Location, Location, Location: How Would A High-Performing Charter School Network Fare in Different States?

As it turns out, success in growing charter-school networks is about three things: location, location, and location. This report from Bellwether Education Partners speaks to questions of the scalability and financial stability of charter schools; it examines the hypothetical financial health of a single charter network, Aspire Public Schools, if it took up shop in any one of twenty-three states instead of its current home in California. The analysis indicates that, in eighteen out of twenty-three jurisdictions studied, Aspire would be more financially sustainable, enjoying an average of $1,410 in additional surplus funds per student. In D.C., Aspire would receive $6,383 more per pupil. In only three states (Idaho, Colorado, and Arizona) would Aspire operate under a deficit. (In Ohio and North Carolina, the operating costs would be comparable.) Admittedly, the paper is a thought experiment rather than a full-blown financial analysis—it relies heavily on the recent Ball State study of inequitable charter-school financing and on some assumptions about cost differences between California and other states. Noting the gravity of these assumptions, the results of this analysis are still powerful. There is no denying that certain states are much more charter-friendly than others. As such, expect to see robust expansion of charter-school networks only in states with favorable financing landscapes, with CMOs in states with weaker financing just limping along.