“SCHOOLS
ARE FOR KIDS”
Why Public Charter Schools Must Be
Fairly Funded After CCJEF
Introduction & Executive Summary
Judge Thomas Moukawsher’s ruling in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell called for a
fundamental shift in the way Connecticut funds its public schools. Judge Moukawsher concluded his ruling with a
phrase that should be self-evident, but Connecticut seems to have forgotten: “Schools are for kids.” The CCJEF ruling
established that the state’s funding system has had a disproportionate, deeply negative impact on African-American,
Latino, low-income and other high-need students in the state’s most underserved communities, in violation of
Connecticut’s constitution. According to Judge Moukawsher, Connecticut’s broken school funding system “makes a
mockery of the state’s constitutional duty to provide adequate educational opportunities to all students.” 1
The court’s ruling in CCJEF v. Rell is a clarion call for action from Connecticut’s leaders to fully invest in high-need
children and provide them with a constitutionally adequate education. Put simply, we can no longer tolerate an
education system where our more affluent students lead the nation in performance, while our poor students finish
40th, behind states like Mississippi and Arkansas. 2 This means that the public schools educating these children
must be funded fairly. In this paper, we argue a clear case for fairly funding public charter schools, which have
consistently delivered excellent results for high-need families.
Even in the most deprived districts in the state, the underfunding of charter schools stands out. Without an overhaul of
the current funding formula, charters will be forced to make damaging budget cuts, and choose between maintaining
a high-quality education for existing students and growing to serve more high-need children. Schools that deliver
outstanding results for underserved communities should not be forced to make such a choice.
Any state response to the CCJEF ruling that does not include fair funding for public charter schools should be
viewed as a failure to invest in some of the most traditionally underserved students in Connecticut.
This paper will establish the following:
1. Charter schools serve many of the neediest students in Connecticut’s most underserved districts - the
students that the CCJEF ruling declared were being denied an adequate education.
2. Charter schools dramatically improve student outcomes in these high-need districts.
3. Highly unequal funding 3 for charter schools prevents $32 million4 from reaching the neediest children
in Connecticut - $28.7 million5 of which is concentrated in three of the state’s three poorest cities:
Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven.
4. A reimagined public school funding system must include fair funding for public charter schools as one
of its core pillars of equity in order to do right by the state’s highest-need children.
Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, No. HHD-CV-05-4019406-S (Conn. Sup. Ct. September 7, 2016)
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) data, cited in Sept. 7, 2016 story in the New York Times by Elizabeth Harris: “Judge, Citing Inequality, Orders Connecticut to Overhaul
Its School System.”
3
School district expenditure totals for the most recent year available (SY14-15) were retrieved from CSDE’s 2014-15 Net School Expenditures Per Pupil dataset and from CT School
Finance Project’s Expenditures for Connecticut Schools of Choice dataset. Total expenditures funded by public revenue streams (total expenditures less contributions) were identified
and calculated at the per pupil level.
4
Public revenue streams funded a weighted average of $12,524 per pupil in charter expenditures during SY14-15, $3,980 less than the weighted host district average of $16,504 per
pupil. Combined, this per pupil shortfall added up to a gap of $31,985,140 during SY14-15.
5
Public revenue streams funded a weighted average of $12,231 per pupil in charter expenditures in Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven during SY14-15, $4,604 less than the weighted
host district average of $16,835 per pupil. Combined, this per pupil shortfall added up to a gap of $28,748,511 during SY14-15.
1
2
— 1 —
As Connecticut engages in a long-overdue statewide debate about how to establish equity in our schools, this paper
presents clear evidence to policymakers that public charter schools must receive fair funding as part of any plan to
comply with the court’s ruling in CCJEF v. Rell.
Part I: The Children Served By Charter Schools
Charter schools serve many of the neediest students in Connecticut’s most at-risk districts.
Connecticut’s charter schools serve the state’s highest-need districts, which enroll low-income students of color at
twice the state’s average rate: 73 percent of students in districts where charter schools operate are Black or
Hispanic, and 70 percent come from low-income households.6
LOW-INCOME STUDENTS & STUDENTS OF COLOR: SY15-16
100%
PERCENT OF ENROLLMENT
90%
80%
70%
60%
Connecticut Public Schools
50%
Districts With Charters
40%
Charters
30%
20%
10%
0%
STUDENTS OF COLOR
LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Within these communities, charter schools enroll at-risk students at a rate slightly higher than their host districts –
87 percent of students at charter schools are Black or Hispanic and 71 percent are low-income. This means charter
schools not only serve Connecticut’s neediest districts – they serve many of the neediest students in these
districts.
6
Students receiving free or reduced price lunches in SY15-16 were considered low-income in this analysis. These designations were retrieved from CSDE’s Free/Reduced Lunch dataset.
— 2 —
Part II: Charter School Impact
Charters dramatically improve student outcomes in their host districts. Public charter school students are
outperforming their neighborhood peers on the Smarter Balanced Assessments (SBAC) – in SY15-16, the rate
of charter school students scoring at grade level was 39 percent higher in math and 31 percent higher in English
Language Arts (ELA) than in charter host districts.7
STUDENTS AT GRADE LEVEL IN ELA & MATH: SBAC 2016
45%
STUDENTS AT LEVEL 3 OR ABOVE
40%
35%
30%
Host Districts
25%
Charters
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ELA
MATH
7
CDSE’s SBAC datasets tracking the performance of “All Grades Combined” in SY14-15 and SY15-16 were retrieved and used in this analysis. Students scoring at Level 3 or above were
considered at grade level.
