resource allocation and competition: in the … · recommendation #1: improve school-level...
TRANSCRIPT
RESOURCEALLOCATIONANDCOMPETITION:
ACASESTUDYOFCHARTERANDTRADITIONALPUBLICSCHOOLSPENDING
INTHENEWORLEANSEDUCATIONALMARKETPLACE
by
JosephLawrenceDaschbach
DissertationCommittee:
ProfessorLuisHuerta,SponsorProfessorJeffreyHenig
ApprovedbytheCommitteeontheDegreeofDoctorofEducation
Date 16May2018
SubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftheRequirementsforthedegreeofDoctorofEducationin
TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity
2018
ABSTRACT
RESOURCEALLOCATIONANDCOMPETITION:
ACASESTUDYOFCHARTERANDTRADITIONALPUBLICSCHOOLSPENDING
INTHENEWORLEANSEDUCATIONALMARKETPLACE
JosephLawrenceDaschbach
SchoolreformsinNewOrleanshavebroughtsweepingchangestotheway
publicschoolsaregovernedandmanaged,andtothewayinwhichstudentsare
assignedtopublicschools.Non-profitcharterschoolboardsnowgovernover90%
ofpublicschools,andfamiliesareabletochoosethepublicschoolinwhichthey
enroll.Competitionwithinthesystemofschoolsisexpectedtocompelschoolsto
differentiatethemselvesfromeachotherinordertoattractandretainstudents.
School-levelbudgetarydataprovideonesourceofinformationwithwhichto
examinetheprioritiesschoolsestablishastheyseektodifferentiatethemselves.
Thereisasignificantbodyofresearchcomparingtheresourceallocationpatternsin
traditionalpublicschoolstothoseincharterschools.Often,however,these
comparisonsaredrawnbetweenschoolsthatdonotoperateinasingleeducational
marketplace.Rather,theycompareschoolswithindifferentgeographicareasthat
maynotbeindirectcompetitionwitheachother.Manyofthestudiesalsofailto
distinguishbetweennon-networkcharterschoolsandthoserunbycentralized
charterschoolnetworks.ThisquantitativecasestudyusestheNewOrleanspublic
schoolmarketplaceasacriticalcaseforexamininghowgovernanceand
managementstructuresimpactschoolspending.Specifically,thestudyaimsto
identify,describe,andunderstandwhetherandhowschool-levelresourceallocation
patternsdifferacrossschoolsofdifferentgovernanceandmanagementstructures,
andhowthosepatternsmightbeinfluencedbymarketcompetition.
Thisresearchuseslinearregressionmodelstoestimatedifferencesin
resourceallocationbetweentraditionalpublicandcharterschoolsinthe
educationalmarketplace,aftercontrollingforstudentandschool-level
characteristics.Schoolexpendituresareexaminedoveravarietyofexpense
categoriesandhumanresourceindicators.DatafromNewOrleanssuggestthat
privatizationanddecentralizationhaveasignificantimpactonhowresourcesare
allocatedattheschoollevel.Importantly,however,nosignificantspending
differencesemergewhendataareaggregatedtothelevelofthelocaleducation
agency.Inotherwords,spendinginthetraditionalpublicschooldistrict,charter
managementorganizations,andsinglesitecharterschoolsappearsimilar,
irrespectiveofgovernanceandmanagementstructureofthoseorganizations.
ii
©CopyrightJosephLawrenceDaschbach2018
AllRightsReserved
iii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
I-INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1
ContextoftheStudy................................................................................................................... 3
ProblemStatement..................................................................................................................... 6
II–LITERATUREREVIEW.................................................................................................................. 11
TheoreticalFoundationsofChoiceandCompetition............................................... 11
CompetitionandSchoolPerformance.............................................................. 12
CompetitionandResourceAllocation.............................................................. 13
ConceptualFrameforAnalysis .......................................................................................... 22
AccountClassificationinEducationalRevenuesandExpenditures ... 22
MarketStructure........................................................................................................ 27
MeasuringCompetition .......................................................................................... 30
EducationalMarketStructureinNewOrleans............................................. 32
TheMarketMetaphor.............................................................................................. 35
RespondingtoCompetitionWithResources................................................. 38
III–DATAANDMETHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 41
CaseStudyApproach.............................................................................................................. 41
StudyContextandPopulation ............................................................................................ 42
MeasuringCompetitioninNewOrleans ........................................................................ 48
DataSources............................................................................................................................... 49
School-levelStructuralCharacteristics .......................................................................... 50
ResourceAllocationIndicators .......................................................................................... 52
ModelComparisonGroups .................................................................................................. 54
IV–ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 58
ModelResults............................................................................................................................. 58
iv
ModelOne:ComparingResourceAllocationinIndividualPublicSchools ........................................................................................................................... 58
ModelTwo:ComparingResourceAllocationinLocalEducationAgencies......................................................................................................................... 62
ModelThree:ComparingResourceAllocationinCentralizedandDecentralizedSchools ............................................................................................. 64
ModelFour:ComparingResourceAllocationWithintheCharterSchoolSector ............................................................................................................... 66
ModelInterpretationandAnalysis................................................................................... 69
TotalCurrentExpenditures .................................................................................. 69
InstructionalExpenditures ................................................................................... 71
SupportServices ........................................................................................................ 72
TransportationExpenditures............................................................................... 75
SchoolAdministrationandCentralOfficeOverhead ................................. 76
HumanResourceIndicators ................................................................................. 79
DiscussionofTrendsinResourceAllocation............................................................... 82
School-levelExpenditurePatternsintheEducationalMarketplace... 84
Instructionalspendinginthemarketplace...................................... 84Loweradministrativeandoverheadspendinginthemarketplace................................................................................................... 85Supportservicesspendinginprivatizedandcentralizedschools ............................................................................................................. 87Spendingontransportationtofacilitateschoolchoice.............. 89School-levelhumanresourcepatternsintheeducationalmarketplace................................................................................................... 90
Governance,managementstructure,andschoolpersonnel ......................................................................................... 90
v
LEA-levelResourceAllocationPatternsintheEducationalMarketplace ................................................................................................................. 91
Spendingvariationswithincentralizedorganizations............... 92
V–CONCLUSIONS,IMPLICATIONS,ANDRECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 94
TheEducationalMarketplaceinNewOrleans ............................................................ 94
LimitationsoftheStudy ......................................................................................... 95
SummaryofFindings.............................................................................................................. 97
School-levelResourceAllocationPatterns..................................................... 97
LEA-levelResourceAllocationPatterns.......................................................... 98
TheEducationalMarketplace:LessonsLearnedFromNewOrleansPublicSchools ............................................................................................................. 99
Recommendation#1:Improveschool-levelfinancialreportingtoidentifyspecificresourcesallocatedtoschoolsbycentraldistrictoffices,charterschoolnetworks,andotherorganizations ..............................................................................................105Recommendation#2:Connectspendingtooutcomestodeterminethetruecostofachievingparticulargoals ..............107Recommendation#3:Evaluatespendingpatternsbothwithin,andacrossLEAs.........................................................................................108
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................110
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................112
AppendixA:StatisticalTables.........................................................................................................121
vi
LISTOFTABLES
Table Page
3-1 PopulationDescriptiveStatistics,OrleansParish,2014-15................................ 44
3-2 IndependentandControlVariables ............................................................................... 523-3 DependentVariables ............................................................................................................ 533-4 ResourceAllocationRegressionModelComparisonGroups...............................55
A-1 PopulationCurrentExpendituresPerPupil...............................................................121
A-2 HumanResourcesinTPSandCharterSchools .........................................................122
A-3 ComparingResourceAllocationinIndividualPublicSchools............................123A-4 ComparingResourceAllocationinIndividualPublicSchools-
CategoricalSpending............................................................................................................124
A-5 ComparingResourceAllocationinIndividualPublicSchools-HumanResources ..................................................................................................................125
A-6 ComparingResourceAllocationinLocalEducationAgencies ...........................126A-7 ComparingResourceAllocationinLocalEducationAgencies-
CategoricalSpending............................................................................................................127
A-8 ComparingResourceAllocationinLocalEducationAgencies-HumanResources ..................................................................................................................128
A-9 ComparingResourceAllocationinCentralizedPublicSchools .........................129A-10 ComparingResourceAllocationinCentralizedPublicSchools-
CategoricalSpending............................................................................................................130
A-11 ComparingResourceAllocationinCentralizedSchools-HumanResources ..................................................................................................................131
A-12 ComparingResourceAllocationinCharterSchools ...............................................132
vii
A-13 ComparingResourceAllocationinCharterSchools-
CategoricalSpending............................................................................................................133
A-14 ComparingResourceAllocationinCharterSchools-HumanResources ..................................................................................................................134
viii
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 PublicSchoolTypesinNewOrleans(2014-15)........................................................33
4-1 School-levelSpendingTrends ...........................................................................................62
4-2 LEA-levelSpendingTrends.................................................................................................64
4-3 CentralizedManagementSpendingTrends ................................................................66
4-4 CharterSectorSpendingTrends ......................................................................................68
1
I-INTRODUCTION Sincetheirinceptionin1992,thenumberofcharterschoolsintheUnited
Stateshascontinuedtoincrease.In2014-15,charterschoolsservednearly3million
studentsin43statesandtheDistrictofColumbia,representingmorethansix
percentofthetotalnumberofstudentsinpublicschoolsacrossthecountry.(NAPCS,
2015).Asschoolsofchoice,chartersofferamarketapproachtoeducationthat
contendsthatschools,forcedtocompeteforstudents,willbemotivatedto
differentiatethemselvesinnewwaysandtomaximizeacademicqualitytoattract
andretainstudents(Chubb&Moe,1990;Friedman,1955;Hoxby,2001;Levin,
2002).Asdecentralizedorganizations,chartersarealsoexpectedtobemore
responsivetolocalneeds,1moreaccountabletothepublic,andmoreefficientwith
theirresources(Brown,1990;Finnetal.,2000;Hilletal.,1997).
Theextenttowhichcharterschoolsfulfilltheseexpectations,andtherole
competitionplaysincharterschooldecision-making,isasourceofdebate,
particularlyasitrelatestoschoolresourceallocation.Criticsandsupportersmake
varyingclaimsregardingthebehaviorofcharterschoolsascomparedtotraditional
publicschools(TPS’s),thecostadvantageordisadvantagethatcharterschools
purportedlyface,andthespendingpatternsthatemergewithineachtypeofschool
(Arsen&Ni,2012a,2012b;Bakeretal.,2012;Baker&Miron,2015;Bettinger,2005;
1Levin(2001)notesthattheprivategoalsofparentconsumersmaynotalwaysbeconsistentwiththesocietalgoalsofprovidingacommoneducationalexperiencetoallstudents.
2
Bohte,2004;Booker,2008;Carr&Ritter,2007;Hanushek&Rivkin,2003;Holmes
etal.,2003;Imberman,2007;Mironetal.,2011;Ni,2009;Sass,2006).Muchofthe
existingresearchexaminestheresponsetocompetitionbycomparingoverall
trendsinTPSandcharters,oftencomparingthebehaviorofschoolsoperatingin
differentgeographicareas,ratherthanwithinamarketwhereschoolsinthesample
aredirectlycompetingwitheachotherforstudents(Arsen&Ni,2012;Hoxby,2003;
Miron&Nelson,2002;Miron&Usrchel,2010).Bycomparingschoolsthatarenot
operatingwithinthesamemarketplace,thesestudiesarelimitedintheirabilityto
provideinsightsintohowTPSandchartersallocateresourcesdifferentlywhen
subjecttodirectcompetitionwitheachother.Thisresearchwillexaminewhether
andhowtraditionalpublicschoolsandcharterschoolsallocateresourcesdifferently
withinasinglehighlycompetitiveeducationalmarketplace,usingNewOrleansasa
criticalcase.
TheschoolsysteminNewOrleansrepresentsauniqueopportunityfor
examiningmarketforcesineducation.OrleansParishnowreliesalmostcompletely
ondecentralizedmanagementofschools,ratherthanthetraditionaldistrictmodel
ofschoolmanagement.In2014-15,76of83publicschoolswerecharterschools.
Only6schoolsweremanagedbytheOrleansParishSchoolBoard2(LDE,2015a).In
addition,100%ofschoolsinNewOrleansnowcompetewitheachotherfor
studentsandforthefundingthataccompaniesthem.Thetraditional,residence-
basedsystemofschoolassignmenthasbeenreplacedwithanenrollmentsystem
basedentirelyonindividualfamilyandstudentchoice.Thisuniquecombinationof2Oneadditionalschool,theNewOrleansCenterforCreativeArts(NOCCA),reportsdirectlytotheLouisianaLegislatureasanindependentpublicschool.
3
choiceanddecentralizedmanagementprovidesanimportantopportunityfor
examininghowcompetitionforstudentsmightimpactschoolbehavior.Thepurpose
ofthispaperistoidentifypatternsthatmayexistaspublicschools,bothTPSand
charter,allocateresourcestocompetewithintheeducationalmarketplaceinNew
Orleans.
ContextoftheStudy
PriortoHurricaneKatrina,theNewOrleanspublicschoolsystemresembled
atypicalurbanschooldistrict.Moststudentsattendedtheneighborhoodschoolto
whichtheywereassigned,andparentsinNewOrleanshadlittleopportunityto
choosethepublicschooltheirchildrenattended.Oneexceptiontothispracticewas
magnetschools,whichofferedalternativestothetraditionalneighborhood-zoned
publicschoolonaselectivebasis.Sevencharterschoolsalsoexisted,operating
undertheauthorizationofLouisiana’sBoardofElementaryandSecondary
Education(BESE).TwocharterschoolscontracteddirectlywithBESE,andfive
wereunderthejurisdictionoftheRecoverySchoolDistrict(RSD),astate-runentity
createdin2003toreconstitutefailingschools.Allnon-charterpublicschoolsin
NewOrleans,withtheexceptionoftheNewOrleansCenterforCreativeArts,were
undermanagementoftheOrleansParishSchoolBoard(OPSB).Thesystemofpublic
schoolsthathasemergedpost-Katrinalooksdramaticallydifferentfromthepublic
systemofschoolsthatprecededit(LDE,2015a;Mironetal.,2015;RecoverySchool
District,2015;Sims&Rossmeir,2015).
4
InNovember2005,theLouisianaLegislaturepassed‘Act35’,which
expandedtheRSD’sabilitytotakeoverschools.Allbutthreeofthe15Orleans
Parishlegislatorsvotedagainsttheamendment,butthelawpassed(Louisiana
Legislature,2005).Thelegislationresultedin107schoolsinNewOrleansbeing
placedunderthecontroloftheRSD,bringingthetotalnumberofschoolsunderRSD
controlto112.Only16schoolswereleftunderthecontrolofOPSB.Lacking
adequateresourcestooperateall16schools,OPSBdecentralizedoperationof12
schoolstonon-profitcharterschoolboards.Onlyfourschoolsremainedopenand
underthedirectoversightofthelocalschoolboard(Sims&Rossmeir,2015).
Beginninginthe2006–07academicyear,theRSDbegandecentralizing
managementoftheNewOrleansschoolsunderitscontroltoprivatecharterschool
boards(Mironetal.,2015;Sims&Rossmeir,2015).TheOPSBalsoopenedtwonew
traditionalpublicschools,andgrantednewcharterstoseveralotherschools.By
2014-15,over80publicschoolswereoperatinginNewOrleans,servingnearly
44,000studentsinOrleansParish.But,inadramaticshiftfromthepre-Katrina,
centralizeddistrictmodel,over90%ofthoseschoolswerecharterschools,
representingover40differentcharteroperators,manyofwhomoperatemultiple
schoolsitesaspartoflargerchartermanagementorganizations.NewOrleanshad
becomeaschoolsysteminwhichanoverwhelmingmajorityofpublicschool
studentswerebeingeducatedinschoolsoutsidethedirectcontrolofacentralized
localschooldistrict(Sims&Rossmeier,2015).
NewOrleanshasalsochangedhowstudentsenrollinpublicschools.
Neighborhoodcatchmentzones,thetraditionalformofschoolassignmentbasedon
5
residence,havebeenreplacedbyachoicesysteminwhich,withfewexceptions,
studentsmayattendanypublicschoolinthecity,regardlessofitslocation.3All
publicschools,whetherlocallyorstatecontrolled,traditionalorcharter,now
competewitheachotherforstudentsandresources.
TheextensivechangestothepublicschoolsysteminNewOrleanshave
createdoneofthemostdiversifiededucationalmarketplacesintheUnitedStates.
Non-networkcharterschoolscompetewithcharterschoolsoperatedbycharter
managementnetworks,andallcharterschoolscompetewithasmallsectorof
traditionalpublicschools.Thesechangeshaveimportantimplicationsfortesting
theoriesonhowchoiceandcompetitionimpactbehavioronboththesupplyside
anddemandsideofthemarketplace.Parentsandstudents,asbuyersinthe
educationalmarketplace,mustactivelychoosefromtheavailablesupplyofschools
withintheCity.Schools,asserviceproviders,mustcompeteforthosestudents
withinanopenenrollmentsystemthatnolongerguaranteesenrollmentina
particularschoolbasedongeography.Schoolsmayseektodifferentiatethemselves
throughavarietyofmechanisms,includingbycreatinguniqueacademic
programmingforstudentsandfamilies,byconnectingtospecificneighborhood
communities,orbyprovidingstudentswithservicesthatgobeyondformal
academics,suchasmentalhealthservices,afterschoolprogramming,athletics,or
otherprograms.ByexaminingthesystemofschoolsinNewOrleans,thisstudyaims
3Fiveselectiveadmissionschoolsstillexistinthecity,whichrequirestudentstomeetspecificacademicorlanguageproficiencystandardstoenroll.Mostschools,however,areopenenrollment.Beginningin2012-13,schoolshadtheoptiontorequestpriorityadmissionforstudentsbasedonattendancezones(upto50%ofseatscanbereservedforstudentslivingwithinaschool’szone).Studentsarenot,however,requiredtoattendaparticular“neighborhoodschool”basedonresidence.
6
tobetterunderstandtheimpactofcompetitionandchoiceonhowschoolsallocate
theirresourcestowarddifferentprioritiesastheyseektoattractandkeepstudents
intheeducationalmarketplace.
ProblemStatement
Byintroducingdecentralizedmanagementandschoolchoicereformsinto
thepublicschoolsysteminNewOrleans,localandstatepolicymakersaimtobring
aboutwidespreadschoolimprovementthroughcompetition.Specifically,one
objectiveofLouisiana’scharterschoollawisto“providecompetitionwithinthe
publicschoolsysteminordertostimulatecontinuedimprovementinallpublic
schools“(28La.Admin.Code,Bulletin126).Somedatasuggestthatsystem-wide
academicachievementinNewOrleanshasimprovedsince2005.Intheirreviewof
publicschoolperformancesinceKatrina,SimsandRossmeier(2015)reportthatthe
numberofpublicschoolstudentsconsideredongradelevel,basedonstate
standardizedtestperformance,hasincreasedsince2005.Thenumberofschools
consideredfailing,basedonLouisiana’sSchoolPerformanceScore(SPS),hasalso
droppedsince2005.Whiletheauthorsacknowledgethedifficultyofcomparingtest
resultsovertime,theirresultssuggestthattheachievementgainsmadebystudents
inNewOrleanshaveoutpacedtheaveragegainsmadebyLouisianastudentsin
generaloverthesametimeperiod.
HarrisandLarsen(2015)alsosuggestthatpost-Katrinareformshave
improvedacademicoutcomesforstudents.“Usingoutcomesbeforeandafterthe
hurricaneandreformsinNewOrleansandamatchedcomparisongroupthat
7
experiencedhurricanedamagebutnottheschoolreforms,[theauthorsfind]large
cumulativeeffectsonachievementof0.2–0.4standarddeviations”(p.1).
EvidencesuggestingthatacademicoutcomeshaveimprovedinNewOrleans
isconsistentwithclaimsthatmarket-basedreformsexertapositiveinfluenceon
studentandschoolperformance(Bohte,2004;Booker,2008;Hanushek&Rivkin,
2003;Holmesetal.,2003;Sass,2006).Otherresearch,however,suggeststhat
competitionmaynotalwayshaveapositiveeffectonachievement(Arsen&Ni,
2012;Bettinger,2005;Bifulco&Ladd,2006;Buddin&Zimmer,2009;Carr&Ritter,
2007;Imberman,2007;Ni,2009).Jabbar(2015)acknowledgesthesemixed
findings,noting“[a]lthoughexistingresearchhasexaminedwhethercompetition
improvesstudentachievement,itisalsoimportanttoexaminehowthatmightoccur
andwhattheconsequencesofsuchpoliciesare”(p.638).Schoolbudgetarydata
fromNewOrleansprovideuswithanopportunitytoexaminehowschoolsmightbe
changingtheirbehaviorinthepresenceofintensecompetition.Morespecifically,
examiningresourceallocationpatternsacrossavarietyofstudentandschool-level
indicators,andacrossawidevarietyofschooltypes,hasimportantimplicationsfor
policymakerstounderstandhowschoolresourcesmightbeconnectedtoasystem-
wideincreaseinstudentachievement,andhowtheallocationofthoseresources
withinparticulartypesofschoolsmightbeinfluencedbythecompetition.
ResourceallocationpatternsinNewOrleanscanbeexaminedwithinthe
contextofmarketcompetitionandchoice.Muchoftheexistingresearchexamining
resourceallocationinthecontextofmarketreformsisfocusedonidentifyinghow
charterschoolsspenddifferentlythantraditionalpublicschools(Bifulco&Ladd,
8
2006;Holmesetal.,2003;Miron&Urschel,2010;Nelsonetal.,2000;Ni,2009).
Often,however,thesestudiesexaminespendingdifferencesbetweenschoolsand
districtsofvaryingsize,andinsidemarketswithvaryinglevelsofcompetition
(Arsen&Ni,2012a,2012b;Belfield&Levin,2002;Carpenter,2013).Insomecases,
schoolsanddistrictsinasamplemaynotevenbelocatedinthesamegeographic
area,therebycomparingschoolsanddistrictsthatdonotcompeteforthesame
studentswithinalocalmarket(Arsen&Ni,2012a;Bakeretal.,2012;Miron&
Urschel,2010;Nelsonetal.,2000;Ni,2009).Studiesalsousevaryingmeasuresof
competitiontodefinetheintensityofcompetition,relyingonthemarketshareof
studentswithinasample(Arsen&Ni,2012;Hoxby,2003;Imberman,2007;Winters,
2012),densityofschoolsinanarea(Bifulco&Ladd,2006;Marlow,1997)orthe
proximityofnearbycharterschools(Bettinger,2005;Holmesetal.,2003;Sass,
2005).Importantly,“[d]ifferentmeasuresofcompetitionmeasuredifferent
subjects;marketsharemeasuresmaybeappropriateformeasuringthelevelof
competitionfeltbyapublicschooldistrict[…]whereasproximitytoagivenschool,
ordensityaroundagivenschool,ismoreappropriateformeasuringtheeffects
facinganindividualschool”(Linick,2014,p.9).
Competitionbetweenschoolsexistsnotonlybetweencharterschoolsand
TPS,butalsobetweenschoolswithinthecharterschoolsectorthataremanaged
differently.InNewOrleans,overhalfofthecharterschoolsoperateaspartof
chartermanagementorganizations(CMO’s).This“recentralization”ofschool
management(seeBulkley,2002;Huerta&Zuckerman,2009)hasthepotentialto
createdecentralizedorganizationsthatemployacombinationofthesite-based
9
decision-makinginherentinthechartermovement(Hannaway,1993;Malen,Ogawa,
&Kranz,1990;Wohlstetteretal.,1995)withpotentialadvantagesofcentralized
management,suchasopportunitiesforcollaborationacrossschools,costreduction
througheconomiesofscale,andreplicationofsuccessfulstrategies(Farrelletal.,
2012;Hendrie,2005;Miron,2010),Byexaminingdifferencesinspendingbehavior
notonlybetweenTPSandcharters,butalsobetweenhownetworkchartersallocate
resourcesascomparedtonon-networkcharters,thisstudyhasimportant
implicationsforunderstandinghowschoolmanagementstructuresmayimpact
resourceallocation.
InNewOrleans,regardlessofhowitismeasured,thecompetitionbetween
TPSandcharterschools,andwithinthechartersectoritself,isintense.In2014-15,
charterschoolsinNewOrleansenrolled93.0%ofallstudents.76of83public
schoolswerecharterschools.Theonlyresidencyrequirementforenrollmentinany
publicschoolistheparishboundary,givingallstudentsinOrleansParishaccessto
thefullchoicesetofavailableschools.Withinthechartersector,12charter
networksoperate45differentschools,allofwhichcompeteforstudentswith31
non-networkcharterschools,6TPS,andoneindependentpublicschool(NOCCA).
