Arizona Charter Schools: The Good, The Bad, and The Costly, Part 4: The 6.4 Million Dollar Question

by David Safier

(Here are parts 1, 2 and 3)

(Note: I plan to use a blogger’s prerogative in my posts on Cyber Schools to jump to conclusions before I know the whole story. As I continue blogging on the topic, I’ll get more information and correct any errors I’ve made. I’m an honorable man with a somewhat overactive superego, so it’s difficult for me to lie, or even stretch the truth. If I am corrected, or I find something I wrote is incorrect myself, I’ll make sure to let you readers know. Meanwhile, if you know something I don’t, and especially if you are in the field, please add your comments. So far, my posts on the topic of charter schools have received comments from an employee of a Phoenix area bricks-and-mortar charter school, the CEO of Pinnacle Education (an Arizona Cyber School), and a cyber teacher from Pennsylvania. I plan to respond to their comments directly when I have time.)

I have more information about the $6.4 million overfunding of Charter Cyber Schools and what I believe is an attempt to write that overfunding into law.

I’ve been in email contact about this issue with Nancy Young Wright, who is my State Representative here in LD-26. (She stepped into Lena Saradnik’s position when Lena had to step down for health reasons.) Wright has acted exactly as I hoped a Rep would act. She has taken my questions seriously (she has questions about the legislation herself) and forwarded my emails to other legislators who might be interested and knowledgeable. She also forwarded them to Jennifer Anderson, Legislative Research Analyst for the House Committee on Education (K-12). Thanks and kudos to Wright for performing her constituent duties so admirably.

From Anderson, I received a link to an October, 2007, Performance Audit of the Technology Assisted Project-Based Instruction Program (TAPBI) Program. It’s a long report which I’ll work my way through, but it will take time. Trying to pull out the and interpret the salient passages from these reports takes the diligence and concentration of a Talmudic scholar. If anyone wants to help me wade in, thank you in advance. I’d appreciate the assistance.

Right now, let’s mull over a few passages from the short statement at the beginning of the Performance Audit.

Although statute limits funding to 1.0 ADM per student, errors resulted in about 6,800 TAPBI students being funded at 1.17 ADM each, on average, for a total overfunding of about $6.4 million.

This means, what I read in the Citizen article I cited in an earlier post is correct. Cyber Schools were overfunded by $6.4 million. It looks like the inference I drew from the article was correct as well — that Cyber Schools were double dipping by taking more money for students who were also enrolled in other schools than they should have taken.

So I have a question: Did the state make these Cyber School refund the money — the ones who overstated the amount they were allowed for students with dual enrollment? I’m pretty sure that a financial balancing is done between charter schools and the state toward the end of the school year, when the state figures out whether each school’s projected enrollment was the same as the actual enrollment. If it was lower, the schools have to return the money. If it was higher, they get more from the state. (I think I’ve got this right. Someone chime in if I don’t.) Was this $6.4 million part of that balancing act, and was the money returned to the state? I certainly hope so. If not, it sounds like someone is guilty of robbery of tax dollars, and the state is complicit in the theft.

Here is the next passage:

At $5,526 per pupil in fiscal year 2006, TAPBI schools spent $1,223 less per pupil than brick-and-mortar schools largely because TAPBI schools do not provide transportation and food services, and they have lower plant operation costs. However, costs could be further reduced, particularly for software and management agreements, and charter school administration.

I need to do more research to find out if Cyber Schools are given less than brick-and-mortar charter schools. I think the amount they receive is the same as what charter schools normally receive. But here, I’m way above my pay grade, and I need to dig for answers, or have one of you supply them to me.

What jumps out at me is the statement that the cost of Cyber Schooling “could be further reduced, particularly for software and management agreements, and charter school administration.”

Cyber Schools are getting more money than they need, according to the audit. And yet, HB2816 wants to give them even more money than they’re currently allowed to receive. Something is very wrong when the auditor suggests a reduction in funds, and legislators go for an increase. We’re in a budget crisis, folks, and schools are starving for lack of adequate funding. Why would legislators want to increase funding for schools that are possibly getting too much money already?

I have a whole lot more to write about, but let me make one more point and save the rest for later. HB2816, which allows 125% of the normal allotment for students who have dual enrollment in a Cyber School and another school, is mainly sponsored by Republicans, many of whom are not normally friends of education. A few of them have Zero Ratings from the Arizona Education Association, which means to me, they vote against school funding. (For those of you who know legislators, the Republican sponsors are Rich Crandall, Kirk Adams, Mark Anderson, Judy Burges and Andrew Tobin.) Oddly, the one Democratic sponsor is David Lujan, who is a friend of education. Maybe he knows something I don’t about the bill, but until I find out differently, I definitely question his judgement here.

So I ask myself, why would Republicans, many of whom are not fond of educational funding, want to increase funding for this one kind of school? I won’t suggest that any of them stand to profit from the legislation, because I have no information to make me think that’s true. But I do know that Charter Schools are the Republicans’ baby, and maybe increased funding for what they consider “the anti-public school” is a completely different animal than what they love to refer to as “throwing money” at public schools.

More later.