Scapegoating Charter Public Schools in Oakland

By David Castillo
Executive Director, Oakland Charters

Oakland schools are in financial trouble — $15 million in the hole this year — and a new report blames it all on charter schools. Without charter schools, claim the authors of “Breaking Point: the Cost of Charter Schools for Public School Districts,” the district would be better off by $57 million each year and could be running a big surplus.

We offer a different viewpoint, especially when we consider Oakland School Board’s own recent explanations for the debt, which included:

• District overspending on consultants and $4 million on new district departments by the recently departed superintendent
• No consistent tracking of expenditures, so the district does not know how much it has spent overall or on any account during the school year
• A $1.6 million decrease in state Prop. 30 Local Control Funding
• Rising costs of pension promises made to retirees, already adding 8.9% to teacher payroll costs and expected to ramp up to 19.1% within a decade
• Lags in state funding for immigrant students, so that current year’s costs, which rise every year, are paid the next year
• Rising costs for special education
• A $4.6 million across-the-board raise for district staff
• Failure to reduce central office staffing in proportion to declines in the numbers of students (50,000 to 36,000)

The Board has also cited charter school growth as a cause of financial stress. But like the state’s Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team, the Board considered charter schools one factor among many.

It’s reasonable to wonder how much charter schools exacerbate the district’s financial problems. That is a fair and important question that must be considered. As the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) has reported, districts with declining enrollment can face serious challenges — as revenues do down, costs may not decline at the same rate.

Here in Oakland, between 2013–14 and 2016–2017, district schools managed directly by Oakland Unified lost 55 students, while charter public schools gained 2,621 students. That means the student population is actually growing in Oakland and that district enrollment, while declining, has remained relatively flat during this five year period.

The authors of “Breaking Point” say that the 15,600 Oakland students who attend charter schools impose costs of $57.3 million on the district, every year. Thus, for each child who goes to a charter school the district suffers a loss of >$3,500.

Is this even plausible? This is vastly more than analyses in other cities, which come up with figures between $500 and $1,000. These numbers can decline over time only when districts adjust their cost structures, but the costs never reach zero.

Larger enrollment shifts have happened in the past, but how long should the district be able to claim those students “left” costs behind? Five years? Ten? Keep in mind the first Oakland charter public school opened its doors in 1993.

Where “Breaking Point” diverges from other analyses is in assuming, first that the district’s costs are fixed and can’t be adjusted even as enrollment shifts, and second, that charter schools should be held responsible for district spending that occurs even after students have left district schools. But as CRPE’s report noted, districts lose enrollment for many reasons: economic changes, families moving to other districts or private schools, or birth rate declines. And while the numbers can vary, we know that we have approximately 15,000 students in Oakland that do not attend a public district or charter school. This has been going on for far longer than charter schools have been on the scene. Districts everywhere have had to determine how to adjust to these dynamic changes.

If anything, a healthy charter sector can help the city attract families. When we talk to parents, they are clear that they want quality school options — district or charter. Charter schools in Oakland, despite what you might have heard, are interested in a fostering a robust public school system, both by providing quality options and partnering with the district to ensure all neighborhoods and all groups of students, including low-income, newcomer and special education students, are well served. These partnerships could include coordination with the district to determine where to place new schools, develop quality feeder patterns, and partnering to support struggling school sites. Charter schools could also utilize district services, such as facilities and professional development, helping to achieve economies of scale and freeing up more resources for instruction. Collaboration at co-located schools or even across schools could help improve instruction for all students.

Partnership requires trust, goodwill, and a common vision for Oakland’s schools. When charter schools are scapegoated for all of the district’s financial woes, it will be hard to build that trust. The good news is that families care little about sector wars — and we know that teachers and principals at every school can do great things when we support them. Let’s work together to ensure that every child in Oakland has access to a great public school regardless of zip code.