Theadoptionofdistrict-wideschoolchoicepoliciesanddecentralizedmanagement
structuresafterKatrinamakeNewOrleansacriticalcaseforexamininghowschools
allocateresourceswithinasingle,highlycompetitiveschoolsystem.
Thepurposeofthisquantitativecasestudyistoexploreschool-level
resourceallocationwithintheNewOrleanspublicschoolmarketplace.Specifically,
thestudyaimstoidentify,describe,andunderstandwhetherandhowschool-level
10
resourceallocationpatternsdifferacrossschoolsofdifferentgovernanceand
managementstructures,andhowthosepatternsmightbeinfluencedbymarket
competition.Assessingthesepatternsinthecontextofmarket-basedreformswill
requireansweringthefollowingcentralquestion:
• WhatdospendingpatternsinNewOrleans’publicschoolssuggestabout
theimpactofcompetitionandchoiceonschoolresourceallocation?
Asetofsub-questionsfollows:
• Howdotraditionalpublicschoolsandcharterschoolsallocateresources
towarddifferentpriorities?
• Withinthecharterschoolsector,howdostand-alonechartersallocate
resourcesdifferentlythanschoolsrunbychartermanagement
organizations?
• Whatsimilaritiesordifferencesinschoolspendingpatternscanbe
discernedfromacomparativeanalysisofschoolsoperatingwithina
highlycompetitivemarketplace?Whatdothepatternsthatemerge
indicateabouthowschoolsseekdifferentiatethemselves?
Theanswerstothesequestionswillbehelpfulforpolicymakerswhoare
interestedinunderstandinghowschoolchoiceandmarketcompetitionmight
initiatechangesinthewayschoolsallocateresources.Thestudywillbeinformed
byliteratureonschoolresourceallocation,schoolchoice,andmarketcompetitionin
schools.
11
II–LITERATUREREVIEW
ThecontinuedgrowthofcharterschoolsintheUnitedStatespresentsan
increasinglevelofcompetitiontotraditionalpublicschools.Asignificantbodyof
researchexiststoexaminehowpublicschoolsarerespondingtothatpressure.This
literaturereviewbrieflysummarizesthetheoryofactionbehindcompetitionand
choiceinschoolmarketsandexistingresearchthatexplorestheimpactofmarket
reformsonstudentachievement,followedbyamoredetailedsummaryofresearch
thatexaminestheimpactofcompetitiononschoolresourceallocation.
TheoreticalFoundationsofChoiceandCompetition
Schoolchoiceadvocatesarguethatimplementingchoicepolicieswillresultin
anoverallimprovementofschoolperformancebyintroducingcompetitionto
traditionalpublicschools(Friedman,1962).Inthisview,traditionalpublicschool
districtsoperatewithinamonopolisticmarketand,asthesoleproviderofpublic
education,havenoincentivetoimprovethequalityortheefficiencyofthe
educationtheyprovide(Chubb&Moe,1990).Inaddition,aselectedrepresentatives,
schoolboardsarevulnerabletothedemandsofmanydifferentconstituentgroups
withmanydifferentinterestsandgoalsforpubliceducation,whichmaydistract
fromthesimplegoalofimprovingschools(Chubb&Moe,1990;Kolderie,1990;
Nathan,1996).
12
Advocatessuggestthatschoolchoicereformswillfreetraditionalpublic
schoolsfrombothbureaucracyandmonopolybyprovidingamarketincentiveto
improveandtobecomemoreefficient.Publicschools,forcedtocompetefor
studentsandfunding,areexpectedtoimprovetheiroverallperformanceand
efficiency,inordertoattractmorestudents.Schoolsthatcontinuetoperformpoorly
willseeenrollmentsdrop,willlosefunding,andwillultimatelycloseduetolackof
demand.Bythisview,competitionwillimproveschoolsbyencouragingthemto
eliminatewastefulprogramsandfocusingtheirresourcesmoreintensivelyon
instructionandprogramsthatmoredirectlyimpactstudentoutcomes(Finn,Manno
&Vanourek,2000;Hilletal.,1997).
CompetitionandSchoolPerformance
Thereisasubstantialbodyofresearchontheimpactofchoiceand
competitiononeducationaloutcomesintraditionalpublicschoolsanddistricts,and
thefindingsaremixed.Thesestudies,whichexamineawidevarietyofeducational
marketplaces,suggestthattheimpactofcompetitiononacademicoutcomesis
positive(Bohte,2004;Booker,2008;Hanushek&Rivkin,2003;Holmesetal.,2003;
Sass,2006),negative(Arsen&Ni,2012;Bettinger,2005;Carr&Ritter,2007;
Imberman,2007;Ni,2009),orinsignificant(Bifulco&Ladd,2006;Buddin&
Zimmer,2009;Urquiola,2016).Theseinconsistentresultssuggestthatmorework
isneededtofullyunderstandtheimpactofcompetitiononschooloutcomes.
Intheircomprehensivereviewofresearchoneducationalmarketsinthe
UnitedStates,BelfieldandLevin(2002)examinedthecorrelationbetween
13
competitionandawidevarietyofschooloutcomes(includingacademic
performance,educationalattainment,expenditures,andefficiency).Studies
includedintheirreviewlookedateducationalmarketsacrossawidevarietyof
areas,withvaryingmeasuresofcompetition,includingtheHerfindahlIndex,private
schoolenrollment,marketdensity(numberofcompetitorswithinanarea),and
proximity(distancetonearestcompetitor).Evidenceontheeffectsofgreater
competitiononacademicoutcomeswasmixed,butwas“generallyconsistentin
suggestingmodestgainsinachievementasaresultofcompetition”(p.286).
BelfieldandLevinalsoreviewedlinksbetweencompetitionandeducational
attainment,educationalexpenditures,andeducationalefficiency.Theirreview
suggested“[t]herewerebenefitsfromhighercompetition,butthesubstantive
effects–acrossthesetofoutcomesandbasedonanincreaseincompetitionofone
standarddeviation–appearedtobemodest”(p.294).
Whiletheirresultssuggestthatcompetitionmayhaveanimportantroleto
playineducationpolicy,BelfieldandLevinstressthatfullyunderstandingthe
impactofcompetitionmustbesituatedwithinabroaderpolicycontext.Important
factorstoconsiderincludethesustainedimpactofcompetitionovertime,andthe
levelofmarketconcentrationbelowwhichtheeffectsofcompetitionmaynotbe
detectable(p.297).
CompetitionandResourceAllocation
Improvingschoolefficiencydoesnotnecessarilyrequireschoolstoimprove
theiracademicperformance.Linick(2014)notes"[d]oingmorewithless,isnot
14
requiredtoimproveefficiency,infact,doingthesamewithless,ordoinglesswitha
lotless,canallrepresentincreasedefficiency"(p.9).Thus,examiningthewaysin
whichschoolsdeploytheirresourcescanprovideimportantinsightsintoevaluating
schoolefficiency.Researchhasbeguntoexaminetheimpactofcompetitionon
educationalexpendituresinmoredetailbyexaminingschoolspendingacross
differentfunctionalcategories.BycomparingthespendingpatternsofTPS’swith
thoseofcharterschools,thesestudiesseektoidentifyhowdifferentschoolsmight
responddifferentlytocompetitivemarkets.
MironandNelson(2002)usestatewideexpendituredatafrom1995-96
through1999-2000tocomparethespendingpatternsofcharterschoolswithnon-
charterpublicschoolsinMichigan.BecauseEMO’smakeupsuchalargeportionof
charterschoolswithinthestate,thethreelargestEMO’sarealsoincludedas
separatepointsforcomparison.
Statewide,theauthorsfindthatcharterschoolsspendasmallerproportionof
overallspendingoninstruction,particularlyonaddedneedsprograms.Thethree
EMO’sexamineddevotedanevensmallerproportionofspendingtoinstruction
thantheaverageforallcharterschools.Onaverage,overthefiveyearsstudied,the
proportionofcharterschoolspendingallocatedtowardsinstructiondeclinedby
over7%(Miron&Nelson,2002).
Inadditiontotheirstatewidecomparison,theauthorsalsoexaminedasmaller
samplethatcomparedspendinginfourcaseschoolsdirectlywiththefour
correspondinghostdistricts.Theauthorsagainfindthatcharterschools,
particularlyEMO’s,spendasmallershareoftheirresourcesoninstruction.They
15
alsoappeartospendalargerproportiononadministration,whencomparedtotheir
homedistricts.Theauthorsalsoexaminedthepurportedcostadvantagesor
disadvantagesofthecasestudyschoolsovertheirhostdistricts,basedonper-
studentexpendituredifferences.Theauthorsconcludethatchartersenjoyavariety
ofcostadvantagesovertheirhostdistrictsbyfocusingservicesonlesscostly
students.Importantly,however,noeffortismadetostatisticallycontrolfor
characteristicsofeachschoolorthestudentswhoattendtheschoolsanddistricts.
BydistinguishingbetweenindependentchartersandEMO’s,thisstudydraws
importantdistinctionsbetweenresourceallocationindecentralizedcharterschools,
andchartersthathavebeen“recentralized”undermanagementorganizations.
Comparingcharterschoolsdirectlytohostdistrictsalsoacknowledgesthe
importanceofcomparingschoolsthatdirectlycompetewitheachotherforstudents.
However,theuseofrawspendingdatafromcharterschoolsanddistricts,without
usingstatisticalanalysistocontrolforstudentandschoolcharacteristics,limitsthe
overallusefulnessofthefindingsforuseinbroaderpolicydiscussions.
MironandUrschel(2010)usenationaldatatocompareexpendituresacrossa
widerangeofpublicschooldistrictsandcharterschools,givingspecificattentionto
chartersmanagedbyeducationalmanagementorganizations(EMOs).Using2006-
07data,theyfindthatinmoststates,charterschoolsnotonlyspendlessmoneyper
pupilthantraditionalpublicschooldistricts,butthattheyalsospendlesson
instruction,studentsupport,andteachersalaries.Chartersalsoappeartospend
moreonadministration,bothasapercentageofoverallspendingaswellasfor
administrativesalaries.
16
Severallimitationsexistwithrespecttothedataandmethodsusedinthis
study.First,thesampledrawsfromincompletedata,inasmuchasschool-leveldata
wasnotavailableformorethanhalfofthecharterschoolsinthefederaldataset
selectedforthestudy.Inaddition,comparisongroupsweredrawnacrossdifferent
states,withcomparisongroupsincludingdatafromsomestatesinanalysis,butnot
inothers.Thelackofdetailonsite-specificschooldata,includinginconsistent
measuresofpolicyconditions,makesitdifficulttogeneralizethesefindings.For
example,competitionisnotquantifiedinanyparticularway.Rather,itissimply
recognizedasexisting,ornot,withoutdiscussionofthemagnitudeofcompetition
withinaparticulararea.
Finally,theuseofrawfinancedatadoesnotaccountforthewiderangeof
othervariablesthatmightimpactspending.Theauthorssuggesttheneedfor
greateroverallprecisionincreatingcomparisongroupstogainabetter
understandingofthedifferencesinhowTPSandcharterschoolsallocateresources.
Thisstudy,situatedwithinasinglecompetitivemarket,willprovidesomeofthat
precision.
ArsenandNi(2012a)usestatewidedatafromschooldistrictsinMichiganto
examinespendinginschooldistrictsinwhichTPS’sexperiencecompetitionfrom
bothcharterschoolsandinterdistrictchoice.Usingdatafrom1994to2006,the
authorsuseafixedeffectmodeltoestimatetheeffectofchartercompetitionon
schoolresourceallocationovertime.Dependentvariablesincludethepercentageof
totalexpendituresforavarietyofareas,includingbasicinstruction,added-needs
instruction,instructionalsalaries,businessandadministration,andoperationsand
17
maintenance.Independentvariablesinthemodelcontrolforstructural
characteristics,studentcharacteristics,andthemeasuresofcompetition
experiencedbyschools.
TheauthorsfindthatTPSdistrictsshowlittlesignofrespondingtocharter
competition,whetherbyshiftingresourcestobasicinstructionalpurposes,to
added-needsprograms,toinstructionalsalaries,orbyreducingclasssize.Nordoes
chartercompetitionappeartoimpactTPSspendingonsupportservicefunctions.
Higherlevelsofcompetitiondoappeartobeconnectedwithdecliningfundbalances
inTPSdistricts,whichisconsistentwithbasicmechanismofchoicepoliciesin
whichfundingfollowsthestudentwhentheyexitadistrict.
TheauthorsalsoexploredhowTPSrespondtochanginglevelsofcompetition
byexaminingresourceallocationpatternsovertime.Comparisongroupswere
createdbycategorizingtheamountofcompetitionindistrictsasnone,low(less
than6%ofdistrictresidentsincharterschools),orthreatening(greaterthan6%of
residentstudentsincharterschools).Districtswerefurthercategorizedas
‘stabilized’,fordistrictsseeingnoincreaseincompetitionoverthe12yearperiod,
or‘increasing’fordistrictsthatsawtheshareofstudentsinchartersincreaseover
thattime.
Whilesomespendingdifferencesexistedindistrictsexperiencingthreatening
levelsofcompetition,thedifferencesexistedevenbeforethedistrictsexperienced
highlevelsofcompetition,andappearedstableovertime.Becausethedifferences
precededanysignificantcompetitionfromcharterschools,theauthorssuggest
thesetrendsmayberelatedtothespecificneedsofstudentsinthosedistricts,
18
ratherthanfromaspecificresponsetocompetition.Insummary,theauthors
suggestthatresourceallocationindistrictsexperiencingcompetition“was
essentiallyindistinguishablefromthatindistrictswithnocompetitionbothbefore
andaftertheythemselvesconfrontedcompetition”(p.30).
Theauthorsconcludebysuggestingthatmoredetailedschool-leveldatamight
behelpfulinidentifyingTPSresponsestochartercompetition.Thisstudywill
addressthosesuggestionsbyincludingschool-leveldemographicsandother
resourceindicatorsinitsresourceallocationmodel.
ArsenandNi(2012b)buildontheirpreviousworkinMichiganbyusing2007-
08datatodirectlycomparethespendingpatternsofcharterschoolsandTPS
districtstoidentifyanydifferencesthatmightexistwithinthestate.Theauthors
beginwithastraightforwardcomparisonofrawdatafromschoolsinthesample.
Theyfindthat,despitereceivingsimilarfundinglevels,charterschoolsandTPS
districtsexhibitlargedifferencesinhowtheyspendallocateresources.Onaverage,
charterschoolsspendover$1,600lessperpupiloninstruction,andaround$400
lessoninstructionalsupportthandistrictsstatewide.Michiganchartersalsoappear
toallocatemoreresourcestowardadministration,spendingabout$900moreper
pupilthanalldistricts.Asapercentageofspending,Michigandistrictsspendan
averageoflessthan10percentonadministration,comparedtocharterspendingon
administrationofaround23percent.Overallspendingdifferencesarealsoquite
stark,withcharterschoolsspendnearly$1,000perpupillessoverall,despite
similarlevelsoffunding.
19
TheauthorsalsouseOLSregressionmodelstoidentifypossibledeterminants
ofresourceallocationdifferences.Thebasicmodelexaminesasetofinstructional
andadministrativespendingcategorieswhilecontrollingforavarietyoffactors
representingbothschool-levelandstudent-levelcharacteristics.Theauthorsfind
thatcharterschoolsinMichiganspend$774moreper-pupilonadministrationthan
TPS’s,witharoundtwo-thirdsofthishigherspendingcomingintheareaofgeneral
administrationandbusinessservices.Severalfactorsappeartoaccountfor
differencesamongcharterschools,includingtheageoftheschool.Estimated
administrativeexpensesdeclinethelongeraschoolremainsopen.Othersignificant
factorsincludegradeconfiguration(secondarychartersspendaround$120less
overallonadministrationthanelementarycharters)andEMOstatus(schools
managedbyEMO’sspendover$300perpupilmorethannon-EMOcharters).These
findingsareconsistentforthemodelthatestimatesdependentvariablesasa
percentageofoverallspending.Importantly,themodelalsosuggeststhatincreased
schoolsizehasasmall,butsignificantimpactbyreducingadministrativespending.
Thisfindingsuggeststhatsomeeconomiesofscaledoexistforadministrative
expenses“throughthetraditionalcentralofficeadministrativefunctions[…],
ratherthaninschool-leveladministration”(p.11).
Overallinstructionalexpendituresmadebycharterschoolsareestimatedtobe
over$1,140lessthanTPS’s,holdingotherfactorsconstant.Thedifferencesappear
evengreaterwhenincludingEMOstatusinthemodel,whichestimatesafurther
reductionininstructionalspendingofnearly$429comparedtonon-EMOcharters.
20
TheoverallmodelforEMO’ssuggeststhatnearly75%ofthereducedinstructional
spendingendsupasanadministrativeoutlay.1
Theauthorsconcludebysuggestingthatamoredetailedexaminationof
instructionalindicators,includingpersonnelcosts,couldhelpmoreclearlyidentify
specificareaswherecharterandTPSspendingisdifferent.
Twofactorsmaylimittheusefulnessofthesefindingsintermsoftheir
applicationtobroaderschoolchoicepolicies.First,for-profitnatureofmostcharter
schoolsinthestudymayleadthemtooperateinwaysthatarenoteasilyextended
tootherpolicysettings,wheremostschoolsareoperatedbynon-profits.Alsoworth
notingistheabsenceofanymeasureofcompetitionwithinthecomparisongroups
andwithinthemodels.Importanttakeawaysfromthisstudyincludetheimpactof
gradeconfiguration,schoolage,schoolsize,andcentralized(EMO)managementon
schoolspending.Theseindicatorswillbeincludedinthisresearchtohelp
strengthentheresourceallocationmodel.
Carpenter(2013)comparesresourceallocationpatternsusingstatewide,
school-leveldataforcharterandnon-charterschoolsinTexas.Per-pupil
expendituresusingrawdataindicatethatchartersandnon-charterswerealmost
identicalintermsoftotalexpenditures.Minorspendingdifferencesemergedwithin
allocationcategories,includingmorespendingbynon-chartersinareasof
instruction,instructionalservices,andsupportservices,withlargerdifferences
1Overall,theresultsfromArsen&Ni(2012b)suggestthatchartersarespendingmoreonadministrationandlessoninstruction.Basedontheirmacrolevelanalysisofinstructionalexpenditures,theauthorsareunabletodeterminespecificareasthatmaybeseeinglowerallocationsthanothers.Basedonthetraditionallylargeshareofexpendituresrelatedtopersonnelcosts,theysuggestthatmuchofthedifferencemayliethere.
21
appearinginadministration,wherechartersspentaround50%moreon
administration.
Amoresophisticatedanalysiswasperformedusingaregressionmodelto
analyzecategoriesasapercentageoftotalspending.Aftercontrollingforavariety
ofstudentandschoolcovariates,Carpenterfoundthatchartersschoolsspend
aroundtwopercentlessoninstruction,instructionalservices,andsupportservices
thannon-charters,allofwhicharestatisticallysignificantdifferences.2
TheabilitytoapplyCarpenter’sfindingstoabroaderpolicycontextmaybe
limitedastheypertaintotheimpactofcompetitionandchoiceonresource
allocation.First,becauseoverhalfofallcharterschoolsinthesamplearemanaged
byCMOs,thepatternsidentifiedmaynotaccuratelyrepresentthebehaviorof
independent,non-networkcharterschools.Second,becausecomparisonsaremade
usingdatafromacrossthestate,ratherthanfromwithinasinglemetropolitanarea,
orevenasingledistrict,thereisnodirectcompetitionbetweenschoolsincludedin
thestudy.Itissimplyassumedthatcharterandnon-charterschoolsexert
competitiononeachother,withnodiscussionofhowthatmighttakeplacebetween
schoolsindifferentlocales.Themodelsdevelopedinthisresearchwilladdress
thesepossibleshortcomingsbydistinguishingbetweennetworkandnon-network
charterschools,andbyexaminingschoolswithinasinglecompetitiveeducational
market.
2Charterschoolsalsospentmoreonschoolleadershipand“othercosts”.Allofthesedifferences,withtheexceptionofschoolleadershipexpenditures,werestatisticallysignificantaftercontrollingforstudentandschoolcovariates.“Thus,itappearstheflexibilityaffordedcharterschoolsresultsindifferencesinexpenditureallocationpatternsbutnotnecessarilyinawayconsistentwithchoicetheory”(p.315).
22
Thestudiesdiscussedaboveprovideseveralexamplesofhowcharterschools
andTPSmightbehavedifferentlyinresponsetomarketcompetition.However,they
alsohighlighttheneedforfutureresearch.Theframeworkbelowoutlineshowthis
researchwillexamineresourceallocationpatternsinschoolsastheycompetefor
students.
ConceptualFrameforAnalysis
ReformstoimproveK-12schoolsthroughthecreationofaneducational
marketplacearebuiltonthepremisethat,byprovidingincreasededucational
optionstoparentsandstudents,schoolswillbecompelledtocompetewitheach
otherforstudentsandthefundingthataccompaniesthem.Thiscompetitiveprocess
isexpectedimproveschooloutcomesbyalteringthebehaviorofbothschoolsand
studentsanditreliesontheprinciplethat“marketforcesmatter–thatis,that
peoplemayaltertheirbehaviorinresponsetothepressuresandincentivesthatthe
marketgenerates”(Hoxby,2003,p.4).Thefollowingframeworkreviewsthe
accountingsystemsusedtotrackeducationalspending,examinesthestructural
elementsofaneducationalmarketplace,identifiesdifferentwaysthatcompetition
betweenschoolsmightbemeasured,andexamineswaysthatschoolsmight
respondtocompetition.
AccountClassificationinEducationalRevenuesandExpenditures
Accuratelytrackingeducationalspendingrequiresasystemofaccounting
thatclassifiesthefinancialactivitiesundertakenbyschools.TheNationalCenterfor
23
EducationalStatistics(NCES)publishesfederalguidelinesforschoolsinthe
FinancialAccountingforStateandLocalSchoolSystems.Thehandbookrepresents“a
nationalsetofstandardsandguidanceforschoolsystemaccounting”(Allison,2015,
p.1)andprovidesschoolsandschoolsystemswithacomprehensiveanduniform
systemwithwhichtoreportfinancialdata.
TheLouisianaAccounting&UniformGovernmentalHandbook(LAUGH)
establishesa“comprehensiveandcompatiblesetsofstandardizedterminologyfor
useineducationmanagementandreporting”fortheStateofLouisiana,and
conformstoNCESguidelines.Objectcodesareusedtotrackschoolanddistrictlevel
expendituresacrossninemajorcategories:Salaries;EmployeeBenefits;Purchased
ProfessionalandTechnicalServices;PurchasedPropertyServices,OtherPurchased
Services;Supplies;Property;OtherObjects;andOtherUsesofFunds.Function
codesfurthercategorizeexpensesacrossfiveareas,accordingtotheactivityfor
whicheachexpenditureismade:Instruction;SupportServices(including
administrative,technical,andlogisticalsupport);OperationofNon-Instructional
Services;FacilitiesAcquisitionandConstructionServices;andOtherUses.
Ingeneral,schoolshavewidelatitudeonhowtocategorizeexpenditures
withinthebureaucraticcategoriescreatedbyschoolaccountingsystems.Because
mostfundsreceivedareunrestricted,theschoolusesitsjudgmentastohowto
accuratelyaccountforspending.3Yet,theuniformityofformalschoolaccounting
systemsacrossschools,bothcharterandtraditional,andacrossdistricts,isvitalfor
3Somefundsarerestrictedforuseonlywithincertaincategories,basedontheirsource.Somefederalfunds,forexample,mustbespentonat-riskpopulations,orstudentswithspecialneeds.Codingofrestrictedfundswithinrequiredcategories,however,isalsostilluptotheindividualschool.Fundsmightbeusedfordirectinstruction,forsupportprograms,forpersonnel.
24
accuratelyevaluatingandcomparingspendinginschools.Bakeretal.(2012)note
researchonspendingin“charterschoolsascomparedtotheirtraditionalpublic
schoolcounterpartsisplaguedbyatleasttwopersistentandmajorshortcomings”
(p.1).First,accurateanalysisreliesoncompleteandconsistentcodingatboththe
schoolanddistrictlevelacrossallareasofresourceallocation.Iforganizations
categorizespendingdifferently,resourceallocationcomparisonscanbeimprecise.
