Charter Schools Get Less Funding but Achieve Similar Test Scores to Public Schools
Charter schools use "fewer dollars to achieve better outcomes," write University of Arkansas researchers.

Charter schools provide students with greater educational gains per dollar spent than traditional public schools (TPS). That's the finding of a new report from University of Arkansas researchers that studied public and charter schools across nine American cities. Despite receiving far less money per pupil than TPS, students in charter schools perform better and are estimated to earn more per dollar invested in their education
"Charter schools use their funding more efficiently, achieving better short- and long-term outcomes per dollar invested, relative to" traditional public schools (TPS), the study reads. "Relative to similar TPS students, charter school students, on average, perform slightly better on standardized tests, graduate high school at higher rates, enroll in college at higher rates, and have more positive behavioral outcomes."
In the nine cities studied by the researchers, public schools received an average of $29,168 per pupil in FY 2020. Charter schools received around 70 percent of that at only $20,230 per student. But despite this gap, students in charter schools performed several points higher on a national standardized test.
While the actual achievement gap between the average public school student and charter school student was fairly small—between 0.05 and 0.07 of a standard deviation depending on the year studied—the researchers argued that, when considering the large funding gap, this small difference is significant.
Researchers estimated that across the nine cities, for every $1 spent per pupil, public school students can expect $3.94 in lifetime earnings. But for charter schools, that number shoots up to $6.25, meaning that the return on investment for students attending charter schools is 58 percent higher than for those attending traditional public schools on average. In two of the cities studied, charter schools provided an ROI 100 percent higher than TPS.
"Charter schools tend to demonstrate greater efficiency on both metrics of cost-effectiveness and return on investment, using fewer dollars to achieve better outcomes," the researcher wrote. "Part of the mechanism that allows charter schools to produce better outcomes with less funding could be related to the fact that charter schools are released from some restrictions placed on public schools, which may allow them to customize the way they spend their dollars to be more efficient and achieve better outcomes for students."
These results are hardly surprising. While it's long been a mantra in progressive politics that increased funding is the key to improving school performance, per-pupil spending actually has a weak relationship with academic results.
A 2012 report from Harvard and Stanford researchers found that an additional $1,000 in per-pupil spending was "associated with an annual gain in achievement of one-tenth of 1 percent of a standard deviation," adding that such a small amount "is of no statistical or substantive significance."
While individual charter school performances vary, reports like this show that charters are a solid academic option—one that seems to return similar or better results as public schools using less taxpayer funding.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
End all taxpayer funding of schools.
And teachers unions.
Now do homeschooling!
Teachers unions would not be nearly as bad if they had to negotiate with actual businesses, instead of politicians.
That's a bridge too far. I have a rational self-interest in making it more likely that you will be sufficiently well educated to be a useful member of society rather than someone who will rob me in the street. That logic justifies some safety net for the truly destitute. Second, I have a moral problem with holding small children accountable for the sins (in this case, fiscal irresponsibility) of their parents.
Both those arguments support some level of subsidy for the education of at least some children. But the free-rider problem makes it difficult to rely on purely private philanthropy. I think some level of taxpayer-funded education is almost certainly required.
That said, I would argue that whatever means-tested taxpayer funding of education is allowed, it should follow the students, not the schools. Government-run schools are proving to be a failed experiment.
When deadbeat parents that refuse to pay for their kiddo’s education step up to their obligations, then the money follows the student.
The homeschooled and Amish kids in this neck of the woods turn out fine and don’t have their education funded by government taking from productive people. School curricula, bathroom genders, cafeteria menu, banning/allowing books, etc. all get decided by the parents.
And that's the common reply -- society benefits from an educated populace. And so many people are worried about that, they could easily start a scholarship fund for needy students. And the money would go toward more effective private schools, and hence stretch farther.
Citizens without school-age children aren't "free riders," they're robbery victims.
I never said they were the free riders - that's not how that phenomenon is described at all. Free riders are those who agree that X is a valuable goal but withhold their contributions because they believe that others are already willing to pay the cost. It is a large-group variant of the Prisoners' Dilemma.
