New York state cushions the revenue loss when students transfer to charter schools only for school districts outside New York City. An earlier version misstated this.
Yet even in the original version, he had added, "By law, Massachusetts districts should be reimbursed 100% of the state money for the student for a year, then 25% for the next five years—though the state has only met about 60% of that funding since 2015."
So it is clear that this cushion pertains neither to NYC, which has the largest share by far of charters in the state; nor to MA, where this promised reimbursement has not ever been fully funded. We have yet to hear if the claim is true for IL.
See also links to analyses below from CA, PA, and NC, which show that the fiscal impact of charter growth affects public schools nationwide. Moreover, Osborne still hasn't corrected his claim in the oped that public schools can "lease" empty buildings to charters - while as my blog post points out, NYC is obligated to provide space for all new and expanding charters either for free in public school buildings, or help pay for their rent in private space, which last year cost the district about $100 million.
Update (11/21/19): For more on the significant negative impact of charter school growth on public school budgets via "stranded costs", see economist Gordon Lafer’s report focused on CA, or this Research for Action analysis of Pennsylvania, or Helen Ladd's study of the evidence from North Carolina.
From: Leonie Haimson
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 10:52 AM
Class Size Matters