Thisincludesthefactthat“inmanycases,hostdistrictsofchartersmaintainthe
obligationtofinancecertainoperationalcostsofcharters,includingprovisionof
[facilitiesspace],food,transportationandspecialeducationservices”(Bakeretal.,
2012,p.1).Similarproblemscanarisewhenchartermanagementorganizations
assumesomesitelevelcostsforindividualschools.Accuratefinancialanalysesmay
sufferfromtheseinconsistencies.Second,charterschoolsandCMO’smaysimply
operatedifferentlythantraditionaldistrictsandschoolsbasedonthestudentsthey
serveandtheprogramstheyprovide.Thismaybeparticularlytrueforschools
providingnicheprogramstoserveparticularstudents,orschoolsproviding
innovativeprogramstoprovideandsupporttheirinstructionalpractices.Using
broadspendingcategoriestoanalyzeschoolspending,ratherthanmorespecific,
programleveldata,makedetailedcomparisonsofhowschoolsallocateresources
difficult.Spendingoncapitalinfrastructureandotheroperatingcostscanfurther
complicateschool-levelcomparisons.
Anotherpossibledifficultyinaccuratelycomparingschoolexpenditures
ariseswhencharterschoolsorganizethemselvesasmultiple,relatedentities.When
achartermanagementorganizationexists,servicesandotherschool-levelresources
25
maybeprovidedtoschoolsitesbutallocatedtothecentralizedorganization.
Examplesincludeprofessionaldevelopmentforfacultyandstaff,curriculumdesign,
operationalsupport.Insuchcases,centralizedspendingdatamaynotbeattributed
tothespecificsitethatbenefitsfromthoseresources,ormaybeallocatedtoschool
sitesusingorganizationalaveragesratherthanaccountingfortheactualresources
allocatedtoeachsite.Inthecaseofsomechartermanagementorganizations,
supportmaycomenotonlyfromthelocalCMO,butalsofromthenational
organization(Baker&Miron,2015;Mironetal.,2011).Theinternalaccounting
practicesofeachleveloftheorganizationmaymeanthatresourcesarenotalways
accountedforattheschool-level.Centralmanagementorganizations(andindividual
schools)mayalsoworkwithexternalpartnerswhoprovideequipment,personnel,
andotherin-kindservicesthatarenoteasilyaccountedforbythereporting
processesinplaceforcharterschools.School-basedhealthclinics,forexample,are
oftenmanagedbyoutsideorganizationsandprovidedthroughpartnershipsthat
maynotshowupinfinancialrecords.
Charterschoolsmayalsobenefitfromresourcesprovidedbyoutside
organizations.Commonexamplesincludeparentorganizations,butamoreformal
exampleincludesthecreationofaseparateanddistinctnon-profitsupporting
organization(Mironetal.,2011;Reckhow,2010).TheInternalRevenueService
definesasupportingorganizationasonethatis“organizedexclusivelyforthe
benefitof,toperformthefunctionsof,ortocarryoutthepurposesof”(IRS,2018)
anotherpublicnon-profit.Inadditiontomakinggrantstothesupported
organization,thesupportingorganizationcangenerallymakegrantsandprovide
26
servicestothe“individualmembersofthecharitableclassbenefitedbyits
supportedorganization”(IRS,2018).Ifschoolsdonotreportthefinancial
expendituresmadebytheirsupportingorganizations,anyresearchonschool-level
spendingwillbeincompleteandperhapsmisleadingastotheimpactofthe
marketplaceonequityandefficiency.
Similarchallengesexistwhenlookingatschoolrevenues.BakerandMiron
(2015)identifytwodifferentwaysthatpublicdollarsflowintocharterschools.First,
charterschoolsmayreceivedirectfundingfromstateeducationagencies.Underthis
arrangement,charterschoolsarefinanciallyindependentofthelocalschooldistrict.
Asecondfundingarrangementprovidesfundingdirectlytotheschooldistrict,
ratherthanthecharterschool,withthedistrictservingasapass-throughagencyfor
funding.“Inthelattercase,itisnotuncommonforthelocalpublicschooldistrictto
retaincertainfinancialresponsibilities,suchastheprovisionoftransportation
services,orcostsassociatedwithspecialeducation.Districtsmayalsobe
responsibleforprovidingcurricularmaterials,enrollmentmanagement,oreven
accesstofacilities”(p.15).Insuchcases,charterschools’revenueswillappear
lowerbecausefundingisareattributedtothelocaldistrict,makingaccurate
revenuecomparisonsmoredifficult.
Theflowofprivatedollarsintoschoolsalsocomplicatestherevenuesideof
schoolfunding.“Largefoundationsoftenactas‘institutionalentrepreneurs’or‘field
builders’,byawardinggrantstocertaintypesoforganizations”(Reckhow,2010,p.
279).Thesedollarscanbedifficulttotrack,particularlywhentheyareprovidedto
schoolsupportorganizations(whoprovideprogrammingbutnotdirectdollars),to
27
districtorganizations(ratherthandirectlytoschools),ortochartermanagement
organizations,whooftenmaintainseparateregionalandnationalsupporting
organizationsthatmaynotbesubjecttothesamereportingrequirementsasthe
localschoolsthemselves.
Bakeretal.(2015)suggesttwostepstowardconductingbetteranalysisof
schoolrevenuesandspending,whetherattheschoolordistrictlevel.First,better
precisionmustbeusedtodeterminehowandwhereschoolsanddistrictsare
spending.Applestoapplescomparisonsaresimplynotpossibleifexpendituresare
beingmadeincertainschoolsandnotinothers,orifthosecostsarebeingallocated
todistrictofficesorchartermanagementorganizations,insteadoftotheschool
itself.Second,thecostsofspecificprogramsandservicesmustbebrokenintotheir
parts,ratherthanbeingtreatedasaverageexpendituresacrossbroadcategories
likeinstructionandsupport.Withoutthatlevelofdetail,“onecannotaccurately
comparetherelativeefficiencyinproducingstudentoutcomesofonesetofschools
toanother”(p.32).
MarketStructure
Todefinestructureonthesupplysideofaneducationalmarketplace,Belfield
andLevin(2002)suggest,“aneducationmarketexistswhereparents[andstudents]
haveasetoffeasiblealternatives”(p.281).Basedonthisdefinition,apublic
monopolyexistsincommunitiesinwhichasinglepublicschoolordistrictisthe
onlyalternative(Chubb&Moe,1990).Markets,ontheotherhand,existwhenpublic
schoolscompetewithalternativessuchasprivatetuition-basedschools,orwith
28
alternativesinsidethepublicschoolsystem,suchasmagnetschoolsandcharter
schools.The“feasiblechoiceset”(Belfield&Levin,2002,p.281)ofalternativesmay
alsoincludeschoolsinneighboringcatchmentzones,orinneighboringschool
districts,dependingonlocalpolicy(Hoxby,1998).Accessingneighboringschoolsor
neighboringdistrictalternativesusuallyrequiresfamiliesto“votewiththeirfeet”.
This“Tiebout-typechoice”,isexercisedwhenafamilyselectsapublicschooloption
bychoosingtoliveinaparticularneighborhood(Tiebout,1956).Indoingso,
familiestakeadvantageofschoolcatchmentzones,whichassignstudentstoa
particularschoolbasedonresidence(Hoxby,2001).
Choicealoneisnotenoughtocreatecompetitionwithinaneducational
marketplace.Parentsmustalsobeabletogainaccesstothosechoiceoptions.
Unfortunately,barriersusuallyexistthatpreventsomeofthesealternativesfrom
beingconsidered.Low-incomefamilies,forexample,maybeunabletopayprivate
schooltuition.Somestudentsmaynotqualifyformagnetschools,whichenrollonly
thehighestperformingstudents.Charterschoolsmaybeover-enrolled,requiring
studentstoparticipateinalotterytogainaseat.Familiesmayalsobeunabletogain
accesstosomeneighborhoodschoolsbecausethecostsofmovingintoaparticular
neighborhoodaretoohigh(Belfield&Levin,2002).Inadditiontothecostofa
residencebeingalimitingfactorforsomefamilies’abilitytochooseaschoolby
movingintoaneighborhood,Hoxby(2000)suggeststhatchoicecanalsobe
constrainedbyjoblocation,leadingsomefamilies’toconsideronlythoseschools
withinareasonablecommute.Acknowledgingthesebarriers,MacLeodandUrquiola
(2012)note,“thereisevidencethatTieboutchoicecanleadtostratification”(p.9).
29
Structuresthatcanhelpovercomethesechallengestoexercisingchoiceinclude
scholarships,whichprovidelow-incomestudentswithtuitionvoucherstoattenda
privateschool,andfreestudenttransportation.Transportationoptionscanalso
helpfamiliesexpandchoice,regardlessofwheretheylive,byeliminatingtheneed
forparentstobringtheirchildrentoandfromschooleachday,ortopayanoutside
providerforthisservice.
Anotherkeystructuralelementthatimpactscompetitionwithinachoice
systemistheschoolfundingmechanism.Moststateshaveadistrict-basedfinance
systeminwhichschooldistrictsreceivefundingthroughlocaltaxefforts,andfrom
stateandfederalsources.Thedistrictsoperateschoolsandallocateresources,
ratherthanmoney,toschoolsbasedonthenumberofstudentsateachsite(Baker,
2003;Odden,2001).Inachoice-basedschoolsystem,fundingfollowsthestudent.
Thisshiftinschoolfundingstructuresisacriticalcomponentforcreating
competitionbetweenpublicschools.Districtsincreasinglyfacecompetitionfor
publicfundsfromcharterschools,voucherprograms,andtuitiontaxcredit
programs,eachofwhichdivertfundsawayfromthecentralizedschooldistrict
(Bakeretal.,2012;Baker&Miron,2015;Levin,2001).Onlybyattractingenough
studentswillschools,regardlessoftheirtype,receivethefundingtheyneedto
continueoperation.Thus,whenfundingfollowsthestudent,choicestrengthensthe
competitiveprocess.
30
MeasuringCompetition
Thetheoreticallinkbetweenchoiceandcompetitionisthatparents,by
choosingfromamongavailableoptions,caninfluencewhatgoesoninschoolsby
forcingschoolstoconsiderfamilypreferences.Schools,seekingtoattractand
maintainstudentenrollments,willbemotivatedtoimprovetheirperformanceand
diversifytheirofferingsinordertobettermeettheneedsoftheirstudents(Chubb&
Moe,1990).Thedegreetowhichchoicecreatescompetitionbetweenschoolswithin
amarketisasubjectofdebate.Hoxby(2003)suggests,“schools'conductand
performancewilldependontheavailabilityofalternativeschools,notonwhether
theparentsactuallyusethealternatives"(p.11).Inotherwords,anavailablesetof
optionsfromwhichtochooseisenoughtocreatecompetitionandtocompelschools
torespondinparticularways.Alternatively,Linick(2014)arguesthatcompetition
requiresmorethanjustasetofavailablealternatives.Italsorequiresthatschools
respondtothosealternativesinsomeway.ThisdefinitionisconsistentwithBelfield
andLevin(2002),whoalsosuggest“competitionasaconstructrefersbothtothe
existenceofmultipleeducationsupplierswithinthechoicesetandtohowthese
suppliersbehavestrategically”(p.281).
Existingresearchusesseveraldifferentmethodsforquantifyingthelevelof
competitionthatexistswithinaneducationalmarketplace.Holmesetal.(2003)use
proximityasaproxyforcompetitionbycalculatingthedistancebetweenaTPSand
thenearestcharterschool(seealsoBettinger,2005andSass,2005).Otherstudies
usethenumberofcharterschoolswithinaparticulardistanceofaTPStomeasure
thedensityofcharterpresence(Bifulco&Ladd,2006).Hoxby(2003)defines
31
competitionusingmarketshare,orthenumberofstudentswhoattendcharter
schoolswithinagivenmarket,asaproxyforcompetition(seealsoArsen&Ni,
2012;Imberman,2007).Stillotherstudiesaccountforcompetitionusinga
combinationofbothproximityandmarketshare(Buddin&Zimmer,2005;Misraet
al.,2012).
Hoxby(2003)specificallydefinesacompetitiveenvironmentasanydistrict
inwhichcharterschoolsenrollatleastsixpercentofthestudents.Somestudies
estimatethelevelofcompetitionexperiencedbyschoolsbycombiningthismeasure
ofmarketsharewithameasureofthedurationofcharterpresence(Arsen,2007;
Arsen&Ni,2012;Bookeretal.,2008).
Stillanothermetricforquantifyingthelevelofcompetitionbetweenschools
istheHerfindhalIndex(HI),whichusesthe“marketsharesoftheassociatedfirms
withinanindustry[to]capturethedegreeofcompetitioninanindustry”(Borland&
Howsen,1992,p.32).UsingtheHItoquantifycompetitionineducationalmarkets
“reflectsthemarketpowerofpublicschoolsintheareaandthereforethedegreeof
‘choice’thatparentsmayhave”(Barrow&Rouse,2002,p.27).TheHIcanalso
measurecompetitionbetweenbothpublicandprivateschoolsdependingonthe
dataincludedinitscalculations.
TheformulaforcalculatingtheHerfindahlIndexwithinagiveneducational
marketplaceis:
32
WhereHistheHerfindahlIndexvalue,Nisthenumberofschoolswithinadefined
marketplace,andsiisthemarketshareofschooliinthemarketplace.HIvalues
rangefrom0,representingfullcompetition,to1,representingfullmonopoly.In
their2002reviewofstudiesexaminingtheeffectsofcompetitiononeducational
outcomes,BelfieldandLevinreport“HIvaluesineducationmarketsrangefrom
0.11to0.87,withanapproximateaveragefortheconcentrationlevelat0.35,
[indicating]thateducationishighlyconcentratedincomparisonwithothersectors”
(p.283).4Similarly,BarrowandRouse(2002)considerthethresholdforamarket
tobe“somewhatcompetitive”asHIlessthan0.15,withHIabove0.46being
considered“monopolistic”(p.28).
ThisstudywillusetheHerfindahlIndextomeasurethelevelofcompetition
intheNewOrleansschoolmarketplace.OnebenefitofusingHIisthatitisa
dynamicindicatorofcompetitionwithinaneducationalmarketplace.Thevaluewill
changeovertime,reflectinghowcompetitionincreasesordecreasesbasedonthe
enrollmentdecisionsoffamilies(Hanushek,2003;Hoxby,2000).
EducationalMarketStructureinNewOrleans
Onegoalofthisstudyistoidentifypatternsinhowschoolsofdifferenttypes
deployresourcesinresponsetocompetition.Tocreatecomparisongroups,public
4“TheFederalTradeCommission,inaccordancewithininterpretationoftheHI,defines(industrial)marketswithHIvaluesbelow0.1asunconcentrated,thosebetween0.1and018asmoderatelyconcentrated,andthoseabove0.18asconcentrated”(Belfield&Levin,2002,p.336).BarrowandRouse(2002)note“schooldistricts,whichmustexistinallcounties,[will]thereforegeneratemarketsthataremoreconcentratedthanthetypicalproductmarket”(p.28).
33
schoolsinNewOrleanswillbecategorizedaccordingtogovernancetype(publicor
private)andmanagementstructure(centralizedordecentralized).
Thistypologyallowsforpatternstobeidentifiedacrossseveralcomparison
groups.First,schoolsaredividedbetweenpublic(schoolsgovernedbyOPSB,the
publiclyelectedlocalschoolboard)andprivate(schoolscontrolledbynon-profit
charterschoolboards).Schoolsarefurthercategorizedaccordingtomanagement
structure,aseithercentralizedordecentralized.
AllschoolsgovernedbyOPSBareoperatedas“traditionalpublicschools”,
underthecentralizedmanagementofNewOrleansPublicSchools.Withinthe
privatelygovernedcharterschoolsector,bothcentralizedanddecentralized
managementstructuresexist.Networkcharterschoolsoperateaspartofcharter
managementorganizations(CMOs),usingacentralizedmanagementmodel.Non-
networkchartersaredecentralized,standaloneschoolsoperatingasindividual
entities.Figure2-1organizesthepublicschoolsinNewOrleansalongdimensionsof
governanceandmanagementstructure.
Management structure
Centralized Decentralized
Publ
ic
Traditional public
schools
6 schools
G
over
nanc
e
Priv
ate
Network charter
schools
45 schools
Non-network
charter schools
31 schools Figure2-1.PublicSchoolTypesinNewOrleans(2014–2015)
34
Theextenttowhichdifferentresourceallocationpatternsexistforschools
operatingunderthesevariousgovernanceandmanagementstructureshas
importantimplicationsforunderstandinghowschoolsrespondtocompetition.Also
importantforunderstandinghowschoolsbehaveinthemarketplaceisafull
understandingoftheotherreformsthatimpacthowstudentsandfamiliesaccess
schools.TheOrleansParishSchoolBoard,whileithasshifteditsroleawayfromthe
directoperationofschools,stillprovidessomelevelofcoordinationandoversight
forallpublicschools.Fromanenrollmentstandpoint,OPSBmanagestheoperations
ofthreeFamilyResourceCenters,whichprovidefamilieswithalocationtoresearch
schooloptionsandtoutilizetheEnrollNOLAsystem,whichusesacentralized
databasetomanagetheschooladmissionsprocessforallpublicschoolsinNew
Orleans,includingmid-yeartransfers.Fromagovernancestandpoint,OPSBis
shiftingtoaroleasaportfoliomanager,withoversightresponsibilitiesoverareas
suchasschoolopeningandclosure,performancemonitoring,andinterventions.
“Thesetsofdecisionsthatcomealongwithportfoliomanagement–planning,
accountability,andauthorization–leadtothecontinuousimprovementand
innovationthatwillenablethevisionthatagreatpublicschoolisavailableforall
childreninNewOrleans”(OPSB,2016,p.15).InFall2018,thelastofOPSB’s
traditionalpublicschoolswillbecomeacharterschool.OPSB’swillnolonger
directlyoperateanypublicschools.Astheirroleasaportfoliomanagercontinuesto
develop,accountingfortheresourcesOPSBinvestsinschoolswillbeimportantfor
understandinghowandwhereresourcesarereachingschools.Ifthoseresources
arenotattributeddirectlytotheschoolsitestheybenefit,itwillbedifficultto
35
identifyschoolspendingpatternsandtodeterminepossiblecausesforspending
variationsacrossschoolsandcentralizedmanagementorganizations.
TheMarketMetaphor
Accordingtothemarketmetaphor,schoolsprovideasupplyofeducational
optionstofamiliesandstudentswho,asconsumersofeducation,providedemand
forthoseservices.Amarketdynamicexistswhenschoolscompeteforstudents.
Whilethemarketmetaphoriscommonlyidentifiedasthedominantrationalefor
schoolchoice,Henigetal.(2005)suggestcharterschoolscanbecharacterizedas
either“market-oriented–thoseoperatedbyfor-profitEMOs”(p.490)ormission-
oriented,“thoseassumedtosetadirectionmoreinlinewithpurposive,collective,
andphilanthropicmission”(p.489).Withinthemission-orientedchartersector,
schoolsarefurthercategorizedasbeinggovernedbynon-profitswhoareconnected
toprofessionaleducators,afocusonsocialservices,linkstocommunitygroups,or
connectionstothebusinesscommunity.
Henig(1994)notesthatsupportforschoolchoicepoliciesisoftenrooted,not
inabeliefthatmarketcompetitionwillmakeschoolsbetterandmoreefficient,but
ratheronan“allegiancetonon-marketrationales,suchasindividualityandpersonal
growth,culturaldiversity,communityempowerment,andtheopportunitytoshake
uplethargicpublicbureaucracies”(p.188).Totheextentthatthesevalues
representvariedinterestsoffamiliesandstudentsasprivateeducational
consumers,itislogicaltoexpectthatindividualschoolsmayrespondbyprovidinga
productthatalignswiththoseprivateconsumerdemandsratherthanrespondingto
36
themorepublicgoalofsystemwideschoolimprovement.Consideredthroughthis
lens,schools’responsetocompetitionisnotuniform.
Consumerdemandbasedonindividualandpersonalgrowthvaluesthe
principlethatschoolchoicewillalloweducatorstoprovidestudentswithchild-
centeredexperiences,oftenthroughalternativeenvironmentstothetraditionally
structuredclassroom.Theresponseofschools,inthisview,istoprovidethe
individualizededucationdemandedbythemarketofstudents,regardlessofhow
unconventionaltheprogramsmayappear.
Supportforchoicegroundedinculturaldiversityisassociatedwithallowing
parentsandcommunitiestodemand“distinctculturalandintellectualtraditions”
(Henig,1994,p.16)inschools.Thistypeofsupportforschoolchoicemaycompel
schoolstopresentdifferingvaluestodifferentgroupsofstudents,andmayprevent
asinglepublicauthorityfromimposingstandardsuponconsumerswhovalue
somethingotherthanthemajorityviewpoint.Forexample,low-income
communitiesmayvalueaschoolthatfocusesondevelopingjobskillsratherthan
providingacollegepreparatorycurriculum.
Similarly,supportforschoolchoicegroundedinacommunity-power
rationaleisbasedontheprinciplethatschoolsarebestshapedbylocalinterests,
andshouldbeshapedbythepoliticalbeliefsofthosewhousethem,ratherthan
simplybeingorganizedaroundthevaluesofthedominantpoliticalclass(Henig,
1994).Consumerswhodemandchoicesthataregroundedincommunity,for
example,maynotbeinterestedinattractingstudentsfromoutsideoftheirown
neighborhoodboundaries.Normayneighborhoodfamiliesappreciatethe
37
possibilitythatstudentsfromotherpartsofthecitycangainadmissiontothe
neighborhoodschool,infearthatthosestudentswilldisplacespotspreviously
reservedforstudentsandfamiliesinthesurroundingcommunity.
Finally,somesupportersmayseeschoolchoicesimplyasapoliticaltoolthat
canbeusedtoforcereformsuponaninstitutionaleducationalsystemthatisoften
resistanttochange.Becausethistypeofsupportforschoolchoiceismoreclosely
alignedwiththemoretraditionaloutcomesof“higherachievementscores,lower
dropoutrates,basicliteracy,[and]technicalandscientificskills”(Henig,1994,p.
19),itislikelytobealignedwithbothprivateconsumerpreferencesandalsowith
themorepubliclyacknowledgedgoalsoflocalandstateeducationalagencies,
whosemainpriorityistoimprovetheacademicperformanceschoolsasmeasured
byformalaccountabilitysystems.
Totheextentthatschoolsallocateresourcesinordertomeetconsumers’
preferences,theprivateandpublicgoalsofchoicemayleadtovariedbehavioron
thesupplysideofschooling,andtoarangeofspendingondifferentpriorities.Itis
importanttonote,however,thatregardlessofprivateconsumerpreferences,
schoolsmustalsomeettheregulatorydemandsofthepublicsystemasawhole.
Morespecifically,localandstateeducationauthoritiescananddorequireschoolsto
meetspecificacademicperformancetargets,whetherintheformoftestscores,
attendancerates,orothermeasurableoutcomes.Fortraditionalpublicschools,
failuretomeetregulatorydemandsmayresultinschoolclosure,restructuring,or
leadershipchange.Similarrequirementsexistforcharterschools.InNewOrleans
forexample,schoolsmustmeetavarietyofexpectationsrelatedtoschoolfinances,
38
organizationalstructures,andacademicqualityinordertomaintainoperationsand
havetheirchartersrenewed(OPSB,2017).
Baker(2009)notesanotherimportantimpactofcompetitionontheresource
allocationpatternsofschoolsanddistrictsoperatingwithinamarketplace.Because
organizationscompeteforthesamelaborforce,boththequantityandqualityof
teachers,administratorsandotherstaffarecommoditiesforwhichtheymust
compete.Thenumberofqualifiedpersonnelwithinamarketmaybelimited,and
organizationswillbeforcedtocompeteforthoseresources,eitherthroughhigher
salaries,higherqualitysupport,orotherbenefits.“Inshort,veryfewschool
[organizations]aregeographicallyisolatedislandsthatcanaltertheirownspending
levelsordistributionswithoutconsiderationforspendinganddistributionbehavior
oftheirneighboring[organizations]”(p.290).
RespondingtoCompetitionWithResources
BelfieldandLevin(2002)suggestthatboththesupplyside(schools)andthe
demandside(parentsandstudents)havethepotentialtoactstrategicallywithinthe
marketplace,andthatbothareimportantforunderstandinghowcompetitionmight
compelschoolstodifferentiatethemselvesfromoneanother.Thisstudyisfocused
solelyonthesupplysideoftheeducationalmarketplace,andusesresource
allocationpatternstoexaminehowschoolsandcentralizedorganizationsinNew
Orleansactstrategicallywithinahighlycompetitiveenvironment.Thisresearch
followstheapproachofCarpenter(2013)whonotes“allocationstudiesdescribe,
39
explain,and/orpredictresourcepatternsinthecontextunderstudy,leaving
educationaloutcomestothedomainofproductionfunctionstudies”(p.307)
Thereareavarietyofactionsthatschoolsmighttakeinresponseto
competition.Theymayeliminatewastefulprograms,enhancestudentprogramming,
investinfacilitiesorinnovatetoimprovethequalityofinstructionintheirbuildings.