As long as the GOVERNMENT is involved, the self interest of "educators" is better served by NOT educating the students. The worse the student's performance, the more money the government spends on the school.
Let’s not. All you’re proving by such a statement is that libertarians are full of batshitery. Publicly funded schools might have developed problems in the last couple of decades, and in light of comments such as yours–and the current trend of even the stupidest ideas gaining mainstream momentum (adrenochrome-drinking elites, for one; a mass pedophile ring, for another; the earth is flat for another)–it appears that our public education has indeed failed us. But it wasn’t always so.
Time to turn off the lights and evolve above the expensive wealth redistributing indoctrination daycares.
DEAD WRONG. Government funded schools have been the problem as long as they have been government funded. Your grandparents had not been born when that happened. Public schools stopped working when the PARENT'S and the school board ceased to be one and the same.
My private high school spent about $0.33 per $1.00 our public school district did per student, with better results. It might be more now, but it's still significantly lower. And we outperformed them in every academic sense, by a long shot.
"public schools received an average of $29,168 per pupil in FY 2020. Charter schools received around 70 percent of that at only $20,230 per student."
Nearly $30k per student on average annually? How is that even possible? Many universities are less than that. The numbers we were looking at 25 years ago that I referenced above were $4k for my private high school vs. $12k for public. Wow.
And with 30 students per class average, almost a million per classroom.
Mountains of policies require armies of administrators making six figures a pop.
Ding! You are correct, sir! (or madam, as the case may be) A very big part of the reason that increased spending isn't producing improved results is that much of that increase has flowed to ever-growing administration and never made it to the classroom. Whether it's K-12 or college, the story is similar. Growth in the number of paper pushers has greatly out-stripped growth in the number of people actually teaching students.
All of that number-crunching cheerfulness, and nowhere was it mentioned how the size of the classroom might play into all of that success. How many students for each class? That's important.
And you can't tell me I'm the only one aware of other factors that would goose those rosy figures. Those factors need to be considered. People who can already afford to send their offspring to charter schools have a stable lifestyle that centers around family. People on the lower end of the economic spectrum have to work too much to create that stable home, and often are fraught with stress just keeping it going. The increase in poverty for the last four decades had a direct impact on the family structure.
We now live in a 24-hour economy, spearheaded by various retail outlets. Mothers aren't home at night, nor fathers, so the necessary cohesive activities that establish the family unit are nonexistent.
Now, you take a look at families that send their children to carter schools, and you'll find they have jobs that lend themselves to order. They can think about building a future. Prior to the last election, I read a statistic that slightly less than half the people have less than $1000 in the bank. Such people don't have time to think about charter schools, and otherwise plan for the future. They're trying to figure out how to get through the week, how to pay rent or keep the car running. That's the result of good old-fashioned laissez faire economics, not big government.
In any case, this article like rubbish to me, another example of these anarcho-capitalists trying to convince us that government is so terrible. It's all libertarian propaganda, one that ignores the real causes of our problems, and simply wants to abandon the lowest classes of society to be ground beneath the wheel.
Let's see if I get this straight. It's not fair that responsible parents send their their kids to charter schools for better educations, therefore that option should be taken away so all kids are forced to go to shitty public schools and get equally shitty educations?
Let’s see if I get this straight. It’s not fair that responsible parents send their their kids to charter schools for better educations, therefore that option should be taken away so all kids are forced to go to shitty public schools and get equally shitty educations?
I didn't say any of that.
Maybe not, but if you support public schools or public school unions, you support people that do say that.
The fact of the matter is; when charter schools and private schools lobby the state government for vouchers... all you are going to do is subsidize families that don't need it and after a couple years, all the charter schools will become the public schools because all the public school kids can just use the voucher to go to charter schools. That voucher (from the state) is coming out of the same damn pot of $$$ from taxes that was previously going to public schools.
So I don't really care and not sure why libertarians care how much more efficient a charter school is (getting same result with 30% less money) when the savings are not passed onto the taxpayers. So call me when someone's taxes go down because more kids are going to charter schools.
Separately, there are vasts swaths of the US where a private (religious) school or a charter school are not feasible options due to distance. So for those areas something else is going to be needed unless people want to spend billions building a bunch of new schools to supplant the one or two available public schools.
and nowhere was it mentioned how the size of the classroom might play into all of that success. How many students for each class? That’s important.
