Comments on: Washington Post Cheers for Charter Schools http://www.fair.org/blog/2008/12/23/washington-post-cheers-for-charter-schools/ The national media watch group Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:56:06 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Empact http://www.fair.org/blog/2008/12/23/washington-post-cheers-for-charter-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-990 Empact Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:51:34 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=4300#comment-990 You misrepresent the $3000 per pupil as being a direct advantage for the charter schools. In fact, the article clearly states it's to cover facility costs, which aren't including in the accounting of per-pupil funds. This is just a hint at the broader problem, that the baseline $8770 cost/pupil figure doesn't actually correspond to the true cost per pupil for public schools, because it excludes these costs, among others. In order to get a true picture of public per-pupil spending one would need to look at the public money from all sources and divide by the number of pupils served. Andrew Coulson did this in a Washington Post editorial earlier this year, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/07/the-real-cost-of-public-schools/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. He found that public per-pupil funding was over $24,000 per student, twice that of the charter schools $12,000 or so. I can't vouch for his numbers specifically, but it seems his approach is a more realistic way for arriving at the true per-pupil spending of public schools. You misrepresent the $3000 per pupil as being a direct advantage for the charter schools. In fact, the article clearly states it's to cover facility costs, which aren't including in the accounting of per-pupil funds.

This is just a hint at the broader problem, that the baseline $8770 cost/pupil figure doesn't actually correspond to the true cost per pupil for public schools, because it excludes these costs, among others. In order to get a true picture of public per-pupil spending one would need to look at the public money from all sources and divide by the number of pupils served.

Andrew Coulson did this in a Washington Post editorial earlier this year, here and here. He found that public per-pupil funding was over $24,000 per student, twice that of the charter schools $12,000 or so. I can't vouch for his numbers specifically, but it seems his approach is a more realistic way for arriving at the true per-pupil spending of public schools.

]]>