Schoolfinancedatacanprovideadetailedlookathowschoolsaresettingtheir
priorities.Whenexaminingschoolfinances,it’simportanttonotethatsimply
spendingmoreonisnotaguaranteeofbetterstudentperformance(Hanushek,
1997;Ladd&Hansen,1999;Oddenetal.,2006).Alsoimportantisthewayinwhich
thoseresourcesareused,andtheconditionswithinwhicheachschooloperates.
AsschoolsinNewOrleanscontinuetocompeteforresourcesinthe
marketplace,itisimportanttonotethatresourcesnotonlycomefromattracting
students(andtheper-pupilrevenuesthataccompanythem),butalsofromother
publicandprivatesources.Governmentalandprivategrantsmayrequirethe
adoptionofaparticularprogramtoreceivethefunding.Specificreportingand
evaluation,andtheassociatedcosts,mayberequiredforongoingfundingor,in
somecases,fundsmayonlyreimbursediftheyarespentinaccordancewithspecific
guidelines.School-levelresourceswillbeavailablefromtheOrleansParishSchool
Boardthroughitsroleasaportfoliomanager.Asschoolsworktocompeteforthese
limitedresources,fundraising,compliance,andaccountabilitymayallimpacthow
theydeployresourceswithintheirorganizations.
TheNCESframeworkprovidesschoolswithavarietyofspecificschool
resourceindicatorsthatcanhelpidentifyschoolpriorities.Theseincludeper-pupil
40
expenditures,totalenrollmentoftheschool,specialacademicfocusfortheschool,
suchasamagnetoralternativeprogram,studentincomelevel,andtheproportion
ofstudentswithdisabilities.Baker(2003)notestheimportanceofexaminingschool
anddistrictpersonnellevels,includingthenumberofschoolanddistrictlevel
administrators,andinstructionalandinstruction-relatedstaff.MilesandFrank
(2008)highlightadditionalindicatorsthatcanindicateschoolpriorities,including
per-pupilexpenditures,teachereducationlevels,andteacherexperience.Thisstudy
examinesschoolspendingprioritiesacrossavarietyoftheseexpenditurecategories
andresourceindicators.
41
III–DATAANDMETHODOLOGY
Thissectionprovidesabriefoverviewofthecasestudyandthequantitative
methodsIwillusetoexamineresourceallocationpatternsinNewOrleans.First,I
willproviderationaleforusingacasestudyapproachforthisresearch.Second,I
willidentifythedatatobeusedfortheanalysis.Next,Idescribethecontextforthe
study,includingameasureofthedegreeofcompetitionwithintheNewOrleans
schoolmarketplace.Next,Iprovideadescriptionofthemodelusedtoestimate
differencesinschoolallocationpatternswithintheNewOrleanseducational
marketplace.Finally,Iwillshareresultsfrompreliminarytrialsoftheanalysis,and
willprovideabriefoutlineoffurtheranalysistobeconducted.
CaseStudyApproach
Iwilluseanembeddedcasestudyapproachtoconductthisresearch,using
thesystemofpublicschoolsinNewOrleansasprimaryunitofanalysis.Subunits
forthestudywillbepublicschoolsclassifiedaccordingtothegovernanceand
managementstructureofeachschool,whichincludestraditionalpublicschools,
networkcharterschools,andnon-networkcharterschools.Thewholesaleadoption
ofmarket-basedreformsmakethisstudywellsituatedtounderstandthepresumed
linksbetweensystemicreformsandschool-levelspending,acriterionwellsuitedto
thecasestudyapproach(Yin,2003).Acasestudyapproachisalsoappropriatefor
understandingthe“how”and“why”ofacontemporaryphenomenonoverwhichthe
42
investigatorhaslittleornocontrol(Yin,2003).Casestudiesarealsoappropriate
forcomparingtheeffectsoftheinstitutionalenvironmentonsubunitswithinacase
(Schneiberg&Clemens,2006).Thesubunitsinthisstudywillallowmetoexamine
theresourceallocationpatternofschoolsacrossgovernancetype(publicand
private)andwithintheprivatelygovernedchartersector(non-networkand
networkschools).
StudyContextandPopulation
Thisstudyexaminesresourceallocationpatternsacrossthepublicschool
systeminNewOrleans,Louisiana.Schoolsincludedinthestudyarepublicschools
operatingwithinOrleansParish.Schoolsarecategorizedastraditionalpublic
schools(n=6),non-networkcharterschools(n=31),orasanetworkcharterschools
(n=45).1OrleansParishprovidesauniqueenvironmentinwhichtomeasurepublic
schools’responsetocompetitionwithinasingleeducationalmarketplace.Allpublic
schoolsinOrleansParish,regardlessofgovernanceandmanagementstructure,
competewitheachotherforstudents.Publicschoolstudentsarenotassignedto
schoolsbasedonneighborhoodresidence.Rather,familiesmustactivelyapplytoa
particularschooltogainadmission.
BecausetheschooldistrictiscontiguouswiththeOrleansParishboundaries,
nootherdistrictsareincludedinthechoiceset.PrivateschoolsinOrleansParish
arealsonotconsidered.Whilecompetitioncertainlyexistsbetweenpublicand
1TheNewOrleansCenterforCreativeArts,apublichighschoolauthorizeddirectlybytheLouisianaLegislature,isexcludedfromthesample.NOCCAisasatuition-freeartstrainingcenterforhighschoolstudentsthroughoutNewOrleans,andstudentsareadmittedthroughauditiononly.
43
privateschoolswithinOrleansParish,andbetweenOrleansParishandneighboring
districts,thissamplepurposefullyexaminesonlypublicschoolcompetitionwithin
OrleansParish.
Itisimportanttonotethat,whilesomeevidencesuggeststhatschoolsin
NewOrleansareimprovingalongtraditionalacademicachievementmeasures(Sims
&Rossmeier,2015),thisstudydoesnotattempttoaddresstheefficiencyofschools
inNewOrleans.Rather,itlimitsitsanalysistoanexaminationofhowschoolsspend
resourcesinparticularareas.Severalfactorscontributedtothisdecision.First,the
summary-levelfinancialdatausedfortheanalysisdonotidentifyhowschools
spendonspecificprogramsandservices.Thus,itisnotpossibletoconnect
particularoutcomestospecificareasofinvestment.Second,thewidevarietyof
outcomesthatschoolsseektoaccomplishmaydifferacrossorganizations,leading
tocomparisonsthatmaynotaccuratelydescribethecostofachievingaparticular
goal.Aninvestmentinmentalhealthservices,forexample,whileproviding
importantbenefitstostudentsandfamilies,maynotyieldimprovedacademic
outcomes.However,theinvestmentmayimproveschoolculture,reducebehavioral
problems,andincreasefamilyinvolvementattheschool.Thosechangesmay,in
turn,reducecostsinotherareas.Byfocusingsolelyonwhatschoolsspent,
regardlessofoutcomes,thisanalysisseekstoidentifyoverallspendingtrendsin
schoolswiththegoalofinformingfutureworkontheefficiencyofparticular
programs.
Table3-1includesdescriptivestatisticsforschoolsinthestudy.Schooland
classsizesappeartobesimilaracrossschoolsofdifferentgovernancetypes,
44
althoughnetworkcharterschoolsappeartoserveslightlylargerstudentbodiesand
classrooms,ascomparedtonon-networkchartersandTPS.Studentdemographics
showmorenotabledifferences.Networkcharterschoolsappeartoenrollagreater
percentageofspecialeducationstudentsandalargerpercentageofeconomically
disadvantagedstudents,whencomparedtoTPSandnon-networkcharterschools.
Non-networkcharterschoolsappeartoservethelowestpercentageofthesesame
studentscomparedtobothotherschooltypes.
Networkcharterschoolsappeartoemployinstructional,administrativeand
supportstaffmemberswiththeleastamountofexperience,followedbynon-
networkcharters.TPSappeartoemploystaffwiththemostexperience,acrossall
hiringareasexamined.
Table3-1
PopulationDescriptiveStatistics,OrleansParish,2014–2015
NetworkCharterNon-networkCharter TPS
n 45 31 6Category Mean Std.Dev. Mean Std.Dev. Mean Std.Dev.
AverageDailyMembership 576.6 242.1 536.1 319.4 530.9 301.6Studentsperteacher 16.2 3.6 15.0 2.5 14.7 1.8%EconomicDisadvantage 91.8% 4.6% 75.2% 23.1% 88.4% 5.6%
%inSp.Education 13.01% 4.07% 9.25% 4.49% 10.17% 3.43%AverageExperience-Teachers 6.2 3.8 9.1 3.9 16.4 2.4AverageExperience-Pupil/InstrSupport 6.9 3.8 11.0 6.6 20.4 2.9AverageExperience-SchoolAdmin 8.3 5.3 14.1 7.4 13.5 7.2AvgExperience-AllStaff 6.1 2.9 9.1 3.6 14.5 2.3
45
TableA-1(seeAppendixA)showstheaverageper-pupilcurrent
expenditures2forthesampleofpublicschoolsinNewOrleansduringthe2014-15
academicyear.Thetableincludesdataforfivegroupsofschools:allpublicschools,
alltraditionalpublicschools,non-networkcharters,networkcharters,andall
charterschools.SpendingaveragesareshownasTotalCurrentExpendituresand
withinfunctionalcategoriesforInstructional,SupportServices(forPupilsand
InstructionalStaff),SchoolAdministration,TransportationandCentralOffice
Overhead.Allcategoriesareexpressedasbothper-pupilaveragesandasanaverage
percentoftotalcurrentexpenditures.
Earlyproponentssuggestedthatcharterschools,asdecentralized
organizations,wouldshiftspendingclosertotheclassroomsandawayfrom
administration(Finnet.al,2000).InNewOrleans,thechartersectoractually
appearstospend$997lessperpupiloninstruction.Chartersalsospendlessper
pupiloncentralofficeoverhead($1,663)andmoreperpupilonadministrative
costs($142)ascomparedtoTPS.Lowerinstructionalspendingandhigherschool
administrationspendingbychartersisconsistentwithotherstudiesthatshow
similartrends(Miron&Nelson,2002;Miron&Urschel,2010;Nelsonetal.,2003).
Administrativespendinglooksdifferent,however,whenexaminedincombination
withcentralofficeoverhead,afunctionalareathatlikelyincludessomeTPS
administrativespendingthatchartersschoolsidentifyasadministrativespendingat
2NCESdefinescurrentexpendituresasthosemadefortheday-to-dayoperationofschoolsandschooldistricts,includingexpendituresforstaffsalariesandbenefits,supplies,andpurchasedservices.Expendituresassociatedwithrepayingdebtsandcapitaloutlays(e.g.,purchasesofland,schoolconstructionandrepair,andequipment)areexcludedfromcurrentexpenditures.Programsoutsidethescopeofpublicpreschooltograde12education,suchascommunityservicesandadulteducation,arenotincludedincurrentexpenditures(Johnsonetal,2011).
46
theschoollevel.TPSspendacombined$3,708perpupilonschooladministration
andcentralofficeoverhead,comparedto$2,187perpupilspentbycharters.TPS
spend$331lessperpupilonTransportationthanthechartersector.
Inadditiontocomparingperpupilspendingamounts,ArsenandNi(2012a)
andCarpenter(2013)notetheimportanceofcomparingcategoricalspendingasa
percentageofoveralloutlays.Chartersspend10.34%ofoverallexpenditureson
SchoolAdministration,comparedto7.7%byTPS.However,chartersspend17.69%
oncombinedschooladministrationandcentralofficeoverhead,ascomparedtoTPS
spendingof25.13%onthesamecategories.And,althoughtheyspendlessperpupil
oninstruction,chartersspendalargershareofoverallspendingoninstructionthan
TPS,withthechartersectorspending50.49%oftotalcurrentexpenditureson
Instructioncomparedto49.05%ofspendingonInstructionbyTPS.Thesetrends
aremoreconsistentwiththetheorythatcharterschools,“asdecentralized
organizationscompelledtocompeteforstudents,[will]allocatetheirresources
moreintensivelyoninstruction"(Arsen&Ni,2012b,p.2).Thisresearchwillcreate
modelstocomparedifferencesinbothperpupilspendingandspendingasashare
oftotal.
Turningtocomparisonswithinthechartersector,totalcurrentexpenditures
appearsimilaracrossschooltypes,withnon-networkchartersspending$12,530
perpupilandnetworkchartersspending$12,244.Thereisgreatervariationwithin
thecharterschoolspendingacrossexpenditurecategories.Non-networkcharters
spendmorethannetworkchartersonInstruction($290perpupil),School
Administration($130perpupil)andCentralOfficeOverhead($762pupil),andless
47
thannetworkchartersonPupil/InstructionalSupport($292perpupil)and
Transportation($330perpupil).Trendsaresimilarwhenexaminedasapercentage
ofspending.Thegreaterspendingbynon-networkchartersonadministrationand
centralofficeoverheadsuggestthatnetworkcharters,bycentralizingoperationsat
thenetworklevel,areenjoyingsomeeconomiesofscaleforthosefunctions.
Interestingly,theadvantagesofrecentralizationwithinthechartersectordonot
appeartocreateefficienciesinTransportation,wherenon-networkchartersspend
lessthannetworkcharterschools.Thisresearchwilldistinguishbetweennetwork
andnon-networkcharterschoolstohelpunderstandanydifferencesthatexist
withinthecharterschoolsectorasschoolmanagementisrecentralizedtothe
networklevel.
TableA-2(seeAppendixA)showscomparisonsofstaffexperienceand
salariesinNewOrleanspublicschoolsin2014-15.Dataincludeaveragesalaryand
tenureforteachers,supportstaff,andschooladministratorswithinOrleansParish.
Onaverage,TPStendtoemploystaffwithgreaterexperiencecomparedtothe
chartersector,regardlessofposition.And,TPSpayhigheraveragesalariesto
teachersandsupportstaff.TPSadministrators,ontheotherhand,makeanaverage
of$15,654lessthantheirchartersectorcounterparts.Anexaminationofdata
withinthechartersectorrevealsdifferencesbetweennon-networkandnetwork
charterschools.Non-networkschoolsemploymoreexperiencedstaffinall
categories,andpayteachersandadministratorsmorethannetworkcharters.The
largestdiscrepancyinchartersectorsalariesoccurredinadministrativeareas,
wherenon-networkcharterspaidtheiradministratorsanaverageof$10,605more
48
thannetworkcharterschools.Non-networkchartersalsopaidtheiradministrators
$21,933morethanTPSpaytheiradministrators.
SchoolsdonotjustcompeteforstudentsintheNewOrleansmarketplace.
Theymustalsocompeteforteachers.Byexamininghumanresourceindicators
acrossschoolgovernancetypes,andacrosscentralizedanddecentralized
managementstructures,thisresearchwillcontributetoagreaterunderstandingof
howhumanresourcesareallocatedwithinacompetitivesystem.Humanresource
indicatorsinthemodelincludesalaryandexperiencelevelsforteachers,support
staff,andadministrators.OtherresourceindicatorswillincludeTotalCurrent
Expendituresandcategoricalexpendituredata,includingspendingonInstruction,
PupilandTeacherSupport,SchoolAdministration,Transportation,andCentral
OfficeOverhead.
MeasuringCompetitioninNewOrleans
ThisstudyusestheHerfindahlIndex(HI)tomeasurethedegreeofpublic
schoolcompetitionwithinOrleansParish.TheHImeasuresthelevelof
concentrationofschoolenrollmentswithinadefinedarea.Valuesrangefrom0,
representingfullcompetition,to1,representingfullmonopoly.Theformulafor
determiningthelevelofconcentrationis:
49
whereHistheHerfindahlIndexvalue,Nisthenumberofpublicschoolswithin
OrleansParish,andsiisthemarketshareofpublicschooliinthemarketplace.
82publicschoolsareincludedinthestudysample.Marketshareforeach
schooliscalculatedusing2014–15AverageDailyMembership(ADM)dataas
reportedtotheLouisianaDepartmentofEducation.Basedonthesedata,theHI
valueforOrleansParishpublicschoolsis0.015,representingarelativelyhigh
degreecompetitionwithinthemarketplace.3CalculatingHIwithdatafromall
publicschoolsinNewOrleansestablishesasystem-widemeasureofcompetitionfor
theNewOrleanspublicschoolmarketplace,ratherthanasitelevelmeasureof
competitionbasedontheproximityordensityofcompetitionaroundspecific
schools.ThehighlevelofcompetitionbetweenpublicschoolsintheNewOrleans
marketplacemakeitwellsuitedforasingle-casedesign,becausetheNewOrleans
educationalmarketplacerepresentsextremeoruniquecase(Yin,2003).
DataSources
DataforthisstudycomefromLouisianaDepartmentofEducationdatabases
andpublicationsforpublicschoolsoperatinginNewOrleansinthe2014-2015
academicyear.Thesedataincludeschool-levelfinancialanddemographicdatafor
bothcharterandnon-charterpublicschools.Thedatawereassembledfromreports
publishedbytheLouisianaDepartmentofEducationandfromeachschool’sAnnual
FinancialReportandAnnualCharterReview(LDE,2015d).
3Asapointofcomparison,Belfield&Levin(2002)reportanaverageHIvalueof0.35forthestudiestheyreviewed,withalowof0.11andamaximumvalueof0.87.
50
School-levelexpendituredatainthesamplearecategorizedinaccordance
withaccountingguidelinesestablishedintheLouisianaAccountingandUniform
GovernmentalHandbook(LAUGH),whichprovidesastandardizedsetofaccounting
codesforuseineducationmanagementandreporting.TheLAUGHaccountingcodes
areincompliancewithNationalCenterforEducationStatistics(NCES)reporting
requirements.
School-levelStructuralCharacteristics
Schooltypeistheprimaryvariableofinterestinthisanalysis.Thisstudy
categorizespublicschoolsinNewOrleansaccordingtogovernancetype(publicor
private)andmanagementstructure(centralizedordecentralized).Governancetype
allowscomparisonstobedrawnbetweenpublic(TPS)andprivate(charter)schools.
Managementstructureallowscomparisonstobemadebetweencentralized
organizations(TPSandnetworkcharters4)anddecentralizedorganizations(non-
networkcharters).Combined,thedimensionscreatethreedistinctcategoriesof
schoolsforcomparison:1)traditionalpublicschools(public/centralized),2)
networkcharter(private/centralized)and3)non-networkcharter
(private/decentralized).Becausetherearethreecategoriesofschooltypewhen
bothgovernanceandmanagementstructureareconsidered,dummyvariablesare
used5torepresentnetworkandnon-networkcharterschools,leavingTPSasthe
basecategory.Totheextentthattrendsexistwithinschoolsineachgroup,this
4Networkcharters,forthepurposesofthisparticularcomparison,areconsidered“recentralized”becausetheyrelyonacentralofficetoperformavarietyofschool-levelfunctions.5“Whenanon-intervalvariablehasGcategories,useG-1dummyvariablestorepresentit”(Lewis-Beck,1980,p.68).
51
typologycanprovideimportantinsightsintohowvariouscombinationsofschool
governanceandmanagementstructuremightimpactresourceallocationwithina
competitivemarketplace.
Researchindicatesthatseveralschoolandstudentlevelvariablesmaybe
significantlyimpacthowschoolsallocateresources(Baker,2003;Oddenetal.,
2003).Thesevariablesareaccountedforinthemodeltocontrolforanyinfluence
theymayhaveonresourceallocationpatterns.School-levelcovariatesthathave
beenshowntoimpactspendinglevelsincludegradeconfiguration,schoolsize,
schoolage,schooladmissionscriteria,andspecializedprograms(Andrews,
Duncombe&Yinger,2002;Arsen&Ni,2012a,2012b;Baker,2003;Bakeretal.,
2012;Green,Huerta&Richards,2007;Miles&Frank,2008).Studentlevel
covariatesthatimpactspendingincludethepercentofstudentswhoare
economicallydisadvantagedandthepercentofstudentsinspecialeducation
programs(Harwell,2018;Monk&Hussain,2000).Schoolandstudentlevel
variablesprovidecontextabouttheprioritiesandthelevelofneedwithinschools,
andthereforecanimpacttheresourcesallocatedacrossavarietyofindicators.To
theextentthesevariablesareassociatedwithhowdifferenttypesofschoolsspend
differently,theirinclusioninthemodelcanhelpbetterisolatethespecificspending
differencesassociatedwithgovernanceandmanagementstructures.Table3-2
summarizesthelistofindependentvariablesincludedintheanalysis.
52
Table3-2IndependentandControlVariablesStudyVariable CodingNon-networkcharter 1=Charterschoolmanagedbynon-profit.Singlesite
only.Networkcharter 1=CharterschoolmanagedbyaCharterManagement
OrganizationSelectiveadmission 1=Schoolusesstandardizedtestscoresorother
academicindicatorstodetermineeligibilityforenrollment0=Openadmissionschool
Alternativesetting 1=Schoolservesstudentsinanon-traditionalclassroomenvironment.
Elementary/middleSchool 1=SchoolservesPK/K–8thgrade0=Highschool
Combinationgradelevel 1=CombinationElementary/Middle/HighSchoolSchoolage Continuous(0,1,2,…,n)Ageofschool,inyears,since
2005.SchoolPerformanceScore SchoolqualitymetricprovidedbyLouisiana
DepartmentofEducation.AverageDailyMembership Continuous(0,1,2,…,n)Averageschoolenrollment%EconomicDisadvantage Percentstudentsqualifyingforfreeandreducedprice
lunch%StudentswithDisabilities
Percentstudentswithdisabilities
ResourceAllocationIndicators Dependentvariablesinthemodelmeasureavarietyofschool-level
expenditurecategoriesandhumanresourcecharacteristics.Expendituredataare
brokendownbyfunctionalcategories,whichcanserveasindicatorsofthecore
educationalstrategiesandprioritieswithineachschool(Allison,2015;Baker,2003;
Oddenetal.,2003).Otherdependentvariablesincludetheaveragesalaryand
experiencelevelforavarietyofpositionswithintheschool,whichserveas
53
indicatorsofthelevelofinvestmentschoolsmakeinhumancapitalacross
functionalcategories(Baker,2003;Miles&Frank,2008).Table3-3identifiesthe
dependentvariablesincludedinthemodel.
Table3-3
DependentVariablesRegressionModelVariables
Studyvariable CodingTotalCurrentExpenditures
Perpupilexpendituresfortheday-to-dayoperationofschools,includingexpendituresforstaffsalariesandbenefits,supplies,andpurchasedservices.Expendituresassociatedwithrepayingdebtsandcapitaloutlays,andexpendituresoutsidethescopeofpre-Kthrough12publiceducation,areexcludedfromcurrentexpenditures.
Instruction Activitiesdealingdirectlywiththeinteractionbetweenteachersandstudents.TheseactivitiesprovidestudentswithlearningexperiencesandincludeRegularEducation,SpecialEducation,andCo-CurricularActivities.
Pupil/InstructionalSupportServices
PupilSupportServicesincludeAttendanceandSocialWork,Guidance,andHealthServices,includingspeechandoccupationaltherapyandotherrelatedservices.InstructionalStaffSupportServicesareassociatedwithassistingtheinstructionalstaffwiththecontentandprocessofprovidinglearningexperiencesforstudents.
SchoolAdministration
Activitiesconcernedwiththeoveralladministrativeresponsibilityforaschool,includingactivitiesperformedbythePrincipalandAssistantPrincipals.
CentralOfficeOverhead
Activities,otherthangeneraladministration,whichsupporteachoftheotherinstructionalandsupportingservicesprograms.Theseactivitiesincludeplanning,research,development,evaluation,information,staff,andadministrativetechnologyservices.
SchoolAdministrationandCentralOfficeOverhead
Combinedmeasureofschoolandcentralofficeadministrativeactivities,asoutlinedinthistable.
Transportation Activitiesconcernedwithconveyingstudentstoandfromschool,asprovidedbyStateandFederallaw.Thisfunctionincludestripsbetweenhomeandschool,andtripstoschoolactivities,includingfieldtrips.
Instructionalpercent
Instructionalpercentoftotalcurrentexpenditures
Supportpercent Pupil/InstructionalSupportpercentoftotalcurrentexpendituresSchoolAdministrationpercent
SchoolAdministrationpercentoftotalcurrentexpenditures
CentralOffice CentralOfficeOverheadpercentoftotalcurrentexpenditures
54
OverheadpercentSchoolAdministrationandCentralOverheadpercent
SchoolAdministrationandCentralOverheadasapercentoftotalcurrentexpenditures
Transportationpercent
Transportationpercentoftotalcurrentexpenditures
Avg.Yrs.Experience-Teachers
Averageyearsexperienceforclassroominstructors.
Avg.Yrs.Experience-Admin
Averageyearsexperienceforschool-leveladministrators.
Avg.Yrs.Exp.–PupilSupport
Averageyearsexperienceforpupilsupportstaff.
Avg.Yrs.Experience–Allstaff
Averageyearsexperienceforallschoolstaff.