Why? Based in what assertion? Basis schools in Arizona are some of the too charters, class size is 32. Public schools ask for sizes of 24 or less. Public schools do worse.
What assertion were you attempting?
Not only did I mention the class sizes--your anecdote notwithstanding--I also mentioned the other social factors. Those were part of my assertions. At one time, we didn't need charter schools, and if you want to send you children to them, have at it.
But it's now all about funding, isn't it? Some of these Republican types want to take public money and put it in charter schools. Let's not do that.
You are still making generic u founded assertions without data, just talking points.
What social factors? Charter schools Rw lottery based. Latest demographic report for Basis was 70% minority, 50% Hispanic. There is no self selection. They beat public schools no matter which social metric you choose.
Youre blindly pushing narratives without thought or evidence.
The only factor that is certain is the parents who send their kids there want their kids to learn. And not be babysitters.
Charter schools are public schools, you genius. They're funded by taxpayers just like other public schools. The difference is that they're achieving similar results while spending significantly less. As long as there's only a finite amount of money to go around, it strikes me as positively immoral not to look for the most effective ways to spend that money. Cutting the least productive spending frees up resources for other uses that might provide greater benefit.
The main difference in educational outcomes isn't due to spending or class size or technology. The main difference is parental involvement. And when parents are paying the tuition, they are much more motivated to be involved. There is also some self-selection at work -- parents who care about education are more likely to go the private school route, even in addition to the taxes they pay to the local government school district.
You and Alric are making the same false assumption. Charter schools are *not* private schools. They do not require the parents to pay tuition. Both charters and traditional public schools are *public schools*, that is, are funded by public monies.
The difference is charter schools have requirements relaxed, generally allowing more variance in teaching methodology, generally aren't unionized, and don't answer to the local school board. Frequently they are run by a charter 'company' that forms a contract with the state.
So going to a charter school is free. Ability to attend is usually determined by lottery.
And Alric, if you can remove your head from your ass long enough to actually read the paper, you'll see that several of the cities, including Camden (one of the ones with the biggest difference in performance between Charters and traditional public schools (tps)) have a higher percentage of poor students in the charter schools than in the traditional public schools. (Camden's charter schools are >90% poor students, while the TPS are only ~56%). (Only two of the 9 cities they looked at had a higher percentage of impoverished students in TPS than charters, and the differences weren't very large in those districts).
So Alric's criticisms aren't just without evidence, they appear to be dead wrong.
You're partly correct, but only partly. First off, we're talking about charter schools and you're talking about private schools which are not remotely the same thing. I've seen studies that divided students into three groups, those attending charter schools, those whose parents applied for a charter school but didn't get selected and those who didn't apply. Not surprisingly, those in the second group tended to perform better than those in the third. This suggests that parental involvement is a significant factor.
This guy works for the teacher’s union.
Oh really?
Please explain how this is so.
Wow, that's an impressive amount of wrong. Anyone can "afford" to send their children to charter schools if they have the opportunity. They're publicly funded and don't cost parents anything over and above what they're already paying in taxes. In fact, low income parents are often the biggest supporters of charter schools. They want their kids to have a better life than theirs, and they believe charter schools can offer educational models that are more likely to help them achieve that.
Even if charters aren't drastically better than TPS, merely providing similar outcomes for two-thirds the cost is a non-trivial benefit. If you want better social services, then it's only logical to try and spend money where it will do the most good. Applying cost/benefit analyses to some things may seem a little cold-blooded, but I'd argue that it's actually immoral not to.
Government has instituted many (allegedly) well-intentioned policies that have long since revealed to be deeply misguided and counter-productive. If you think is the result of some imaginary "laissez-faire", you're seriously deluded. Over the last few decades, even deeply flawed free market reforms have done far more to lift people out of poverty than government programs. Buy, hey, keep whacking that libertarian strawman (or maybe boogeyman), you'll get him one of these days.
Alric does seem to be confusing charter schools with private schools. But there are things that make charters different than regular public schools in ways that make comparing them not apples to apples.
