Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSDE reviews charter commensurate‑funding submissions from seven LEAs, finds wide methodological differences
Summary
MSDE staff reviewed budget submissions from seven local education agencies in response to a state board resolution on commensurate funding for public charter schools and reported substantial variation in methodologies, exemptions and per‑pupil results.
MSDE staff told the State Board that seven LEAs submitted school‑level or system budget documents to inform upcoming regulations on commensurate funding for charter schools. The department summarized common differences across submissions and highlighted items that complicate statewide comparison, including variable handling of exemptions, in‑kind services and special education overages.
MSDE said the LEAs asked to submit materials include districts with many charter schools (Baltimore City) and districts with one or a few charter schools (Anne Arundel, Baltimore County, Charles, Frederick, Prince George’s and St. Mary’s). Staff said LEA submissions varied, making cross‑district comparisons difficult: some LEAs calculated per‑pupil charter allocations by program or school, while others used district‑level budgets or staffing models.
MSDE reported the foundation amount used in reviewed calculations ranged from $8,959 to $10,142 per pupil and that the per‑pupil amounts identified for charter schools in the submissions ranged from about $11,000 to $20,000, depending largely on student population characteristics and services covered. The department said LEAs frequently listed special education as provided in‑kind by the district and that some districts (“overage” reporting) calculated a special education overage — the difference between special education expenditures and categorical funding — and removed that amount before deriving per‑pupil allocations.
Staff further noted that federal Title programs are often managed centrally and provided as services rather than being allocated as school cash. Examples included Baltimore City reporting a special education overage that matched blueprint revenue minus special education expenditure and Frederick reporting a large special education figure (reported as $71,000,000) without a full methodology in its submission. MSDE gave St. Mary’s County as an example of negotiated variance, observing St. Mary’s negotiated a 4% withholding with its charter school.
Board members asked clarifying questions about definitions and calculations, including whether nonpublic costs and transportation are treated as part of overages and how LEA‑level staffing models affect comparability. MSDE staff said these issues underscore why board guidance and forthcoming regulations are necessary to create consistency. The department said it will present a proposed regulation for the board’s permission to publish at the December 9 meeting and will brief the board’s policy committee before that meeting.