Source:LouisianaAccountingandUniformGovernmentalHandbook(2010);NationalCenterforEducationalStatistics(2009).
ModelComparisonGroups Irelyonmultipleregressionmodelstoestimatethedifferencesinallocations
betweenTPSandcharterschools,aftercontrollingforstudentandschool-level
characteristics.Separateregressionsarerunforeachexpenditurefunction,bothas
aperpupilamountandasapercentageoftotalcurrentexpenditures,andforeach
humanresourceindicator.Separatemodelsareusedtodrawcomparisonsbetween
spendinginTPS,non-networkandnetworkcharterschoolsattheschoollevel,and
atthedistrict(LEA)level.Table3-4illustratesthemodelsusedforthisresearch.
55
Table3-4ResourceAllocationRegressionModelComparisonGroupsModel Variablesofinterest ComparisongroupsModel1
Governanceandmanagementstructure(schoolasunit)
TPS(6)Non-networkcharterschool(31)Networkcharterschool(45)
Model2
Governanceandmanagementstructure(districtasunit)
Traditionaldistrict(1)Chartermanagementorganization(12)Non-networkcharters(31)
Model3
Managementstructure(schoolasunit)
Centralized(andrecentralized):TPSandNetworkcharter(51)Decentralized(site-based):Non-networkcharter(31)
Model4
Managementstructurewithinchartersector(schoolasunit)
Centralized:CMO(45)Decentralized:Non-networkcharter(31)
Byexaminingdifferentcombinationsofschoolgovernanceandmanagement
structures,themodelsallowthecomparisonofschoolanddistrict-levelspending
patternswithinthemarketplacefromavarietyofperspectives.
Thebasicmodelforestimatingresourceallocationlevelstakesthefollowing
form:
Yi=a0+b1X1+b2X2+b3X3+…+bkXk+e
56
whereYisthedependentvariableofinterestandXareindependentvariables
representingavarietyofschoolandstudentcharacteristics.
Model1usesschool-leveldatatocompareresourceallocationpatternsin
TPStothoseofcharterschools.ThebasecategoryinthemodelisOPSBschools
(publicgovernance;centralizedmanagement),withcomparisonsmadetoschools
withinthechartersector(privategovernance).Thecharterschoolcomparison
groupisfurtherbrokendownintonon-networkcharterschools(decentralized,site-
basedmanagement)andnetworkcharterschools(recentralizedmanagement).
Model2examinesresourceallocationpatternsindataaggregatedtothe
district,orlocaleducationagency(LEA)level.Thebasecategoryinthemodelis
OPSB(publicgovernance;centralizedmanagement),withcomparisonsmadetothe
charterschoolsector(privategovernance).Charterschoolmanagementstructureis
againusedtodistinguishbetweenrecentralizedchartermanagementorganizations
(networkcharters)anddecentralized,non-networkcharterorganizations(site-
basedmanagement).UsingLEAastheunitofanalysiscanhelpidentifyresource
allocationtrendsthatmaynotbeevidentattheschoollevel.
Model3usesmanagementstructuretocompareresourceallocationpatterns
incentrallymanagedschools(bothpublicTPSandprivatenetworkcharters)with
thoseofdecentralized,non-networkcharterschools.ThebasecategoryinModel3
iscentrallymanagedschools,includingschoolsfrombothOPSBandfromcharter
managementorganizations,whilethecomparisongroupincludessite-base
managed,non-networkcharterschools.Thismodelprovidesinsightintowhether
centralizedschools,whetheroperatedbyatraditionaldistrictoracentralized
57
chartermanagementorganization,appeartospenddifferentlythansite-base,non-
networkcharterschoolswithinthemarketplace.
Model4usesmanagementstructurewithinthecharterschoolsectorto
compareresourceallocationpatternsinre-centralizednetworkcharterschools
withsinglesite,decentralizednon-networkcharters.Thebasecategoryincludes
non-networkcharters,withnetworkcharterschoolsservingasacomparisongroup.
Thismodelidentifieshowspendingpatternsdifferacrosstheprivatizedcharter
sector,basedonmanagementstructure,bycomparingrecentralizednetwork
charterschoolstofullydecentralizednon-networkcharterschools.
58
IV–ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
Theregressionmodelsutilizedinthisstudyallowcomparisonstobedrawn
acrossschoolswhocompeteforstudentswithintheNewOrleansmarketplace,but
whooperateunderdifferentgovernanceandmanagementstructures.This
summaryoffindingsprovidesabriefdescriptionofeachmodel,includingtheschool
andstudentcovariatesandresourceindicatorvariablesincludedineachmodel,and
summarizesthemodelresultsforeachregression.Next,overalltrendsforeach
resourceareaareidentified,takingallmodelsintoaccount.Finally,largertrends
acrossallresourceareasarediscussed,withconnectionsmadetotheconceptual
frameworkofthestudy.
ModelResults
ModelOne:ComparingResourceAllocationinIndividualPublicSchools
TheregressionforestimatingresourceallocationpatternsinTPS,network
charterandnon-networkcharterschoolstakesthefollowingform:
Y= a0 + b1(non-networkcharter) + b2(networkcharter) + b3(magnetschool) + b4(alternative setting) + b5(elementary/middle school) +b6(combo/high school) + b7(school age) + b8(SPS score) + b9(%economicdisadvantage)+b10(%specialeducation)+b11(ADM/1000)
WhereYistheexpenditurecategoryorhumanresourceindicator.School
typeisdummycodedasnon-networkcharter,ornetworkcharter,withTPS
59
asthebasecategory.Gradelevelisdummycodedaselementary,or
elementary/highschoolcombination,withhighschoolasthereference.
TableA-3andA-4(seeAppendixA)showmeanschool-leveldifferencesin
resourceallocationbetweenTPS,networkcharterschools,andnon-networkcharter
schoolsthatpersistaftercontrollingforschoolandstudentcovariates.TableA-3
expressesthesedifferencesintermsofaverageperpupilexpenditures,whileTable
A-4displaysthosesamedifferencesasapercentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures.
TableA-5(seeAppendixA)showsmeandifferencesinsalaryandexperiencelevels
acrossseveralhumanresourceindicators.
RegressionswereruntoestimateperpupilspendingonInstruction,
Pupil/InstructionalSupport,SchoolAdministration,Transportation,CentralOffice
Overhead,acombinedmeasureofAdministrationandCentralOverhead,andTotal
CurrentExpenditure.Modelestimatesshowmeandifferencesinseveralareas,after
controllingforschool(size,gradelevel,andprogrammaticcharacteristics)and
studentcovariates(includingspecialneedsandat-riskindicators).Onaverage,non-
networkchartersspend$2,503lessper-pupilintotalcurrentexpenditures
comparedtoTPS,whilenetworkchartersspend$3,016lesscomparedtoTPS.These
differencessuggestapossibledisparitybetweenthefundinglevelsprovidedto
publiclygovernedTPSascomparedtoprivatelygovernedcharterschools.Itfollows
thatdifferencesexistwithinseveralexpenditurecategories.
Onaverage,non-networkchartersspendlessperpupiloninstructional
services(-$934.57),onsupportservices(-$1076.73),oncentralofficeoverhead
services(-$1400.61),andonadministration/overhead(-$1146.29),alldifferences
60
thatarestatisticallysignificant.Networkchartersshowsimilarstatistically
significantdifferences,spendinglessoninstructionalservices(-$1396.69),support
services(-$751.46),centralofficeoverhead(-$1775.53)andcombined
administration/overhead(-$1646.83)thanTPS,whilespendingmoreon
transportation(+$233.79).
AllocationpatternsinTPSandcharterschoolslookdifferentwhenmodeling
expendituresasapercentageoftotalspending.Regressionswereruntoestimate
spendingonInstruction,Pupil/InstructionalSupport,SchoolAdministration,
Transportation,andCentralOfficeOverhead,eachexpressedasapercentofTotal
CurrentExpenditures.Thereisnosignificantdifferenceininstructionalspending
betweencharterschoolsandTPSwhenexaminedasaproportionofoverallcurrent
expenditures.Somedifferencesdoexist,however,acrossotherexpenditure
categories.
Non-networkcharterschoolsallocate6%lessonsupportservicesand8.5%
lessoncentralofficeoverhead,ascomparedtoTPS,whilespending3.5%moreon
schooladministrationand2.5%moreontransportation.Whenschool
administrationandoverheadareexaminedasacombinedindicator,non-network
charterschoolsspend4.5%less,suggestingthattheiroveralladministrativecosts
arelowerthantheirTPScounterparts.
Networkcharterschoolsspend11.2%lessoncentralofficeoverheadand
2.8%percentmoreontransportation,ascomparedtoTPS.Differencesinoverall
administrativespendingaresmaller,butstillsignificant,whenexaminedasa
combinationofschooladministrationandcentraloverhead,withnetworkcharters
61
spending8.3%lessonthecombinedmeasure.Asisthecasewithnon-network
charters,differencesinInstructionalspendingbetweennetworkchartersandTPS
disappearwhenmeasuredasashareofthetotalcurrentexpenditures.
TableA-5(seeAppendixA)indicatesmeandifferencesacrossseveralareas
ofhumanresources.Regressionswereruntoestimateaverageyearsofexperience
forTeachers,Administrators,andPupilSupportineachsubgroup,andtoestimate
averagesalaryforeachofthosepositions.
Overall,non-networkcharterschoolsappeartoemploylessexperiencedstaff
thanTPS,withoverallstaffaveraging4.9feweryearsofexperience.Onaverage,
teachersarrivewith6.9yearslessexperience,andsupportstaffpossess8.5years
lessexperience,ascomparedtotheirTPScounterparts.Networkcharterschools
showsimilardifferences,hiringteacherswith8.8feweryearsofexperienceand
supportstaffwith12.2yearslessexperience,foranaveragedifferenceof7.5years
lessexperiencethanTPS,acrossallstaff.
Despitethesedifferencesinstaffexperiencelevels,teacherandsupport
salariesinTPSandcharterschoolsappearrelativelysimilar.Onlyadministrative
salariesinnon-networkcharterschoolsappearsignificantlydifferentfromTPS,
withnon-networkadministratorsearning$23,881higherthantheirTPS
counterparts,despitenosignificantdifferenceinexperiencelevel.Figure4-1
summarizesthefindingsfromModelOne.
62
Figure4-1.School-levelSpendingTrends
ModelTwo:ComparingResourceAllocationinLocalEducationAgencies
Theregressionforestimatingresourceallocationdifferencesbetween
spendingaggregatedtothedistrict(LEA)leveltakesthefollowingform:
Y = a0 + b1(Non-network charterLEA) + b2(Network charter LEA) +b3(% economic disadvantage) + b4(% special education) +b5(ADM/1000)
WhereYistheexpenditurecategoryorhumanresourceindicator.LEA-typeis
dummycodedasnon-networkcharter,ornetworkcharter,withthetraditional
publicschooldistrict(OrleansParishSchoolBoard)asthebasecategory.Non-
networkcharterLEA’sarecomprisedofasingleschoolsite.NetworkcharterLEA’s
63
arechartermanagementorganizationsthatmanagemultipleschoolsites.Atotalof
44organizationsareincludedinthemodel.Onetraditionalpublicdistrictmanages
sixschools.31LEA’saresingle-sitedistricts,managingonlyoneschool.12charter
managementorganizationsmanageatotalof45networkcharterschools.
TableA-6andTableA-7(seeAppendixA)showmeandistrict-level
differencesinresourceallocationthatpersistaftercontrollingforschooland
studentcovariates.TableA-6expressesthesedifferencesintermsofaverageper
pupilexpenditures,whileTableA-7displaysthosesamedifferencesasapercentage
ofTotalCurrentExpenditures.TableA-8(seeAppendixA)showsmeandifferencein
salaryandexperiencelevelsacrossseveralhumanresourceindicators.
Modelestimatesshownostatisticallysignificantper-pupilspending
differencesacrossLEA’s,aftercontrollingforschoolandstudentcovariates.The
modelalsoshowsnosignificantdifferencesinLEAspendingwhenexpressedasa
percentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures,nordoanysignificantdifferencesappear
withinthehumanresourceindicatorsmodeled.Figure4-2summarizesthefindings
fromModelTwo.
64
Figure4-2.LEA-levelSpendingTrends
ModelThree:ComparingResourceAllocationinCentralizedandDecentralizedSchools Theregressionforestimatingresourceallocationdifferencesbetween
centrallymanaged,andsite-basedmanagedschools,takesthefollowingform:
Y = a0 + b1(centralized management) + b2(magnet school) +b3(alternative setting) + b4(elementary/middle school) +b5(combo/high school) + b6(school age) + b7(SPS score) + b8(%economicdisadvantage)+b9(%specialeducation)+b10(ADM/1000)
WhereYistheexpenditurecategoryorhumanresourceindicator.Schooltypeis
dummycodedascentrallymanaged,withsite-basedmanaged(SBM)schoolsasthe
basecategory.Centralizedschoolsincludebothnetworkcharterschoolsand
traditionalpublicschoolgovernedbythelocalschooldistrict,andsite-based
managedschoolsincludingallnon-networkcharterschools.Atotalof82schoolsare
includedinthemodel.51schoolsinthesampleareschoolsundercentralized
management,while31schoolsaresite-basedmanaged,non-networkcharter
65
schools,Gradelevelisdummycodedaselementary,orelementary/highschool
combination,withhighschoolasthereference.
TableA-9andTableA-10(seeAppendixA)showmeanschool-level
differencesinresourceallocationbetweencentralizedandSBMschoolsthatpersist
aftercontrollingforschoolandstudentcovariates.TableA-9expressesthese
differencesintermsofaverageperpupilexpenditures,whileTableA-10displays
thosesamedifferencesasapercentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures.TableA-11
(seeAppendixA)showsmeandifferenceinsalaryandexperiencelevelsacross
severalhumanresourceindicators.
Modelestimatesshownosignificantper-pupildifferencesinTotalCurrent
ExpendituresbetweencentralizedandSBMschools,aftercontrollingforschooland
studentcovariates.Aper-pupilspendingdifferencedoesappearwithinthe
Pupil/InstructionalSupportcategory.Centralizedschoolsappeartospend$508
moreperpupilthanSBMschools,aftercontrollingforstudentandschoolcovariates.
WhenmodeledasapercentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures,thisspending
differencerepresents4.1%inadditionalspendingbycentralizedschoolsonPupil
andInstructionalSupport,whichisalsostatisticallysignificant.
TableA-11summarizesmeandifferencesinavarietyofhumanresource
characteristicsbetweencentralizedandSBMschools.Nosignificantdifferences
appearbetweentheexperiencelevelandsalariesofteachersandpupilsupportstaff,
includingallstaffonaverage.Significantdifferencesdoappearwithinschool
administration,withcentralizedschoolshiringschooladministratorswith5.1fewer
yearsofexperience.Schooladministratorsincentralizedschoolsalsoappeartoearn
66
$12,548lessinsalarythantheirsite-basedmanagedcounterparts.Figure4-3
summarizesthefindingsfromModelThree.
Figure4-3.CentralizedManagementSpendingTrendsModelFour:ComparingResourceAllocationWithintheCharterSchoolSector
Theregressionforestimatingresourceallocationdifferencesinnetwork
charterandnon-networkcharterschoolstakesthefollowingform:
Y = a0 + b1(network charter) + b2(magnet school) + b3(alternativesetting) + b4(elementary/middle school) + b5(combo/high school) +b6(schoolage)+b7(SPSscore)+b8(%economicdisadvantage)+b9(%specialeducation)+b10(ADM/1000)
WhereYistheexpenditurecategoryorhumanresourceindicator.Schooltypeis
dummycodedasnetworkcharter,withnon-networkcharterasthebasecategory.A
totalof76schoolsareincludedinthemodel.45schoolsinthesamplearenetwork
67
charterschools,while31schoolsarenon-networkcharterschools,Gradelevelis
dummycodedaselementary,orelementary/highschoolcombination,withhigh
schoolasthereference.
TableA-12andTableA-13(seeAppendixA)showmeanschool-level
differencesinresourceallocationbetweennetworkandnon-networkcharter
schoolsthatpersistaftercontrollingforschoolandstudentcovariates.TableA-12
expressesthesedifferencesintermsofaverageperpupilexpenditures,whileTable
A-13displaysthosesamedifferencesasapercentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures.
TableA-14(seeAppendixA)showsmeandifferenceinsalaryandexperiencelevels
acrossseveralhumanresourceindicators.
Modelestimatesshownosignificantper-pupildifferencesinTotalCurrent
Expendituresbetweennetworkandnon-networkcharters,aftercontrollingfor
schoolandstudentcovariates.However,differencesdoemergewithinspending
categories.Onaverage,networkcharterschoolsspend$367moreon
Pupil/InstructionalSupportthantheirnon-networkcounterparts.And,network
chartersspend$433lessthannon-networkchartersonCentralOfficeOverhead.
LowerCentralOverheadspendingbynetworkchartersremainssignificantwhen
combinedwithSchoolAdministrationexpenditures,withnetworkcharters
spending$507lessperpupilonthecombinedmeasureofadministrationand
overheadthannon-networkcharters.
Spendingpatternswithinthechartersectorlooksimilarwhenexpressedasa
percentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures.TableA-13summarizesthesedifferences,
withnetworkcharterschoolsspending3.7%moreonPupilandInstructional
68
Supportservices,andlessonbothCentralOfficeOverhead(-3.2%)andthe
combinedmeasureofSchoolAdministrationplusCentralOverhead(-3.7%).
TableA-14summarizesmeandifferenceswithinthecharterschoolsector
acrossavarietyofhumanresourcecharacteristics.Althoughnetworkcharter
schoolsappeartohigherteacherswithlessyearsofexperience,thisdifferenceisnot
statisticallysignificant.Networkchartersappeartoemployadministrativestaffwith
5.7feweryearsofexperience,andpupilsupportstaffwith4.2feweryearsof
experience,bothofwhicharestatisticallysignificantaftercontrollingforcovariates.
Figure4-4summarizesthefindingsfromModelFour.
Figure4-4.CharterSectorSpendingTrends
69
ModelInterpretationandAnalysis
TotalCurrentExpenditures
TotalCurrentExpenditures(TCE)areexpendituresfortheday-to-day
operationofschools,includingexpendituresforstaffsalariesandbenefits,supplies,
andpurchasedservices.Expendituresassociatedwithrepayingdebtsandcapital
outlays,andexpendituresoutsidethescopeofpre-Kthrough12publiceducation,
areexcludedfromcurrentexpenditures.Eliminatingtheseexpendituresfromthe
modelscanhelpprovidebettercomparisonsinspendinglevels(Bakeretal.,2012).
Onaverage,charterschoolsinNewOrleansspend$2,394lessperpupilonTotal
CurrentExpendituresthantheirTPScounterparts.TotalCurrentspending
differencesaresimilarwhencomparisonsaremadewhilecontrollingforschooland
studentlevelcharacteristics.
Usingschool-leveldata,Model1suggeststhatnon-networkcharterschools
spend$2504lessperpupilonTCEthantheirTPScounterparts,whilenetwork
chartersspend$3016lessperpupil.Bothdifferencesaresignificant.These
differencesdisappearinModel2,however,whendataareaggregatedtotheLEA
level,withnosignificantdifferenceintheTotalCurrentExpendituresofTPSand
eithertypeofcharterschool.Inotherwords,whenspendingismodeledattheLEA
level,TotalCurrentExpendituresofthetraditionaldistrict,networkcharters,and
non-networkcharterschoolsarenotsignificantlydifferent.Nordodifferences
appearinModel3,whencentralizedschoolsarecomparedtonon-networkcharter
schools.TPSandnetworkcharterschools,ascentrallymanagedgroupsofschools,
70
donotspendsignificantlydifferentthannon-networkcharters,whichoperateasa
singleLEA.InModel4,withinthecharterschoolsectoritself,nosignificant
differencesareapparentinschool-levelTotalCurrentExpendituresbetween
networkandnon-networkcharterschools.Tosummarize,TPSappeartobe
spendingmorethanchartersschoolsonTotalCurrentExpenditures,attheschool
level.However,whenspendingisaggregatedtotheLEAlevel,thesedifferences
becomeinsignificant.
ThedisparitiesinTotalCurrentExpendituresattheschoollevelraise
questionsabouttheequitablefundinglevelsacrosspublicschoolsinNewOrleans.
Aretraditionalpublicschoolsreceivingmoreoverallfundingthancharterschools
withinthesamemarket?Ifso,inwhichexpenditurecategoriesaretheseadditional
fundsbeingspent?Thisanalysisdoesnotincludeacomparisonofperpupilrevenue
amountsforschoolsinNewOrleans,butspendingdatasuggestthatTPSareindeed
spendinglargeramountsonTotalCurrentExpenditures.Per-pupilfundinglevels
canbetiedtodifferencesinstudentdemographics,capitalneeds,andotherfactors
(Huerta&d’Entremont,2010).InNewOrleans,fundingdifferencesmayalsobetied
torevenueretainedbyOPSBforcharteroversight,andtootherservicesprovided
bythecentraldistrictaspartoftheirroleasPortfolioManager(OPSB,2016).
Anexaminationofspendingwithinspecificspendingcategoriesfollows,and
providesamoredetailedexaminationofhowcompetingschoolsandorganizations
areallocatingresourcestowardspecificareas.
71
InstructionalExpenditures
InstructionalExpenditurescoveractivitiesdealingdirectlywiththe
interactionbetweenteachersandstudents.Theseactivitiesprovidestudentswith
learningexperiencesandincludeRegularEducation,SpecialEducation,andCo-
CurricularActivities.Onaverage,charterschoolsspendnearly$1000lesson
InstructionthantheirTPScounterparts.Aftercontrollingforstudentandschool
characteristics,Model1suggeststhatschool-levelInstructionalspending
differencesremainsignificantbetweenTPSandcharterschools,withnon-network
charterschoolsspending$935lessonInstructionperpupil.Networkcharters
spend$1397lessperpupil.WhenInstructionalspendingisexaminedasa
percentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures,however,thesedifferencesbecome
insignificant,suggestingthatchartersandTPSspendingdifferencesmaybemorea
functionoftheamountoffundsavailabletoschools,ratherthanbeingbasedona
differenceinstrategicpriorities.TPSandcharterschoolsofbothtypesappearto
spendastatisticallysimilarproportionofTotalCurrentExpendituresonInstruction.
InstructionalspendingamountsinTPSandcharterschoolsalsoappeartobe
similarwhendataareaggregatedtotheLEAlevel,inModel2.Nosignificant
differenceinInstructionalspending(neitherasaper-pupilamountnorasashareof
spending)appearsbetweenInstructionalspendinginthetraditionaldistrict(OPSB),
chartermanagementorganizations,andsinglesitecharterLEA’s.Nordodifferences
emergeinModel3,whencomparisonsaremadebetweencentralizedschools(OPSB
72
andCMO’s)anddecentralized,non-networkcharterLEA’s,orinModel4,withinthe
chartersector.
TheoverallsimilarityintheshareofspendingdevotedtoInstruction,across
allregressionmodels,suggeststhatcompetitorsintheNewOrleansmarketplace,
whetherTPS,networkcharter,ornon-networkcharter,sharesimilarprioritiesonce
studentandschoolcharacteristicsaretakenintoaccount.Putdifferently,public
schoolsinNewOrleansallocatethelargestshareofspendingtowardsInstruction,
regardlessofthegovernanceandmanagementstructureoftheschool.Differences
inper-pupilamountsspentonInstructionbecomesignificantwhenexpressedasa
shareofTotalCurrentspending.Thisfindingsuggeststhatper-pupildifferencesin
Instructionalspendingarelessrelatedtoadifferenceinthestrategicprioritiesof
schools,andperhapsmorecloselyrelatedtotheamountoffundsavailable.
SupportServices
Supportservicesprovideadministrativeandtechnicalsupportactivitiesused
tostrengtheninstruction.PupilSupportServicesincludeAttendanceandSocial
Work,Guidance,HealthServices,includingspeechandoccupationaltherapy,
SupportforIndividualSpecialNeedsStudents,andactivitiestoincrease
Parent/FamilyInvolvement.InstructionalStaffSupportServicesassistthe
instructionalstaffwiththecontentandprocessofprovidinglearningexperiences
forstudents,includingSchoolImprovementPlans,CurriculumDevelopment,
ProfessionalDevelopmentservices,andMediaServices.
73
Onaverage,charterschoolsinNewOrleansspend$1315perpupilon
SupportServices,around$857lessthanTPSspendonthesametypeofservices.