As “choice” schools, charters benefit from at least some degree of self selection bias for parents that are more involved and informed about education. The article didn’t note it, but the paper it references does show that 8 of the 9 cities in the study had larger numbers of special education students in the TPS compared to charters. As choice schools, charter schools can and often do have more strict codes of conduct, less due process in discipline and expulsion, tighter attendance requirements, and so on.
Ultimately, if parents are “escaping” the “failing” public schools, what does that leave behind? It leaves behind schools with higher numbers of students that are harder to teach, harder to motivate, harder to discipline, and that makes it harder to find effective teachers to staff the schools. Maybe school choice looks better in these studies because the regular schools are in death spirals where the students not lucky enough to find an escape suffer.
There is a reason why George W called his school plan “No Child Left Behind.”
Since other studies have already shown that charter school class sizes are the same or slightly larger than public school classrooms, your complaint is irrelevant. Comparative demographic studies have also debunked your other teacher-union-talking-points. Charter schools are fantastically popular among the poorest demographics whose kids are otherwise trapped in public schools.
In fairness, this article does not cite to those other studies. But they have been extensively discussed in other Reason articles. If you are unaware of them, that's a you problem at this point.
Since most of the dollars at public school go to administrative and non-teaching costs, that's not too surprising.
The biggest gains in educational outcomes would come from shutting down the public schools and selling them to the highest bidder.
Part of the mechanism that allows charter schools to produce better outcomes with less funding could be related to the fact that charter schools are released from some restrictions placed on public schools
Gee, more autonomy and less regulatory burden leads to better results? Imagine that.
But despite this gap, students in charter schools performed several points higher on a national standardized test.
No, that is not an accurate description. Across all 9 cities, weighted by the number of students, the average NAEP Reading scores (8th grade) were 256.11 for Traditional Public Schools (TPS) vs. 258.47 for Charters. The NAEP Math scores were 281.06 for TPS vs. 282.36 for Charters.
The authors of this paper turn these small differences into something large by doing something odd. They took the point totals and divided by the funding of each of the schools in each city (per $1000). Thus, the TPS reading score became 10.69 per $1000 spent vs. 15.06 per $1000 spent in charters.
But this is not a meaningful variable. Dividing a test score by the funding implies a linear relationship. That is, halve the funding in a city per pupil, and you’d get half the score. Double the funding and you’d get double the score. But that is just not how standardized test scale scores work.
Also, an important note from the NAEP regarding interpreting scores (emphasis mine):
A scale score that is significantly higher or lower in comparison to an earlier assessment year is reliable evidence that student performance has changed. NAEP is not, however, designed to identify the causes of change in student performance. Although comparisons are made in students’ performance based on demographic characteristics and educational experiences, the comparisons cannot be used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the characteristic or experience and achievement. Many factors may influence student achievement including educational policies and practices, available resources, and the demographic characteristics of the student body. Such factors may change over time and vary among student groups.
(I also don’t know that this is a valid extrapolation that they use at all. The NAEP is given to ~100,000 students in ~5000 schools across the whole country at one time for a particular test. These 9 cities were representing 1.7 million students.)
The goal of this paper was to make charter schools look better than regular public schools. It does not establish any kind of cause and effect relationship because neither the test nor their study is designed in a way that could do that.
It also is completely irrelevant to the questions that are important to actual educators: What teaching strategies are most effective? How can we recruit, train, and develop more effective teachers? How can we get more involvement from parents? How can we get more engagement from students?
I’ve never seen a single article on Reason even acknowledge that these are the questions we want answered.
Looking at performance per dollar spent makes sense, even if the relationship isn't linear. We should want to make the best investment we can - that is, get the most bang for our buck.
Charter schools are apparently significantly cheaper than public schools, and even if you decide the difference in scores is too small to be notable, they're still getting at least the same results on ~2/3 the cost per pupil.
Charter schools are apparently significantly cheaper than public schools, and even if you decide the difference in scores is too small to be notable, they’re still getting at least the same results on ~2/3 the cost per pupil.