— 3 —
Charter school students scored at grade level in math at a rate 39 percent higher than their district school peers.
• 29 percent of charter school students scored at grade level in math
• 21 percent of host district students scored at grade level in math
Charter school students scored at grade level in ELA at a rate 31 percent higher than their district school peers.
• 43 percent of charter school students scored at grade level in ELA
• 33 percent of host district students scored at grade level in ELA
Overall, Connecticut’s charter schools improved more than twice as much as host districts
in both ELA and math last year. 8
• Charters improved 5.1 points in math and 5.3 points in ELA
• Host districts improved 2.3 points in math and 2.5 points in ELA
+/- IN STUDENTS AT LEVEL 3 OR ABOVE
IMPROVEMENT IN ELA & MATH: SY15 TO SY16
6%
5%
4%
3%
Host Districts
2%
Charters
1%
0%
ELA IMPROVEMENT
MATH IMPROVEMENT
Charters have had their most profound impact in three of Connecticut’s poorest cities: Bridgeport, New Haven, and
Hartford. In these cities – which account for 80 percent of charter school students in the state – charter school
students score at grade level in math at twice the host-district rate, and charter school students score at grade level in
ELA at a rate 58 percent higher than their host district peers.
8
Based on CSDE’s Smarter Balanced 2015-16 Preliminary Results dataset, which adjusted 2014-15 assessment data to allow year-to-year performance comparisons. Because the
adjusted data included scoring data but not participation figures, test taker totals were retrieved from official SY14-15 and SY15-16 results to calculate weighted improvement averages
for the charter school and host-district groupings.
— 4 —
STUDENTS AT GRADE LEVEL IN MATH: SBAC 2016
45%
STUDENTS AT LEVEL 3 OR ABOVE
40%
35%
30%
District
25%
Charters
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
In Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven, charter
school students score at grade level in math at a rate
twice as high as their district school peers.
•
30 percent of charter school students scored at
grade level in math
• 15 percent of district school students scored at
grade level in math
In Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven, charter
school students score at grade level in ELA at a rate
58 percent higher than their district school peers.
• 42 percent of charter school students scored at
grade level in ELA
• 27 percent of district school students scored at
grade level in ELA
— 5 —
NEW HAVEN
Part III: The Impact of Unequal Funding
Unequal funding for charter schools prevents $32 million from reaching the neediest children in Connecticut.
Charter schools receive just 76 percent as much public, per pupil funding as their host districts. This massive funding
gap works out to $3,980 per pupil 9 -- preventing a combined $32 million in public support from reaching the
neediest children in Connecticut.10
STATEWIDE PUBLIC FUNDING PER PUPIL 2015
$18,000
PUBLIC FUNDING PER PUPIL
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
Host Districts
$10,000
Charters
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
The vast majority of this lost funding hurts students in three of Connecticut’s cities. Charter schools in Bridgeport,
Hartford, and New Haven receive just 76 percent as much per pupil as their host districts in public funding – an
average shortfall of $4,604 per student. This shortfall adds up to $28.7 million in lost support -- funds that
would enable the best schools in these districts to make an even bigger difference in Connecticut’s poorest
communities.
9
This calculation analyzed expenditures for all charters with public data for SY14-15, meaning both state and local charter schools were included. Local charter schools, of which there
are two, receive substantially more local funding than their state counterparts. With local charter schools excluded, the charter-funding gap expands to $4,140 per pupil.
10
Re-occuring operating expenditures funded by public dollars were analyzed for this report. Construction-related spending and spending funded by philanthropic contributions were not
included.
— 6 —
PUBLIC FUNDING PER PUPIL 2015
$20,000
PUBLIC FUNDING PER PUPIL
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
Districts
$12,000
Charters
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
— 7 —
NEW HAVEN
Part IV: The Path Forward
Now that the CCJEF v. Rell decision has provided a clear mandate for fundamental change in Connecticut’s public
education system, our leaders have the opportunity to shape a new vision for public education, one built on the
principles of fairness and equity.
Governor Malloy has embraced the court’s call for action, urging the legislature to “address the systemic problems in
our educational system, particularly fair funding, in a serious manner once and for all in the 2017 legislative session.”
The burden is now on the state legislature to do the same.
We believe a new funding formula must focus on a more equitable and sustainable approach that funds each student
based on their individual need and fairly funds the schools that are delivering a quality education to high-need
children. This means that any action by the state must include fair funding for public charter schools - the schools
with the strongest track record of providing an excellent education to the students the CCJEF ruling is meant to help.
As laid out in this paper, the deeply inequitable current system for funding charter school students has robbed the
state’s most underserved children of $32 million in funding that is rightfully theirs.
But the current system does more than deny children who currently attend charters their rightful share of state funding.
It also severely limits the potential growth of these high-performing schools. According to Achievement First CEO
Dacia Toll, a failure to fix the funding formula will mean that charter schools “will have to further eliminate academic
courses and after-school programs and increase class sizes. Students will lose access to programs that have enriched
their education, and thousands of families will remain on charter school waitlists because we’re unable to serve new
students.”
State leaders must prevent this from happening. If state leaders do not level the playing field for public charter school
students, they will miss a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put politics aside and invest in the public schools that
are producing transformational outcomes for high-need students.
— 8 —