School-leveldatainModel1showsignificantperpupilspendingdifferenceson
SupportServicesaftercontrollingforstudentandschoolcovariates,withnon-
networkchartersspending$1077lessperpupilthantheirTPScounterpartsand
networkchartersspendingaround$751lessperpupil,bothstatisticallysignificant
differences.Onlynon-networkchartersschools,however,spendsignificantlylessas
aproportionofTotalCurrentExpenditures,withnon-networkchartersspending
6%lessonSupportServicesthanTPS.Networkcharters,ontheotherhand,donot
appeartoallocateasignificantlydifferentportionoftheirTCEonSupportServices,
despitespendingmoreperpupil.SpendingpatternsaresimilarinModel2,when
dataareaggregatedtotheLEAlevel,withnosignificantdifferencesapparentin
SupportspendingbetweenTPS,CMO’sandsinglesitecharterLEA’s.
Whengroupsofcentralized(TPSandCMO)anddecentralizedschoolsare
comparedinModel3,spendingdifferencesinSupportServicesareagainsignificant,
withdecentralized,non-networkcharterschoolsspendingaround$508lessper
pupilthancentralizedschools.ExpressedasaproportionofTotalCurrentSpending,
thesedifferencesremainsignificant,withTPSandnetworkcharterschools
collectivelyspending4.1%morethannon-networkcharterschools.Model4
reinforcesthefindingthatcentralizedschoolsspendmoreonSupportServices.
Withinthechartersector,networkchartersspendmoreperpupilandmoreasa
shareofTCEthantheirnon-networkcounterparts.
74
Totheextentthatcentrallymanagedschoolsappearmorelikelytoallocate
resourcestoSupportServicesthantheirdecentralizedcounterparts,perhapsitis
becausethelargeroverallsizeoftheTPSdistrictandCMOorganizationsprovides
themwithsomeeconomiesofscale.Servicessuchasspeechandoccupational
therapy,counseling,andin-houseprofessionaldevelopmentrequirespecialized
personnelor,ifnotmanagedinternally,mustbeoutsourcedtothird-partyproviders.
Withoutacriticalmassofstudentstopayforthesepositionsorservices,itis
possiblethatnon-networkcharterschools,assmallerorganizations,aresimplyless
abletoprovidesomeservices.Asthenumberofstudentsrequiringparticular
servicesincreases,it’sreasonabletoexpectthattheperpupilcostofthoseservices
willgodown.Italsobecomesmorelikelythatschoolswillneedtoprovideawider
rangeofservicesasthecommunitygrowslargerbecausemorestudentsand
familieswillneedthosesupports.
Ofcourse,spendingdifferencesinPupilandInstructionalSupportmightalso
beduetodifferencesinstudentpopulationenrolledinparticularschools(fewer
studentswithparticularneeds)andfacultycharacteristics(noviceteachers,for
examplemayrequiremoreinstructionalsupport),orsimplyfromdifferencesinthe
levelandtypeofsupportservicesprovidedbyeachschool.SeparatingtheSupport
ServicesexpenditurecategoryintoPupilandInstructionalcomponentscould
provideclarificationforunderstandingthesedifferences.
75
TransportationExpenditures
Transportationservicesareusedtoconveystudentstoandfromschool,as
providedbyStateandFederallaw.Onaverage,charterschoolsinNewOrleans
spend$331moreperpupilthantheirTPScounterparts.Usingschool-leveldata,and
aftercontrollingforstudentandschoolcharacteristics,Model1suggeststhatnon-
networkcharterschoolsdonotspendsignificantlymoreperpupilthanTPSon
transportation.TakenasapercentageofTotalCurrentExpenditures,however,
Transportationinnon-networkchartersrepresentsa2.5%increaseoverspending
inTPS,whichisstatisticallysignificant.Networkcharterschoolsspendaround$234
moreperpupilonTransportationthanTPS,representinga2.8%increaseoverTPS
spending,bothofwhicharestatisticallysignificantdifferences.
NoothermodelsshowedasignificantdifferenceinTransportationspending.
Inotherwords,Transportationspendingappearssimilaracrossthetraditional
districtandallcharterschoolsattheLEAlevel;acrosscentralized(TPSandCMO)
anddecentralized(non-networkcharter)schools;andacrossthechartersector
itself.
Thatindividualcharterschools,bothnetworkandnon-network,spenda
largerportionoftheirfundingonTransportationthantraditionalpublicschools
maybeduetothefactthattheycompeteforstudentsfromawidergeographicarea
thantraditionalpublicschools.TPShaveahistoryofservingspecificfamiliesfrom
thesurroundingneighborhoods,arelicoftheformerresidence-basedenrollment
system.Theymayalsofeellessfinancialpressuretorecruitstudentswhenunder-
76
enrolled,duetotheabilityofthetraditionaldistricttoprovidecentralizedresources
thatmayotherwisenotbeavailableincasesoflowerenrollment.Charterschools,as
newerschools,andasschoolsdesignedforamarketapproachtoeducation,have
alwaysoperatedinacompetitiveenvironmentthatseeksmaximizeenrollmentby
recruitingstudentsfromwherevertheyareavailable.
SchoolAdministrationandCentralOfficeOverhead
SchoolAdministrationexpenditurespayforactivitiesconcernedwiththe
overalladministrativeresponsibilityforaschool,includingactivitiesperformedby
thePrincipalandAssistantPrincipals.CentralOfficeOverheadexpendituresinclude
GeneralAdministrationexpensesusedtofundactivitiesforoperatingtheLEA,and
theproratedshareofcentralofficeandothernon-schoolsiteservicesthatprovide
LEA-widesupport.Onaverage,charterschoolsspend$1278perpupilonSchool
Administration,comparedto$1136perpupilbyTPS.Chartersspendanaverageof
only$909perpupilonCentralOverhead,whichis$1632lessthantheaverageTPS.
Aftercontrollingforstudentandschool-levelcharacteristics,noperpupil
differenceappearstoexistbetweencharterschoolspendingonSchool
AdministrationascomparedtoTPS,regardlessoftheunitofanalysis.Whether
examinedasindividualschools,orasLEA’s,perpupilspendingonSchool
AdministrationissimilarinTPSandcharterschools.Non-networkcharterschools
doappeartospend3.5%moreonSchoolAdministrationasapercentageofTotal
CurrentExpenditureswhencomparisonsaremadeacrossindividualschoolsin
Model1,butcomparisonsofLEA-levelspending,centrallymanagedschools(TPS
77
andCMO)versusdecentralizedschools,andcomparisonswithinthechartersector
allrevealnosignificantdifferencesinSchoolAdministrationspending,whether
expressedasperpupildifferencesorasashareofspending.
CentralOverheadexpenditurecomparisonsrevealstatisticallysignificant
differencesbetweenschoolsites,bothbetweenTPSandcharterschools,andwithin
thecharterschoolsector.Model1suggestsnon-networkchartersspend$1400less
perpupilthanTPSschools,representingan8.5%smallershareofTotalCurrent
Expenditures.CentralOverheadexpendituresareevenlowerinnetworkcharter
schools,whereperpupilspendingis$1776lowerperpupil,representingan11.2%
reductionintheTotalCurrentExpenditures.Model4suggestsoverhead
expendituresarealsosignificantlydifferentwithinthecharterschoolsector,with
networkchartersspending$433lessperpupilascomparedtonon-networkcharter
schools,a3.2%smallershareofTotalCurrentExpenditures.Spendingdifferences
onOverheadareinsignificant,however,whencomparisonsaremadeattheLEA
levelinModel2,andacrosscentralizedanddecentralizedschoolgroupsinModel3.
Toaccountforthepossibilitythatdifferencesinaccountingpracticesmay
allocatesomeexpensesattheschoolleveltothecentralofficeincasesofcentrally
managedschools,SchoolAdministrationandCentralOverheadareanalyzed
individually,andasacombinedmeasure.Comparisonsalongthecombinedmeasure
aresimilartothesinglemeasureofOverheadexpenditures,withsignificant
differencesappearinginschool-leveldatabetweenTPSandchartersofbothtypes,
andwithinthechartersector.Model1suggestsnon-networkcharterschoolsspend
$1146(-4.5%asashareofTCE)lessthanTPSschools,whilenon-networkcharters
78
spend$1647less(-8.3%asashareofTCE).Model4suggeststhat,withinthe
chartersector,networkschoolsspend$507less(-3.7%asashareofTCE)lessthan
theirnon-networkcounterparts.Nosignificantdifferencesexistwhenthe
comparisonsofcombinedSchoolAdministrationandCentralOverheadspending
aredrawnusingLEA-leveldatainModel2,orwhenTPSandCMOschoolsare
collectivelycomparedtonon-networkcharterschoolsinModel3.
Althoughnon-networkcharterschoolsdoappeartospendaslightlylarger
shareoffundsonSchoolAdministrationascomparedtoTPS,theloweramounts
theyspendonCentralOverheadmorethanmakeupforthatdifferencewhen
consideredasacombinedmeasure.Model1suggestsschool-leveladministrative
andoverheadspendingincharterschoolsofalltypesissignificantlylowerthanin
TPS.Importantly,however,thesedifferencesbecomeinsignificantwhenexamined
attheLEAlevelinModel2.Inotherwords,nosignificantdifferencesappearin
administrativeandoverheadspendingbetweenthetraditionaldistrict,CMOs,and
single-sitecharterLEAs.Norisspendingsignificantlydifferentwhenschool-level
dataareusedinModel3tocompareTPSandCMOstonon-networkschools.
Centralizationdoesappeartoimpactadministrativeandoverheadspendingwithin
thechartersectorinModel4.Networkschoolsspend$507less(-3.7%asashareof
TCE)oncombinedadministrationandoverheadthannon-networkschools,
suggestingthatCMOsarefindingsomesavingswithinspecificschoolsundertheir
control,butnotnecessarilyattheLEAlevel.Putdifferently,thevariationsin
administrativeandoverheadspendingbetweentheTPS,networkandnon-network
chartersaresignificantonlyattheschoollevel.AttheLEAlevel,allorganizations
79
appeartobespendingsimilaramountsonadministrationandoverhead.Chartersin
general,andnetworkchartersrelativetonon-networkcharters,doappeartobe
spendinglessinindividualschoolsasopposedtoothers,butthesedifferencesare
notsignificantwhenexaminedacrosslargermanagementorganizations.These
findingssuggestthatschoolsmaybeallocatingresourcesdifferentlywithinsingle
schoolsites,butnotnecessarilyacrossthelargercentralizedorganizationsthat
operatemostschools.
HumanResourceIndicators
HumanResourceindicatorscanprovideamorenuancedlookathow
organizationswithintheNewOrleansschoolsystemmaybedeployingresources
differently,asopposedtothebroadercategoriesexaminedabove.Regression
modelswereusedtomodelstaffexperienceandsalariesacrossseveralcomparison
groupswhilecontrollingforschoolandstudentlevelcovariates.
Onaverage,chartersectoremployeeshavefeweryearsofexperienceand
earnlowersalariesthantheirTPScounterparts.Thenotableexceptionisthat
chartersectoradministratorsearnhighersalaries,despitetheirlowerlevelsof
experience.ComparedtotheirTPScounterparts,theaverageteacherincharter
schoolshas9.0yearslessexperienceandearns$2012lesseachyear;theaverage
supportstaffhas11.8yearslessexperienceandearns$1095lesseachyear;andthe
averageadministratorpossesses2.9yearslessexperience,butearns$15654more
inannualsalary.
80
Controllingforavarietyofstudentandschool-levelcharacteristicsprovides
amoreaccuratecomparisonofthesepersonnelindicators.Model1suggests
teachersinnon-networkcharterschoolspossess6.9feweryearsexperiencethan
theirTPSpeers,andnetworkcharterteachersare8.8yearslessexperienced,when
comparisonsaredrawnacrossindividualschools.Theselowerlevelsofteacher
experienceinchartersaresignificantaftercontrollingforcovariates,despitethe
findingthatTPSandcharterteachersearnsalariesthatarestatisticallysimilar.In
otherwords,school-leveldatasuggestthatteachersincharterschoolsarebeing
paidsimilarsalariesastheirTPSpeers,despitehavingsignificantlyfeweryearsof
classroomexperience.Supportstaffinnon-networkandnetworkcharterschools
alsopossessfeweryearsofexperience,with8.5and12.2feweryearsexperience,
respectively.SalariesforsupportstaffincharterschoolsandTPSarealsonot
statisticallydifferentfromTPSschools,despitethedifferenceinexperiencelevel.
CharterschooladministratorsinNewOrleans,whetherinnetworkornon-network
schools,appeartobringstatisticallysimilarlevelsofexperienceastheirTPS
counterparts,aftercontrollingforschoolandstudentcharacteristics.Whilenetwork
charteradministratorsearnstatisticallysimilarsalariesasTPSadministrators,non-
networkadministratorsearn$23,881moreinannualsalarythantheirTPS
counterparts,despitesimilarlevelsofexperience.Thehigheradministrativesalaries
innon-networkcharterschoolsmaybelinkedtothefactthatnon-networkcharters,
onaverage,higherfewoveralladministrators(4.2FTE)thannetworkcharters(5.8
FTE)andTPS(4.5FTE).Giventhatnon-networkcharterschoolsaretaskedwiththe
responsibilitiesofbothasinglesiteschoolandofanLEA,itisperhapstobe
81
expectedthatadministratorsinthoseschoolsearnmore.Theyarechargedwith
fillingtheroleofbothsiteleaderandasthesinglepointofauthorityforallschool
relatedmatters,asopposedtonetworkandTPSadministratorswhocanrelyon
centralofficeadministratorstoprovidesomeadministrativefunctions.
School-leveldatainModel3showfewerdifferencesinhumanresources
whencentralizedTPSandCMOsitesarecomparedwithdecentralized,non-network
charters.Onlyadministrativepersonnelindicatorsappeartobesignificantly
different,withTPSandCMOadministratorspossessing5.1feweryearsexperience
andearning$12548lessinannualsalary.Centralizedmanagementalsoappearsto
influencehumanresourceallocationwithinthechartersector.Althoughnosalary
differencesareapparent,Model4suggestsnetworkcharterschooladministrators
andsupportstaffarelessexperiencedthantheirnon-networkcounterparts,with
5.7yearsand4.1yearslessoverallexperiencethantheirnon-networkcharterpeers.
Thesedifferencesareconsistentwiththeideathatnetworkcharterpersonnelmight
benefitfromthesupportprovidedbyacentraloffice,andmaythereforeneedless
overallexperiencetobesuccessful.
Despitetheseschool-leveldifferences,comparisonsofdataaggregatedtothe
LEAlevelinModel2indicateanostatisticaldifferencesbetweenpersonnelatthe
traditionaldistrict,CMOs,andnon-networkcharters.Staffexperiencelevelsand
salariesarestatisticallysimilaracrossallLEAs,regardlessofgovernanceor
managementstructure.SimilaritiesattheLEAlevelsuggestthatcompetitionfor
humanresourcesmaynotnecessarilybeoccurringatthedistrictlevel.Rather,
82
organizationsarebeingstrategicaboutdeployingresourcesacrossdifferentschools
withintheircentralizednetworks.
DiscussionofTrendsinResourceAllocation
Oneintendedbenefitofschoolchoiceandcompetitionisthattheeducational
marketplacewillfreeschoolsfrombureaucracyandthepublicmonopolyby
providingamarketincentivetoimproveandtobecomemoreefficient(Chubb&
Moe,1990;Friedman,1955;Hoxby,2001).Bythisview,competitionwillimprove
schoolsbyencouragingthemtoeliminatewastefulprogramsandfocusingtheir
resourcesmoreintensivelyoninstructionandprogramsthatmoredirectlyimpact
studentoutcomes.Bakeretal.(2012)note,“[an]importantsteptoward
understandingcostis[to]determinespendingforspecificprogramsandservicesor
underspecificgovernancestructures”(Bakeretal.,2012,p.6).Bycomparing
spendingpatternsofschoolsintheNewOrleansmarketplace,thisstudycontributes
totheunderstandingofhowprivatizationanddecentralizationmightimpactthe
costofachievingparticularschooloutcomes.
TheschoolchoicemarketplaceinNewOrleanscreatescompetitionbetween
allpublicschoolsforstudentsandotherresources.Someschoolsinthechoiceset
aregovernedbythepubliclyelectedOrleansParishSchoolBoard(OPSB);someare
privatelygovernedbylocalnon-profitorganizations.Someschoolsaremanagedby
centralizedmanagementorganizations,andothersbydecentralized,site-based
managementorganizations.Bymodelingthespendingpatternsintheseschools,and
controllingforavarietyofschoolandstudentlevelcharacteristics,thisstudy
83
attemptstoidentifytheimpactthatgovernanceandmanagementstructuresmight
haveonhowresourcesareallocatedwithinacompetitiveschoolmarketplace.
ThisexaminationofschoolandLEAlevelspendinguses2014-15financial
datafrompublicschoolsinNewOrleans.EachLEAprovidesexpendituredatatothe
LouisianaDepartmentofEducation(LDE)throughitsAnnualFinancialReport.
AlthoughschoolsarerequiredtoreportdatausingtheLouisianaAccounting&
UniformGovernmentalHandbook,eachorganizationisresponsibleforcodingits
ownfinancialactivity.Ifspendingdataarenotcategorizedconsistentlyacross
organizations,comparisonscanbeimprecise,particularlywithincentralized
organizationsthatmustallocateresourcesbetweenacentralofficeandschoolsite
(seeBakeretal.,2012).ThisstudyusesTotalCurrentExpenditurestomodelschool
spending,whichexcludesexpendituresrelatedtodebtandcapitaloutlay,to
examineoveralllevelsofspendinginNewOrleans’publicschools.Modelsalso
predictschoolexpendituresinthecategoriesofInstruction,PupilandInstructional
Support,Transportation,SchoolAdministration,andCentralOfficeOverhead.
Theresourceallocationpatternsthatemergeareinterpretedbelowusinga
conceptualframeworkofeducationalaccountingpractices,structuralaspectsofthe
schoolmarketplace,includingschoolgovernanceandmanagementstructures,and
throughthestrategicresponsesthatschoolsemployastheyrespondtocompetition
fromthemarketplace.
84
School-levelExpenditurePatternsintheEducationalMarketplace
Charterschoolproponentssuggestthatcompetitionwillleadtomore
efficientspendingwithinschools,primarilybydevotingmoreresourcestoward
instruction,andlesstowardsadministration(Brown,1990;Finnetal.,2000;Hillet
al.,1997).However,muchoftheresearchexaminingtheseefficienciesquestionsthe
veracityofthoseclaims(Arsen&Ni,2012a,2012b;Carpenter2013;Miron&Nelson,
2002;Miron&Urschel,2010;Mironetal.,2011).Thisstudybuildsonprior
researchbyexaminingresourceallocationwithinasingle,competitivemarketplace
andusingstatisticalanalysestocontrolforavarietyoffactorsthatmightinfluence
resourceallocationinschools.School-leveldataanalysisfrompublicschoolsinNew
OrleanssuggeststhatcharterschoolsspendsignificantlylessonTotalCurrent
ExpendituresthantheirTPScounterparts.However,amorenuancedunderstanding
ofspendingdifferencesandspecificareasofefficiencycanbegainedbyexamining
spendingwithinspecificexpenditurecategories.Modelsdiscussedherealsoattempt
toidentifythespecificimpactthatprivatizationandcentralizedmanagementmight
haveonschoolresourceallocationwithinthemarketplace.
Instructionalspendinginthemarketplace.Schoolchoiceadvocates
suggestthat,aspartoftheresponsetocompetition,charterschoolswillfocusmore
resourcesoninstructionandprogramsthatwilldirectlyimpactstudentoutcomes
(Finn,Manno&Vanourek,2000;Hilletal.,1997).Regressionmodelssuggestthat,at
theschoollevel,thechartersectorinNewOrleansactuallyspendslessperpupilon
InstructionthantheirTPScounterparts.Becausetheregressionmodelscontrolfor
85
studentandschool-levelcharacteristics,includingacademicperformance,these
lowerinstructionalcostsmaysuggestagreaterlevelofefficiencyinprivately
governedschoolsinthemarketplace.Theimpactofcentralizedmanagementon
school-levelinstructionalspending,however,appearstobelesssignificant.
Instructionalspendinginschoolsmanagedbycentralizedcharternetworksisnot
significantlydifferentthanindecentralized,non-networkcharterschools.This
suggeststhatcharterschools,asaprivatizedsector,maybedevelopinglowercost
instructionalsystems,relativetotheirTPScounterparts.Totheextentthatthese
innovationsdonotseefurtherefficienciesfromtheeconomiesofscaleexpectedin
centralizedorganizations,itmaybethatscalingthecomplexnatureofinstructional
workdoesnotprovideasmuchsavingsasotherspendingareas(seeDuncombe&
Yinger,2001).Eachclassroomstillrequiresateacher,andtherearepracticaland
legallimitstothenumberofstudentsinaclassroom,whichcanlimittheabilityto
scaleinstruction.
Loweradministrativeandoverheadspendinginthemarketplace.
Supportersofprivatizationsuggestthatspendinginschoolswillgodownwhen
governanceisshiftedawayfrompublicbureaucracies,whobecomeinefficientwhen
theyseektosatisfythevariedinterestsapublicconstituency(Chubb&Moe1990).
ModelssuggestthatsignificantdifferencesexistinschoolspendingonSchool
AdministrationandCentralOverhead,wheretheprivatizedchartersectorspends
less(perpupilandasashareoftotalcurrentexpenditures)thantheirTPS
counterparts.Non-networkcharterschoolsdoappeartospendalargershareof
theirexpendituresonSchoolAdministrationalone,ascomparedtoTPS,butendup
86
spendingsignificantlylessoverallonthecombinedadministrativemeasure.These
findingssuggestthat,overall,administrationinprivatizedcharterschoolsmay
operatemoreefficientlythanadministrationintraditionalpublicschools.
Intheirreviewofstudiesoneconomiesofscale,Andrewsetal.(2002)found
thatoperatingandadministrativeexpendituresarealsoresponsivetothe
economiesofscalegainedthroughcentralization.SpendingpatternswithintheNew
Orleanschartersectorsupportthisfinding.Althoughtheyspendsimilaramountson
SchoolAdministration,networkcharterschoolsspendsignificantlylessthannon-
networkschoolsoncentraloverheadexpenses,bothonaperpupilbasisandasa
shareofspending.Theseresultssuggestthatnetworkcharters,inadditionto
enjoyingefficiencyfromprivatizedmanagement,benefitfromtheeconomiesof
scalethatcomewiththecentralizedmanagementstructuresprovidedbyCMOs
(Baker,2003).Inotherwords,attheschoollevel,bothprivatizedgovernanceand
centralizedmanagementappeartoreduceoveralladministrativecosts.
OPSB’shigherlevelsofspendingonadministrationandoverheadmaybe
rootedinHenig’s(1994)characterizationofdistrictsastraditionalinstitutionsthat
areresistanttochange.Alternatively,BakerandMiron(2015)suggestthatspending
comparisonsbetweenschoolsmanagedbytraditionaldistricts,charter
managementorganizationsandsinglesitecharterorganizationsmaybe
problematicwhencentralizedorganizationsspendresourcesonbehalfoftheir
individualschools.Centralizedspendingareasmayinvolvefederalfunding,
centralizedgrants,andothersupportservices,representingareasofinvestmentin
schoolsthatmaynotbeaccountedforintheirindividualfinancialstatements.To
87
theextentthatOPSB,asacentralizedorganization,appearstobelessefficientwith
administrativeandoverheadspendingthanthechartersector,thosedifferences
maybeduetothefactthatOPSBhasmaintainedmanyoftheinstitutionalstructures
ofitscentraloffice,evenasitsroleasadirectproviderhascontinuedtoevolvefrom
directoperationofschools.
Indeed,OPSBcontinuestoprovideavarietyofservicesinitsroleasacharter
schoolauthorizerandportfoliomanager,providingoversightandsupporttoallarea
publicschools.Takenbyitself,schooladministrativespendingbyOPSBislargely
similartothespendinginthechartersector.Mostofthedifferenceinadministrative
costscomesfromspendingonCentralOverheadServices.Giventhesmallsizeof
OPSB,evenmodestoverheadexpendituresonbehalfofcharterschoolscouldresult
insignificantincreasesinperpupilspendingaverageswithintheOPSBschools.The
systemofschoolsinNewOrleanscontinuestochangeeachyear,andcurrent
reportingsystemsmakeitdifficulttofullyunderstandhowallresourcesare
accountedforatacity-widelevel.1
Supportservicesspendinginprivatizedandcentralizedschools.School
expendituresonSupportServicesinNewOrleansincludebothPupiland
InstructionalSupport.Thecombinationofthesetwocategoriesintoonespending
indicatorisaclearexampleofhowbroadlydefinedreportingcategoriescanleadto
impreciseanalysesbecausetheydonotprovideenoughdetailtoidentifyspecific
programspending(Bakeretal.,2012;Bakeretal.,2015).IntheNewOrleansschool
marketplace,modelssuggestTPSspendsignificantlymorethanthechartersector
1SeeOrleansParishSchoolBoard,UnificationPlan,adoptedAugust30,2016.