I quoted from the NAEP statement about interpreting their scores. Differences between groups, including between TPS and charters, cannot establish a causal relationship. If Black students get lower scores than white students, it does not tell us that it is because they are Black that they get lower scores, even if the populations had been matched for income level. That is because there are still going to be many more variables in addition to race, no matter how much you try and eliminate those variables. It just isn't possible. It is the same thing here TPS vs. charter is not the only variable. This study has told us nothing about what other factors could account for the different results. It tells us nothing about what charters are doing differently that could account for the different results.
Worse, if their hypothesis is about the funding, then TPS vs. charter introduces an additional independent variable. Maybe the differences have nothing to do with the funding, but instead have to do with how charters work. One factor not investigated here is how charters that are popular enough in their neighborhoods hold lotteries for students to get in and have waiting lists. TPS have to take all students that show up to enroll. (Except for magnet programs and the like.) That could be a large factor right there, as that would allow the charter schools to require more involvement from parents, stricter discipline, tighter attendance requirements, etc., because if one kid won't live up to those kinds of standards, then there are others waiting to get in that will.
Charter schools spend less money for better education results than public schools? Who cares? What about union support for politicians, job opportunities for DEI bureaucrats, fodder for child psychologists and gender reassignment specialists, and partisan propaganda in the critical child years?
Many people believe that delegating the writing of various essays and other written works is wrong and that it reduces the quality of education. I think that endless essays are unlikely to help me become smarter and more educated, so I was glad to find specialists who write my paper for me https://essayshark.com/write-my-paper-for-cheap.html . Moreover, it is not expensive, and every student can afford such services.
The teachers' unions always want more money, because they figure most of it will go into their pockets, whether as raises or as more employees. Funding isn't irrelevant--if you don't have a certain level of money, you're not going to be able to pay for reasonable facilities and competent staff. But once you've reached the competent level, there's little indication that additional money makes a meaningful difference. Some of the worst schools have some of the highest per-pupil funds. (The $29K/pupil cited in the article is ridiculously excessive, even assuming a fair amount of special ed, which is often very expensive.) Pulling both students and funds from those systems through funding charter schools is a form of market discipline that governments face too rarely. More importantly, it offers kids who would otherwise be mired in a failing system an opportunity for a different trajectory.
If it there was really some point of diminishing returns, then you would see few private schools with really high tuition, correct? Or, maybe the wealthy elite just don’t mind blowing tens of thousands of dollars more than they need to. Or, maybe the higher tuition is buying something other than quality in teaching and curriculum. Such as connections to Ivy League schools and not having their kids in schools with the “wrong kinds.”
Even if they got "worse outcomes" as measured by the state, who cares? That's not the point.
"Relative to similar TPS students, charter school students, on average, perform slightly better"
Sorry, but once again I'm going to have to question the methodology here. Although the researchers who conducted this study almost certainly understand the principles of study design, comparing students who seek out or even compete for slots in the charter schools in order escape would very likely discount motivation as a cause of better performance on the outcome measures, even if the study groups were similar in every other way (which I also doubt!)
And in other news - water is wet.
"But, but, but: It's not from the all holy government so how could it possibly be better?", carries on the [Na]tional So[zi]alist fanboys.
It's really is amazing how many times free'er markets operate completely and undeniably better than government ran services in every way shape and form. From generating the healthcare crisis, to power outages, to monopolizing housing, to monopolizing the vehicle market, etc, etc, etc endless examples.
Yet the [Na]tional So[zi]alist fanboys will just keep on claiming "roads" to ignorantly void all the obvious and grow their Nazi-Empire. Obviously, results/solutions isn't the end goal for them. Power and others money is.
Involved Parents make a bigger difference in a child's school achivement than money spent per student. That is true in both Charter and Public schools. Parents who care enough to send their kids to a Charter school are obviously involved, and their kids do better. Many kids who attend public school also have involved parents and do well, but the percentage of kids with involved parents is greater in charter schools.
The main difference between charter schools and public schools is that charter schools can expel students who disrupt the class.
And only takes one disruptive student to end learning for everyone in the entire class.
Expelling that kid and sending him back to public school is a huge advantage.
FALSE. The main difference is that charter schools must COMPETE for students. Public schools actually have AS MUCH, if not more power to expel students.