schools in 2004-2005.

The charter schools appealed the decision of a Baltimore city circuit court ruling arguing that Maryland law required the payment of an equal amount of money and that the provision of services in lieu of cash was not acceptable. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the charter schools. Now all Maryland school systems must provide the same funding level for charter students as traditional public students. But the city school board remains worried that if it must pay the same amount to charter schools as it does per pupil for traditional public schools, then there could be problems. According to a statement

The ruling "no doubt would pose a financial hardship on the vast majority of our traditional schools, which ironically could result in these schools receiving less money per student than charter schools."

Which leads to the question: if the students now in charter schools were to remain in traditional public schools, what would their funding level be?

This episode demonstrates a couple of things for me. First, yet again, local school boards don't like charters and will continually put obstacles in the path of charter success. Second, it seems obvious that charters must do the same amount with less money than traditional public schools. More actually, since if charters fail to achieve they are shut down. Third, local school board mismanagement now borders on the illegal. Fourth, were it not for hte legal courage exhibited by the charter schools in this case, the funding disparity would have continued. Too many charters, more worried about survival might accept such disparate funding levels, despite what the law says. Well, at least in Maryland, that is no longer the case.

The law is written quite clearly, charter schools should receive esentially the same per pupil funding as all other public schools. While a small discount may be permissible, (the Court said a 2% discount for administrative services was acceptable), there is a vast difference between a 2% discount and a $27% discount.

This episode also demonstrates the need for a chartering authority separate and distinct from the local school boards, an agency with no current turf to defend and preserve.