88
onSupportServices,particularlycomparedtonon-networkcharters,whereTPS
spendmoreonbothaperpupilbasisandasashareofTotalCurrentExpenditures.
TPSschoolsspendmoreperpupilonSupportServicesthannetworkcharterschools,
butnotasashareoftotalspending,suggestingthatnetworkchartersplaceasimilar
priorityonSupportServices.Supportspendingincentralizedschools(bothTPSand
CMOsasagroup),andinnetworkchartersalone,ishigherthanindecentralized,
non-networkcharterschools,bothasaperpupilamountandasashareofspending.
Theseresultssuggestthat,asagroup,centralizedschoolorganizations
prioritizeSupportServicesmorethandecentralized,singlesiteschools.One
possiblecausefortheseresultsisthatcentralizedmanagementorganizations,
whetherTPSorcharter,maybenefitfromeconomiesofscalewithrespectto
providingSupportServices.WithoutabetterbreakdownoftheSupportServices
category,itisimpossibletodeterminewhethertheseresourcesarebeingtargeted
towardspupilsorstaff,butineithercase,itappearsthatcentralizedorganizations
investmoreinSupportServicesfortheirschools.
Intheirexaminationofhowschoolmissionmightimpactschooloperations,
Henigetal.(2005)suggestthatmarket-orientedschools(identifiedasEMOs)and
business-relatedcharters“maybemoreconcernedwithachievingeconomiesof
scale”(p.505)thantheirmission-drivencounterparts.Theseeconomiesofscale
mayhelpexplainwhycentralizedschoolsareabletoprovidemoreSupportServices
totheirorganization,particularlyifSupportServicesleadtobetteracademic
outcomes.Centralizedschools,withaneyetowardsreplication,willplaceahigh
89
priorityonacademicsuccessratherthanonotheroutcomesthatmaybeaimedat
pleasingconstituencieswhovalueothergoals.
Spendingontransportationtofacilitateschoolchoice.Transportation
Servicesareanareaofspendingthatwouldalsoseemlikelytobenefitfrom
economiesofscale(seeAndrewsetal.,2002).Modelresultssuggest,however,that
centralizationdoesnothaveasignificantimpactonTransportationexpenses.No
significantspendingdifferencesappearbetweencentralizedschoolsasagroup,or
withinthechartersector.Privatizedschoolsasagroup,however,appeartobe
spendingsignificantlymorethanTPSonTransportationServices,basedonschool-
leveldata.Interestingly,networkcharterschools,whichshouldtheoreticallybenefit
fromgreatereconomiesofscalewhenpurchasingtheseservices,spendatsimilar
levelscomparedtonon-networkcharterschools.Itispossiblethatprivatized
charterschools,createdasmarket-orientedschools,arerecruitingandtransporting
studentsfromawidergeographicareathanTPS,particularlyifTPSrelyon
historicalenrollmentpatternsthatusedneighborhoodasabasisforschool
assignment.Inotherwords,charterschoolsmaybemorelikelytorecruitandenroll
studentsfromallovertheCity,ratherthanbeingfocusedonaparticular
neighborhood.
Thatcharterschoolsmightbelessfocusedonaparticularcommunityand
neighborhood,andmorefocusedonsimplyimprovingschools,regardlessof
constituency,isconsistentwithwhatHenig(1994)identifiesas“contingent
allegiance”(p18)tochoice.Inthisview,charteroperatorshavesimplegoals,
“higherachievementscores,lowerdropoutrates,basicliteracy,technicaland
90
scientificskills”(p.19).Communityempowermentisnotnecessarilyagoalforthese
operators.Tothatend,schoolsseektorecruitandenrollstudentswhocansucceed
academically,regardlessofwheretheylive.
Despitethesignificantschool-levelspendingdifferencesdiscussedabove,
expenditurepatternsinNewOrleanspublicschoolsappearstobestatistically
similarwhendataareaggregatedtotheLEAlevel.Thetraditionaldistrict(OPSB),
CMOsandnon-network,singlesiteLEA’sspendinstatisticallysimilarwaysacross
allexpenditurecategories.Morediscussionofthisfindingfollowsafterabrief
discussiononhumanresourceindicators.
School-levelhumanresourcepatternsintheeducationalmarketplace.
Baker(2009)notesthatschoolscompetingwithinadefinedmarketplacemustalso
competeforhumanresources.Thelocallaborsupply,presentedwithoptions,will
likelyseekthebestcombinationofsalaryandbenefits,supports,andworking
conditionssuchasworkschedule.Onthedemandside,schoolswillseekto
employeeswhobestfittheireducationalapproach.Thehumanresourcepatterns
discussedbelowmayhelpconnectparticulargovernanceandmanagement
structureswithhowschoolsrespondtocompetitionwithinthelabormarket.
Governance,managementstructureandschoolpersonnel.Ingeneral,
privatizedcharterschoolsappeartoemployteachersandsupportstaffwithfewer
yearsofexperienceascomparedtotheirTPScounterparts.Despitethoselower
levelsofexperience,however,teacherandsupportsalariesinTPSandcharter
schoolsarestatisticallysimilar.Privatizedgovernancedoesnotappeartohave
muchimpactontheexperiencelevelofschooladministrators,withTPSandcharter
91
schoolsiteleadershavingsimilarlevelsofexperienceaftercontrollingfor
covariates.Centralizedmanagement,ontheotherhand,doesappeartoimpactthe
experiencelevelofschooladministrators.TPSandCMOschoolleaders,asagroup,
arelessexperiencedthantheirnon-networkcounterparts;networkcharterschool
leadersarealsolessexperiencedwithinthechartersectoritself.Schoolleadersin
organizationswithcentralizedsupportalsoearnlowersalariesthannon-network
schooladministrators,suggestingthattheabsenceofsupportfromacentraloffice
maycompelnon-networkschoolstoemployadministratorswithmoreyearsof
experienceandtopaythoseadministratorsforthatexperience.
Datasuggestingthattheprivatizedchartersectoremploysteachersand
supportstaffwithlessexperienceisperhapsconsistentwithothereffortsto
privatizeeducation.Alternateteachercertificationprograms2,forexample,arenow
competingwithtraditionalschoolsofeducationtoprovideteachersforschools
acrossthecountry.Alternateschoolleadershipprogramsalsoexist,andinsome
casesarebeingoperatedbyorganizationsborninthechartermovement.3
LEA-levelResourceAllocationPatternsintheEducationalMarketplace
Baker(2003)suggestsexpenditure“disparitiesbetweenschoolswithin
districtscanbequitelarge,andinsomecasesbegreaterthandisparitiesbetween
districts”(p.4).Otherworkonresourcedistributioninschoolsagrees(Burke,1999;
2TeachforAmericaand,morelocally,teachNOLAaretwoexamplesofprivatecertificationprograms.3RelayGraduateSchoolofEducation,forexample,grewfromapartnershipbetweenUncommonSchools,AchievementFirst,andKIPP,threesuccessfulCMO’s.
92
Herter,1996;Monk&Hussain,2000;Tayloretal.,2011).DatafromtheNew
Orleanseducationalmarketplacesupportthesefindings.
Spendingvariationswithincentralizedorganizations.Allofthe
significantresourceallocationtrendsidentifiedusingschool-levelspendingdata
disappearwhenNewOrleansdataareaggregatedtotheLEAlevel.Thetraditional
district(OPSB),charterschoolnetworks(CMOs)andnon-networkcharterLEAsall
appeartobeallocatingresources(acrossallexpenditurecategoriesandhuman
resourceindicators)instatisticallysimilarways,onceschoolandstudent
characteristicsarecontrolled.Thatfindingsuggeststhatmuchofthevariationin
schoolspendinginNewOrleansisduetovariationwithinLEAs,ratherthanacross
LEAs.
Putanotherway,itislikelythatthesignificantdifferencesinschool-level
spendingexistnotonlybetweenschoolsoperatedbydifferentLEAs,butalso
betweenschoolsthatareoperatedbythesameLEA.Indeed,acursoryexamination
ofschool-leveldatawithincentralizedorganizationssuggeststhatinsomecases,
TotalCurrentExpendituresmaydifferbyasmuchas27%acrossschoolsoperating
inthesameCMO.Differencesinspecificcategoriesareevenstarker,whereoneCMO
isspendingtwiceasmuchonSchoolAdministrationinoneschoolversusanother,
eventhoughbothschoolsoperatewithinthesamenetwork.Spendingdifferences
acrossschoolsinOPSBlooksimilar.TCEvarybynearly28%acrossschools,with
SchoolAdministrationexpendituresvaryingbyalmost300percent.Similar
spendingrangesexistwithinLEAsacrossotherexpenditurecategories,andacross
salarydata.
93
Thefindingsdiscussedabovesuggestthatsignificantdifferencesexistinhow
TPSandcharterschoolsallocateresourcesattheschoollevel,despitethe
similaritiesthatexistwhendataareanalyzedattheLEAlevel.Totheextentthat
thesetrendsidentifydifferentstrategicprioritieswithinschools,andevenwithin
LEAs,thesetrendshavethepotentialtohelpunderstandhowschoolorganizations
behavedifferentlyinthecontextofacompetitivemarketplace.Thenextsection
summarizesthesefindingsandoffersrecommendationstopolicymakerswhomay
seektochangethewayresourcesareallocatedinschoolsthroughtheintroduction
ofcompetitionandchoicepolicies.
94
V–CONCLUSIONS,IMPLICATIONS,ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
TheEducationalMarketplaceinNewOrleans
ThisdissertationpresentsaninvestigationofhowschoolsinNewOrleans,a
competitiveeducationalmarketplace,allocateresourcestowarddifferentpriorities.
Usingresearchonschoolchoiceandcompetition,Ihypothesizedthattwocriteria
mightinfluencehowschoolsallocateresourcesinresponsetotheeducational
marketplace:governanceandmanagementstructure.Formsofschoolgovernance
areidentifiedaseitherpublic,throughtheelectedschoolboard,orprivate,through
non-profitcharterschoolboards.Formsofschoolmanagementareidentifiedas
eithercentralized,inwhichmultipleschoolsitesareoperatedundertheguidanceof
alargerorganization,ordecentralized,whichprovidessite-basedmanagementofa
singleschoolsite.SchoolsinNewOrleanswerecategorizedalongthesetwocriteria,
andmultiplecomparisongroupswereusedtoanalyzespendingwithinschools.I
usedlinearregressionanalysistoestimatetheimpactofschooltypeschoolon
schoolresourceallocationandcontrolledforavarietyofstudentandschool-level
covariatestohelpisolatetheimpactofmyvariablesofinterest.
ThepublicschoolsysteminNewOrleansrepresentsacriticalcasefor
examininghowschoolsallocateresourceswithinacompetitivemarketplace.Onthe
supplyside,thefeasiblechoicesetofpublicschooloptionsincludestraditional
publicschools(public,centralized),networkcharterschools(privatized,
95
centralized),andnon-networkcharterschools(privatized,decentralized).
Importantly,accesstotheseschoolsisvirtuallyunrestricted.1Anystudentcanapply
toanyschool.Theabsenceofaresidentialassignmentsystemforschoolsisan
importantcomponentforcreatingdemandwithinaneducationalmarketplace.
Competitivemarketforcesarestrongestwhenallfamilieshavetheabilitytochoose
amongallschooloptions.Schoolfundingstructuresalsostrengthenthedemand
sideofthemarketplace.Perpupilfundingfollowsthestudent,whichplacesdirect
pressureonschoolstocompeteforstudentenrollment.Thisuniquecombinationof
factorsmakesNewOrleansacriticalcaseforexaminingschoolresourceallocation
withinahighlycompetitiveeducationalmarketplace.
LimitationsoftheStudy
Itisimportanttonotethatthisstudyfacesseverallimitations.First,thedata
usedfortheanalysisdonotincludespendingondebtserviceandcapitaloutlays,
bothofwhichcansignificantlyimpactschoolbudgets,particularlyinpost-Katrina
NewOrleans,whererebuildingandrepairofschoolfacilitiesisstillunderway.The
spendingcategoriesusedinthelinearregressionanalysiswerealso,insomecases,
overlybroad.Futureresearchwillbenefitfromamorefine-toothedanalysistohelp
paintaclearerpictureofspendingpatternsinschools.Ialsodidnotgivefull
attentiontotheissueofspendingefficiency,animportantconceptinthemarket
metaphorforschooling.SchoolPerformanceScoreswereusedasacovariateinmy
analysis,butincludingothermeasuresofacademicsuccesscouldprovideamore1Fiveselectiveadmissionschoolsstillexistinthecity,whichrequirestudentstomeetspecificacademicorlanguageproficiencystandardstoenroll.Mostschools,however,areopenenrollment.
96
thoroughunderstandingofthelinkbetweenspendingandoutcomes,andhowthey
areimpactedbymarketforces.Finally,thedecisiontouseNewOrleansasacase
studymaypresentlimitationsingeneralizingfindingstoothereducational
marketplaces.UsingtheHerfihndahlIndexprovidesawidelyacceptedconstructfor
measuringcompetitionbetweenschools,butthelevelofcompetitioninother
markets,particularlythosewheredemandforschoolsofchoicemayoutstripthe
supplyofavailableschools,maysignificantlyimpacthowschoolsuseresourcesto
respondtocompetition.
Despitetheselimitations,thisresearchmakesanimportantcontributionto
schoolchoiceliterature.Muchofthepriorresearchexaminestherelationship
betweencompetitionandresourcesbycomparingTPSandcharterschoolsusing
stateorevennationaldatasets(Arsen&Ni,2012a;Bakeretal.,2012;Miron&
Urschel,2010;Nelsonetal.,2000;Ni,2009).Whilethesestudiesaresuccessfulin
identifyingtrendswithinschooltypes,theyrelyoncomparisongroupsthatarenot
inactualcompetitionwitheachother.Byanalyzingschoolswithinaclearlydefined
marketplace,thefindingsofthisresearchprovideamorecompleteunderstanding
ofhowschoolsthatdirectlycompetewitheachotherforstudentsmightbe
influencedbycompetition.Myanalysisproducedevidenceofsignificantdifferences
inspendingbetweenschoolsgovernedbythepublicschoolboardandbyprivate
non-profitorganizations,andbetweenschoolsmanagedbycentralized
organizationsanddecentralized,site-basedorganizations.Thesedifferencesare
summarizedbelow.
97
SummaryofFindings
School-levelResourceAllocationPatterns
ThefindingsinthisstudyindicatethattheTotalCurrentExpendituresspent
byprivatelygovernedcharterschoolsinNewOrleansaresignificantlylowerthan
thepubliclygovernedTPSschoolswithwhichtheycompeteforstudents.Charter
schoolsspendlessperpupilinthecategoriesofInstruction,PupilandInstructional
Support,andCentralOfficeOverhead.Chartersschoolsalsospendmoreperpupil
onTransportation,theonlycategorywhereTPSspendlessthanthechartersector.
Tobetterunderstandhowtheseperpupildifferencesreflectspending
priorities,thestudyalsoexaminedcategoricalexpendituresasapercentageofTotal
CurrentExpenditures.DespitespendinglessperpupilonInstruction,thecharter
schoolsectordedicatesasimilarshareoftheirspendingtowardthoseactivities.
Othercategoriesalsofollowtheperpupiltrends.Charterschoolsspend
proportionallylessonCentralOverheadandmoreonTransportation.Thecharter
sector’sspendingtrends,however,arenotmonolithic.Whilenetworkcharter
schoolsspendasimilarshareofspendingonSupportServicesandonSchool
AdministrationasdoTPS,non-networkchartersspendasmallershareonSupport
Services,andmoreonSchoolAdministration,ascomparedtoTPS.
Humanresourcecomparisonsindicatetheprivatizedchartersectoremploys
lessexperiencedteachersandsupportstaffthantheirTPScounterparts.Despitethe
differencesinexperiencelevel,charterschoolsalariesforthoseroleswerenot
significantlydifferentfromthoseinTPS.Onesignificantdifferencedidemergefor
98
schooladministrativepersonnel,wherenon-networkcharterschoolspay
significantlyhighersalariesthanTPSschools,despitehiringadministratorswith
similarlevelsofexperience.
Findingsindicatethatmostspendingincentralizedschools,asagroup(both
TPSandnetworkcharter),isnotsignificantlydifferentfromspendingin
decentralized,non-networkcharterschools.OnlyonSupportServicesdonon-
networkchartersspendsignificantlylessthanTPSandnetworkcharterschools,
bothasaper-pupilamountandasashareofspending.Comparingcentralizedto
decentralizedschoolsalsoidentifiedlargelysimilarspendingonpersonnel,withthe
onlysignificantdifferencebeingthatnon-networkchartersemployschool
administratorswithmoreexperience,andatahighersalarylevel.
TotalCurrentExpenditureswithinthedecentralizedcharterschoolsector
arestatisticallysimilaracrossnetworkandnon-networkcharterschools.However,
recentralizationdoesappeartosignificantlyimpactspendingintwoways.Network
chartersspendmoreonSupportservices,andlessonCentralOverheadthantheir
non-networkcounterparts.Nosignificantdifferencesemergeinthesalariespaidto
staffwithinthechartersector,butnetworkcharterschoolsdoemploy
administratorsandsupportstaffwithfeweryearsofexperience.
LEA-levelResourceAllocationPatterns
Despitetheschool-levelspendingdifferencesidentifiedbetweenTPSand
privatizedcharterschools,betweencentrallymanagedandsite-basedmanaged
schools,andbetweennetworkandnon-networkcharterschools,nosignificant
99
differencesappeartoexistacrossthosecomparisongroupswhenspendingdataare
aggregatedtotheLEA-level.Aftercontrollingforschoolandstudentlevel
characteristics,thetraditionalschooldistrict(OPSB),chartermanagement
organizations,andsingle-sitenon-networkcharterschools(whichserveastheir
ownLEA)shownostatisticaldifferencesinhowtheyallocateresources.
TheEducationalMarketplace:LessonsLearnedFromNewOrleansPublic
Schools
Schoolspendingpatternssuggestthatschoolgovernanceandmanagement
structuresdohaveasignificantimpactonhowresourcesareallocatedtoindividual
schoolsintheNewOrleansmarketplace.Perpupilcurrentexpendituresinprivately
governedcharterschoolsaresignificantlylowerthaninpubliclygovernedTPS.As
mightbeexpectedofmarket-orientedschools,nearlyhalfofthosesavingsstem
fromlowerspendingbychartersonSchoolAdministrationandCentralOffice
Overhead.However,chartersalsospendlessperpupilonPupilandInstructional
SupportandlessonInstruction,althoughthedifferenceinInstructionalspending
becomesinsignificantwhenexpressedasashareofcurrentexpenditures.Thefact
thatchartersdonotallocatemoreresourcestowardinstruction-relatedactivitiesis
notnecessarilyanegativetrend.Itmaysimplyindicatethatcharterschoolsare
findinglesscostlywaystoprovideinstructionalservicestotheirstudents.Lower
spendingonadministrativecostsandoverheadsuggeststhatprivatizationcanalso
resultincost-savingsinareaslongcriticizedasbloatedandwastefulspendingby
publicbureaucracies.Thesefindingshaveimportantimplicationsforpolicymakers
100
astheyrelatetoprivatization.ChartersschoolsintheNewOrleansmarketplace
operateatsignificantlylowerspendinglevelsthantheirTPScounterparts.Ifpolicy
makersareseekingtoidentifywaystoreduceoverallspendingoneducation,
privatizedgovernanceofpublicschoolsappearstodeliverthoselowercosts.An
importantnextstepindeterminingtheefficiencyoftheschoolmarketplaceinNew
Orleanswillbetoevaluatethosesavingsinthecontextofstudentachievementand
otheroutcomes.
Privatizedcharterschools,despitetheirlowerlevelsofspendinginmost
categories,doallocateasignificantlylargershareofcurrentspendingon
Transportationservices,comparedtoTPS.Asmarket-orientedschools,charters
maybeseekingandenrollingstudentsfromabroadergeographicareathantheir
TPScounterparts.Interestingly,centralizationappearstohavenosignificantimpact
onTransportationspending.Networkandnon-networkcharterschoolsdonot
spendsignificantlydifferentamountsonthesepurchasedservices.Itseems
counterintuitivethatcentralizedcharternetworkswouldnotenjoysomeeconomies
ofscaleintransportationcosts,relativetotheirnon-networkcounterparts.
Transportationmaybeoneareathatsuffersfromconsolidationandgrowth.As
centralizedmanagementorganizationsexpandtheiroverallenrollment,thecostof
coveringmoreneighborhoodsmaysimplyoffsetanypotentialsavingsgainedfrom
economiesofscale.Aspolicymakersandschooloperatorsseektoidentify
additionalwaystodecreaseTransportationcosts,itmaybethateconomiesofscale
areonlypossibleforbussingonceaparticulartippingpointisreachedforstudents
101
withinparticularserviceareas,ratherthanjustfromincreasingtheoverallstudent
populationoftheschool.
Fromahumanresourceperspective,administrators,teachersandsupport
staff,willfindsignificantdifferencesinhowprivatelygovernedcharterschools
allocateresourcestowardpersonnel.CharterschoolsinNewOrleansemploy
teachersandsupportstaffwithsignificantlyfeweryearsofexperiencethanthosein
TPS,yetpaysalariesthatarenotsignificantlydifferent.Thissuggeststhatteacher
andsupportstaffsalariesarehigherincharterschools,relativetotheyearsof
experienceofthoseemployees.Foremployeesinschoolswithsalarystepsand
otherpayincreasesrelatedtotenure,thosedifferencescouldresultinsignificantly
higherearningsoverthespanofacareer.Privatesectorcharteradministratorsare
notlessexperiencedthanthoseinTPS,butadministratorsinnon-networkcharters
doearnsignificantlyhighersalariesthanTPS,afindingthatisalsorelatedto
centralizedmanagementpractices.TPSandcharterschooladministrators,asa
group,arebothlessexperienced,andearnlowersalariesthannon-networkcharter
administrators.Itispossiblethatsinglesitecharterschoolsemployadministrators
withmoreexperienceduetothedemandsplacedonaschoolleaderwithoutthe
supportofacentraloffice.Ifthatisthecase,itislogicalthatnon-networkcharter
administratorsalsoearnhighersalaries,inexchangefortheincreased
administrativeskillsetrequiredtoleadaschoolwithoutthesupportthatacentral
officetypicallyprovides.Schooladministratorswhoareattractedbythehigher
earningsinnon-networkcharterschoolsshouldunderstandthattheincreased
102
salarypossibleinnon-networkcharterschoolsislikelytocarrywithitsignificant
demandsbeyondtheschoolleadershiprolesthatexistincentralizedorganizations.
Inadditiontohavinganimpactonadministrativesalaries,centralized
managementofschoolsalsohasasignificantimpactonotherareasofschool
spending.Specifically,schoolsmanagedbycentralizedorganizations,whetherTPS
ornetworkCMOs,spendmoreperpupil,andmoreasashareofspending,onPupil
andInstructionalSupportServices.Totheextentthatthesesupportactivities
improvethewellbeingofstudentsandimprovetheabilityofstafftoprovide
learningexperiencesforstudents,theseinvestmentshaveimportantimplications
formembersoftheschoolcommunity.Withoutamoredetailedbreakdownof
Supportspendingintoitscomponentparts,itisnotpossibletodeterminewhether
moreinvestmentsarebeingmadeindirectstudentservices(e.g.socialwork,
guidanceandhealth)orinstaffsupport(e.g.supervision,curriculumdevelopment
andtraining),buteitherareaofspendingislikelytostrengthentheexperienceof
bothstudentsandteachers.
Centralizedmanagementalsohasasignificantimpactonreducingoverhead
spendingincharterschools,ontopofthebenefitsidentifiedasresultingfrom
privatization.NetworkcharterschoolsspendsignificantlylessonCentralOffice
Overheadonbothaperpupilandproratabasis.Forpolicymakersseekingto
minimizecentralofficespendingandtomaximizeinvestmentsinactivitiesthat
supportstudentsandinstruction,thecombinationofcentralizationand
privatizationofferedbychartermanagementorganizationsoffersthebest
combinationofgovernanceandmanagement.Itmayseemcounterintuitivethat
103
charternetworkschools,whichrelyonacentralizedofficetoprovidesomeservices,
wouldspendlessonoverheadthandecentralized,non-networkcharterschoolsthat
operatewithoutacentraloffice,buttheabilityofcentralizedorganizationsto
achieveeconomiesofscalemayexplainthedifference.TotheextentthatCMOs
servemorestudents,andareabletospreadoverheadcostsacrossthatlarger
population,itmakessensethatperpupilspendingwouldbehigherinnon-network
schoolsthatmustperformalladministrativefunctionswithinasingleorganization,
especiallythoserolestraditionallyfilledbyacentraloffice.
ThelessonsfromNewOrleansdiscussedaboveprovideimportantinsights
intohowgovernanceandmanagementstructurecanimpactspendingandhuman
resourcesattheschoollevel.However,perhapsthemostimportantimplicationof
thisstudy’sfindingsisthat,whileindividualschoolswithintheNewOrleansschool
marketplacespendresourcesinsignificantlydifferentways,governanceand
managementstructurehavenosignificantimpactonresourceallocationattheLEA
level.Putdifferently,spendingdifferencesarenotsignificantwhencomparinghow
resourcesareallocatedbythetraditionalschooldistrictLEA(OPSB),charter
networkLEAs,andsinglesitecharterschoolLEAs.Onthesurface,thisfindingmay
strikemanyasapositiveexampleofhowtheeducationalmarketplaceinNew
Orleansisfunctioningequitably.Regardlessofgovernanceormanagement
structure,LEAsinthemarketplacearespendingstatisticallysimilaramountsof
moneyacrossallexpenditurecategories.However,theseLEAdatahavethe
potentialtoobscureinequitiesthatexistwithinLEAs,attheschoollevel.Thisis
particularlytrueifpolicymakersareonlyanalyzingaggregateddata.AttheLEA
104
level,theeducationalmarketplaceappearstobeprovidingequitableresourcesfor
allstudents,regardlessoftheLEAinwhichtheyareenrolled.Attheschoollevel,
however,largedifferencesexistintheresourcesbeingallocated.
Iftheeducationalmarketplace,throughchoiceandcompetition,isto
improveacademicoutcomesinschoolswhilealsoprovidingequitableoptionsforall
studentsandfamilies,itisimportanttoknowmoreabouthowgovernanceand
managementstructuresarelinkedtothosegoals.Doeslowerspendingbyprivatized
schoolsmeantheyareeducatingstudentsmoreefficiently?Or,arechartersschools
simplypayinglessforthesameresults?Doescentralizedmanagementprovide
organizationswiththeopportunitytospendmoreefficiently?Or,docentraloffices
usetheirlargerorganizationstocreatetieredsystemsinwhichtheyallocate
resourcesinwaysthat,whilestrategic,leadtosomeschoolsbeingunder-resourced?
Docompetitionandchoiceimpactcertaintypesoforganizationsdifferentlythan
others?
Thesequestionsarenoteasilyanswered.Competitionisanabstractconcept,
noteasilymeasured.Schoolanddistrictaccountingpracticesdon’talwaysprovide
anaccuratepictureofthefullscopeofresourcesbroughttobearinorganizations.
Thelinkbetweeninputsandoutputsinschoolsisnotoriouslydifficulttoestablish,
andevenmoredifficulttoreplicate.Theevidencepresentedinthisdissertation
showsthatgovernanceandmanagementdohaveanimpactonhowschoolsallocate
resources.
Below,Ipresentseveralrecommendationsforeducators,policymakers,and
researcherstoconsiderastheytrytobetterunderstandhowschoolchoiceand
105
competitionimpactschools.Theserecommendationsareplacedinthecontextof
theNewOrleanseducationalmarketplace,buttheyareapplicabletoanyareathatis
consideringtheuseofprivatizationanddecentralizedmanagementtoimprove
schools.
Recommendation#1:Improveschool-levelfinancialreportingto
identifyspecificresourcesallocatedtoschoolsbycentraldistrictoffices,
charterschoolnetworks,andotherorganizations.Accuratecomparisonsofthe
resourcesspentinschoolsareoftencomplicatedbythefactthataccountingsystems
donotspecificallyidentifytheresourcesthatarespentonschoolsbyoutside
organizations.Theseresourcesmaycomefromcentralizeddistrictsandcharter
managementorganizationsthatprovidefacilities,materials,personnel,training,and
otherservices.Theymaycomefromnon-profitandphilanthropicorganizationsthat
providesimilarresources,includingin-kindservicesthatarenoteasilyaccounted
forinfinancialdocuments.
Theevidencepresentedinthisdissertationsuggeststhatsignificantpublic
resourcesaredevotedtoschoolsasCentralOfficeOverhead.Asaspendingcategory,
theLouisianaDepartmentofEducationdefinesoverheadasincludingawidevariety
ofactivities,including“planning,research,development,evaluation,information,
staff,andadministrativetechnologyservices”(LDE,2010,p.75).School-level
financialdatadonotincludeabreakdownofthespecificactivitiesfundedby
spendingonoverhead,nordotheyaccuratelytrackthespecificdollaramounts
receivedbyeachschool.Rather,CentralOfficeOverheadisreportedasanLEA
average,whichimpliesthateachindividualschoolreceivesthesameamountof
106
overheadsupport.Inreality,however,schoolsreceivedifferentlevelsofsupport
fromtheircentralizedmanagementorganizations.Theymayalsoreceivein-kind
servicesandresourcesthatarenoteasilyreflectedinfinancialstatements.Training,
operationalsupport,personnelandmaterialsallhavevalue.Whenschoolsreceive
thoseresourcesfromrelatedorganizationsandexternalpartners,theyareableto
spendlessoftheirownrevenueonthoseareas,whichcancreatetheappearance
thattheschoolisspendingless,whentheyareactuallyspendingmore.Ofcourse,
privateresourcesallocatedtowardschoolsmayalsogounidentified.Outside
organizationsprovideprogramming,donatematerials,andsharehumanresources
withschools.Abetteraccountingofallresourcesspentineachschoolwillhelp
provideamoreaccuratepictureofspendinglevels.
ThisisincreasinglyimportantasOPSBcontinuestotransitiontoitsroleasa
portfoliomanager,ratherthanasadirectoperatorofschools.Theplanningand
oversightactivitiesinvolvedwiththisnewroleensurethatresourcesspentbythe
districtwillcontinuetoreachschools.AstheOPSBUnificationPlanstates,“[w]e
emphasizethatthisbudgetisnotjustsupportingcentralofficepersonnel;tothe
contrary,abouthalfofthebudgetthatweenvisionisdedicatedtocitywideservices
thatdirectlyservestudentsandfamilies”(OPSB,2016,p.3).Ifthoseresources
continuetobereportedasaverages,ratherthanbeingclearlytiedtothespecific
schoolstheyserve,someschoolswillappeartobespendinglessthantheyactually
are,andsomewillappeartobespendingmore.And,thepromiseofthoseresources
maycompelschoolstobehaveinspecificwaysinordertomaximizetheamountof
discretionaryresourcesprovidedtotheschool.
107
Regardlessofthesourceofaresource,publicorprivate,accurately
determiningthespendinglevelsofschoolsinthemarketplacewillrequirethese
resourcestobeidentifiedandincludedinschool-levelreporting.
Recommendation#2:Connectspendingtooutcomestodeterminethe
truecostofachievingparticulargoals.Determiningtheefficiencyofaparticular
schoolrequiresmorethansimplyknowingwhateachschoolisspending.Itrequires
knowingtheamountspentonachievingaparticularoutcome.Thereareofcoursea
widevarietyofoutcomesthatschoolsmightpursue,rangingfromamodern,well-
equippedschoolbuildingtoprovidingstudentswithsupplementalprogramslike
mentalhealthservices.Regardlessofhowschoolsprioritizeresourcestowardtheir
goals,evaluatingtheimpactofcompetitionandchoiceonefficiencyrequiresthat
evaluatorsuseavalid,consistentmeasureofthoseoutcomes.
Thisdissertationidentifiesschoolspendingpatternsacrossavarietyof
categories,butdoesnotattempttoconnectthoseresourcestooutcomes.
Researchersandpolicymakersinterestedinevaluatingtheabilityofmarket
reformstoincreaseschoolefficiencywillneedtoanalyzespendingdatainthe
contextofspecificoutcomesforstudents.Totheextentthatacademicachievement
isaprimarygoalforschools,standardizedtestscorescanbeusedtoevaluateschool
efficiency,butothergoalsmayalsobeofinteresttostakeholders.Schoolsmayseek
toimprovecollegeattendancerates,providestudentswithindustry-based
certificates,increaseparticipationinAPcourses,engagestudentsinthe
surroundingcommunity,orotherimportantgoals.Identifyingspecificmetricsfor
measuringthoseoutcomes,andusingthosemetricsinconjunctionwithschool
108
spendingdata,willprovideadeeperlevelofunderstandingonhowschoolsare
usingresourcestoachievetheirgoals.
Ananalysisofschoolspendingthatincludesefficiencyhasimportant
implicationsforunderstandinghowschoolresourceallocationmightimpact
educationalequity.Notallstudentswillrequirethesameamountofresources.
Recommendation#3:Evaluatespendingpatternsbothwithin,and
acrossLEAs.Centralizedschooldistrictsandchartermanagementorganizations
existtosupporttheoperationsofindividualschoolsites.Indoingso,theybuilda
systemofcentraloperationsthatexistsindependentlyfromtheschoolstheyserve.
Thesecentralofficesprovideresourcestoschools.Yet,variationsexistinhow
resourcesareallocatedtoschoolswithincentralizedorganizations,andhowthey
areaccountedforinfinancialstatements.
Theresearchpresentedherefindsthatschoolgovernanceandmanagement
structuresignificantlyimpacthowresourcesareallocatedinschools.Totalcurrent
expendituresarelowerinprivatizedchartersschoolsthaninTPS.Privatized
managementalsoimpactsspendinginavarietyofmorespecificcategories.In
addition,centralizedmanagementimpactsspendinginspecificways.Policymakers
seekingtoevaluateschool-levelspendingpatternsinthecontextofmarketreforms
candrawspecificconclusionsbasedonthesefindings.Yet,whendataareanalyzed
attheLEAlevel,theimpactofmarketreformsseemslessstark.LEAspending
patterns,onaverage,arenotsignificantlyimpactedbygovernanceandmanagement
structures.
109
Thesefindingshaveimportantimplicationsforresearchers,policymakers,
andforfamilies.First,researchersmustlookatdataatboththeschoolandLEAlevel
togainafullunderstandingoforganizationalspending.Resourceallocationtrends
atindividualschoolsdonotprovideacompletepictureofoverallorganizational
spending.Ifevaluatingefficiencyisagoal,bothschool-levelandLEA-levelspending
patternsmustbetakenintoaccount.Thismultiplelevelofanalysisisalsoimportant
forpolicymakersastheyevaluatetheimpactofmarketreforms,particularlywith
respecttoequity.AttheLEAlevel,schoolorganizationsappeartobeallocating
resourcesatsimilarlevels.School-leveldatasuggest,however,thatwidevariations
existwithinLEAs.Totheextentthatmoneyisintendedtofollowthestudentina
systemofchoice,it’simportantwhetherLEAsareallocatingdollarstoschoolsonan
equitablebasis,oriftheyarespendingbasedoninternalorganizationalpriorities
thatprovidesomestudentswithmoreresourcesthanothers.Accuratelyattributing
specificresourcestospecificprogramsandservicesisalsoimportantfor
determiningtheefficiencyofspecificschools,ratherthansimplyevaluatingthe
performanceofcentralizedorganizations,whichmaymaskimportantdifferencesin
theamountandtypeofresourcesschoolsarereceiving.
Finally,forparentsnavigatingasystemofchoice,it’simportanttorecognize
thatspendingpatternsinoneschoolwithinacentralizedschoolnetworkdonot
necessarilyimplythatotherschoolsinthenetworkwillbesimilarlyresourced.
Widevariationsexistwithincentralizedmanagementorganizations.
110
Conclusion EducationalreformsinNewOrleanshavebuiltapublicschoolsystem
designedaroundthemarketprinciplesofchoiceandcompetition.Nearlyallschools
inthesystemarecharterschools,governedbyprivate,decentralizedorganizations
ratherthanthelocallyelectedpublicschoolboard.Reformadvocatescontendthat
schoolsinthiseducationalmarketplace,forcedtocompeteforstudents,willnot
onlyfindinnovativewaystoattractandkeepstudents,butthattheywillbemore
efficientwiththeirresourcesastheydoso.
Theresearchandrecommendationsincludedherearenotintendedto
advocatefororagainstthereformsinNewOrleans.Theyinsteadrepresentafirst
stepinhelpingtoevaluatetheimpactofschoolgovernanceandmanagement
structuresoneducationalspending.Schoolsandcentralizedmanagement
organizationsmustdoabetterjobofaccountingforallresourcesthatareconnected
toschools.Anincompleteassessmentofthoseresourcesdoesnotallowforgood
comparisonstobemadeacrossandwithinorganizations.Oncemorecompletedata
areavailable,resourceallocationpatternsmustbeconnectedtooutcomestohelp
determinethetruecostofreachingparticulareducationalgoals.Greaterefficiency
inschoolsshouldproducebetteroutcomesforstudents,notsimplystemfroma
reductioninspending.Finally,resourceallocationmustbeexaminedacrossall
levelsofschoolorganizations.Trendswithinsingleschools,networkschools,and
thecentralizedorganizationsthatsupportthemareallimportantcomponentsof
understandinghowthemarketplacemightimpactschoolefficiency,buttheymust
notbeexaminedinisolation.Byaddressingtheserecommendations,stakeholdersat
111
alllevelscanmovespasttheoreticaldiscussionsofhowthemarketplacemight
impactschoolbehaviorandmoveontotheimportantbusinessofevaluatingthe
realimpactofschoolchoicepoliciesonourpublicschools.
112
REFERENCESAllison,G.S.(2015).FinancialAccountingforLocalandStateSchoolSystems:2014
Edition(NationalCenterforEducationStatistics2015-347).Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.
Andrews,M.,Duncombe,W.,&Yinger,J.(2002).Revisitingeconomiesofsizein
Americaneducation:Areweanyclosertoaconsensus?EconomicsofEducationReview,21(3),245-262.
Arsen,D.,&Ni,Y.(2012a).Theeffectsofcharterschoolcompetitiononschool
districtresourceallocation.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,48(1),3-38. Arsen,D.,&Ni,Y.(2012b).Isadministrationleanerincharterschools?Resource
allocationincharterandtraditionalpublicschools.EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives,20(31),31-49.
Baker,B.D.(2003).Statepolicyinfluencesontheinternalallocationofschool
districtresources:EvidencefromtheCommonCoreofData.JournalofEducationFinance,29(Summer2003),1-24.
Baker,B.D.(2006).Evaluatingthereliability,validity,andusefulnessofeducation
coststudies.JournalofEducationFinance,32(2),170-201.Baker,B.D.(2009).Within-districtresourceallocationandthemarginalcostsof
providingequaleducationalopportunity:EvidencefromTexasandOhio.EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives,17(3).
Baker,B.D.,Libby,K.,&Wiley,K.(2012).Spendingbythemajorcharter
managementorganizations:ComparingcharterschoolandlocalpublicdistrictfinancialresourcesinNewYork,Ohio,andTexas.Boulder,CO:NationalEducationPolicyCenter.
Baker,B.D.&Miron,G.(2015).Thebusinessofcharterschooling:Understandingthe
policiesthatcharteroperatorsuseforfinancialbenefit.Boulder,CO:NationalEducationPolicyCenter.
Baker,B.D.,Taylor,L.L.,&Vedlitz,A.(2003).Measuringeducationaladequacyin
publicschools.CollegeStation,TX:TheBushSchoolofGovernment&PublicService.
113
Barrow,L.,&Rouse,C.E.(2002).Usingmarketvaluationtoassesspublicschoolspending(WorkingPaper9054).Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.
Belfield,C.R.,&Levin,H.M.(2002).Theeffectsofcompetitionbetweenschoolson
educationaloutcomes:AreviewfortheUnitedStates.ReviewofEducationalResearch,72(2),279-341.
Bennett,W.J.,Fair,W.,Finn,C.E.,Flake,F.H.,Hirsch,E.D.,Marshall,W.,&Ravitch,D.
(1998).Anationstillatrisk.PolicyReview,90,23-29.Bettinger,E.(2005).Theeffectofcharterschoolsoncharterstudentsandpublic
schools.EconomicsofEducationReview,24(2),133-147.Bifulco,R.,&Ladd,H.F.(2006).Theimpactsofcharterschoolsonstudent
achievement:EvidencefromNorthCarolina.EducationFinanceandPolicy,1(1),50-90.
Bohte,J.(2004).Examiningtheimpactofcharterschoolsonperformancein
traditionalpublicschools.PolicyStudiesJournal,32(4),501-52.Booker,K.,Gilpatric,S.,Gronberg,T.,&Jansen,D.(2008).Theeffectofcharter
schoolsontraditionalpublicschoolstudentsinTexas:Arechildrenwhostaybehindleftbehind?JournalofUrbanEconomics,64(1),123-145.
Borland,M.&Howsen,R.(2002).Studentacademicachievementandthedegreeof
marketconcentrationineducation.EconomicsofEducationReview,11(1),31-39.
Brewer,D.J.,&Smith,J.(2008).Aframeworkforunderstandingeducational
governance:ThecaseofCalifornia.EducationalFinanceandPolicy,3(1),20-40.
Brown,D.J.(1990).Decentralizationandschool-basedmanagement.Bristol,
PA:Taylor&Francis.Buddin,R.,&Zimmer,R.(2009).IscharterschoolcompetitioninCalifornia
improvingtheperformanceoftraditionalpublicschools?PublicAdministrationReview,69(5),831-845.
Buerger,C.&Harris,D.N.(2017).HowdidtheNewOrleansschoolreformsinfluence
schoolspending?NewOrleans,LA:EducationResearchAllianceforNewOrleans.
114
Bulkley,K.E.(2002).Recentralizingdecentralization?Educationalmanagementorganizationsandcharterschools'educationalprograms(OP-60).NewYork,NY:NationalCenterfortheStudyofPrivatizationinEducation.
Burke,S.(1999).Ananalysisofresourceinequalityatthestate,district,andschool
levels.JournalofEducationFinance,24,435-458.CarpenterII,D.M.(2013).Wheredoesthemoneygo?Budgetexpenditure
allocationsincharterschools.JournalofEducationFinance,38(4),304-319.Carr,M.,&Ritter,G.(2007).Measuringthecompetitiveeffectofcharterschoolson
studentachievementinOhio’straditionalpublicschools(No.146).NewYork:NationalCenterforthePrivatizationinEducation.
Chubb,J.&Moe,T.(1990).Politics,markets,andAmerica’sschools.Washington,DC:
TheBrookingsInstitution.Duncombe,W.,&Yinger,J.(2001).Doesschooldistrictconsolidationcutcosts?
(Paper122).Syracuse,NY:CenterforPolicyResearch.Farrell,C.C.,Wohlstetter,P.,&Smith,J.(2012).Chartermanagementorganizations:
Anemergingapproachtoscalingupwhatworks.EducationalPolicy,26(4),499-532.
Finn,C.E.,Manno,B.V.,&Vanourek,G.(2000).Charterschoolsinaction:Renewing
publiceducation.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Friedman,M.(1955).Theroleofgovernmentineducation.InR.A.Solo(Ed.),
Economicsandthepublicinterest(pp.123-144).NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.
Friedman,M.(1962).Capitalismandfreedom.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicago
Press.Greene,G.K.,Huerta,L.A.,Richards,C.(2007).Gettingreal:Adifferentperspective
ontherelationshipbetweenschoolresourcesandstudentoutcomes.JournalofEducationFinance,33(1),49-68.
Grosskopf,S.,Hayes,K.,&Taylor,L.(2009).Therelativeefficiencyofcharterschools.
AnnalsofPublic&CooperativeEconomics,80(1),67-87.Hannaway,J.(1993).Decentralizationintwoschooldistricts:Challengingthe
standardparadigm.InJ.Hannaway&M.Carnoy(Eds.),Decentralizationandschoolimprovement(pp.135-162).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
115
Hanushek,E.A.(1997).Assessingtheeffectsofschoolresourcesonstudentperformance:Anupdate.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,19,141-164.
Hanushek,E.A.,Link,S.,&Woessmann,L.(2013).Doesschoolautonomymake
senseeverywhere?JournalofDevelopmentalEconomics,104,212-232.Hanushek,E.A.,&Rivkin,S.G.(2003).Doespublicschoolcompetitionaffectteacher
quality?InC.M.Hoxby(Ed.),Theeconomicsofschoolchoice(pp.23-47).Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Harris,D.N.,&Larsen,M.(2016).TheeffectsoftheNewOrleanspost-Katrinaschool
reformsonstudentacademicoutcomes.NewOrleans,LA:EducationResearchAllianceforNewOrleans.
Harwell,M.(2018).Don’texpecttoomuch:Thelimitedusefulnessofcommon
SESmeasuresandaprescriptionforchange.Boulder,CO:NationalEducationPolicyCenter.
Hendrie,C.(2005).Managersteamuptoruncharters.EducationWeek24(40),1-15.Henig,J.R.(1994).Rethinkingschoolchoice:Limitsofthemarketmetaphor.
Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Henig,J.R.,Holyoke,T.T.,Brown,H.,&Lacireno-Paquet,N.(2005).Theinfluenceof
foundertypeoncharterschoolstructuresandoperations.AmericanJournalofEducation,111(4),487-522.
Henig,J.R.,Holyoke,T.T.,Lacireno-Paquet,N.,&Moser,M.(2003).Privatization,
politics,andurbanservices:Thepoliticalbehaviorofcharterschools.JournalofUrbanAffairs,25(1),37-54.
Hertert,L.(1996).Doesequalfundingfordistrictsmeanequalfundingfor
classroomstudents?EvidencefromCalifornia.InL.O.PicusandJ.Wattenbarger(Eds.)Wheredoesthemoneygo?Resourceallocationinelementaryandsecondaryschools(pp.71-84).ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.
Hill,P.,Pierce,L.&Guthrie,J.(1997).Reinventingpubliceducation:Howcontracting
cantransformAmerica’sschools.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Hill,P&Roza,M.(2008).Theendofschoolfinanceasweknowit:Abriefhistory,
andnewdirection.EducationWeek,27(35),32,36.
116
Holmes,G.M.,DeSimone,J.,&Rupp,N.G.(2003).Doesschoolchoiceincreaseschoolquality?(WorkingPaper9683).Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.
Hoxby,C.M.(1998).WhatdoAmerica's"traditional"formsofschoolchoiceteachus
aboutschoolchoicereforms?EconomicPolicyReview,4(1),47-59.Hoxby,C.M.(2000).Doescompetitionamongpublicschoolsbenefitstudentsand
taxpayers?AmericanEconomicReview,90(5),1209-1238.Hoxby,C.M.(2001).Risingtide:Newevidenceoncompetitionandthepublic
schools.EducationNext,1(4),69-74.Huerta,L.A.&d’Entremont,C.(2010).Charterschoolfinance:Seekinginstitutional
legitimacyinamarketplaceofresources.InC.Lubienski&P.Weitzel(Eds.)Thecharterschoolexperiment:Expectations,evidence&implications(pp.121-146).Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.
Huerta,L.A.&Zuckerman,A.(2009).Aninstitutionaltheoryanalysisofcharter
schools:Addressinginstitutionalchallengestoscale.PeabodyJournalofEducation,84(3)414-431.
Imberman,S.A.(2007).Theeffectofcharterschoolsonnon-charterstudents:An
instrumentalvariablesapproach(OP-149).NewYork,NY:NationalCenterfortheStudyofPrivatizationinEducation.
InternalRevenueService.(2018).Supportingorganizations–Requirementsand
types.Retrievedfromhttps://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/supporting-organizations-requirements-and-types
Jabbar,H.(2015).“Everykidismoney”:Market-likecompetitionandschoolleader
strategiesinNewOrleans.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,37(4),638-659.
Jabbar,H.(2016).Betweenstructureandagency:Contextualizingschoolleaders’
strategicresponsestomarketpressures.AmericanJournalofEducation,122,399-431.
Johnson,F.,Zhou,L.,&Nakamoto,N.(2011).Revenuesandexpendituresforpublic
elementaryandsecondaryeducation:Schoolyear2008–09(Fiscalyear2009)(NCES2011-329).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.
Kolderie,T.(1990).Beyondchoicetonewpublicschools:Withdrawingtheexclusive
franchiseinpubliceducation.Washington,DC:ProgressivePolicyInstitute.
117
Ladd,H.&Hansen,J.(1999).Makingmoneymatter:FinancingAmerica’sschools.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress.
Levin,H.M.(Ed.)(2001).Privatizingeducation:Canthemarketplacedeliverchoice,
efficiency,equity,andsocialCohesion?Boulder,CO:Westview.Levin,H.M.(2002).Acomprehensiveframeworkforevaluatingeducational
vouchers.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,24(3),159-174.Lewis-Beck,M.S.(1980).Appliedregression:Anintroduction.NewburyPark,CA:
SagePublications,Inc.Linick,M.A.(2014).Measuringcompetition:Inconsistentdefinitions,inconsistent
results.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,22(16),1-17.LouisianaDepartmentofEducation.(2010).Louisianaaccounting&uniform
governmentalhandbook(Bulletin1929).BatonRouge,LA:OfficeofManagementandFinance.
LouisianaDepartmentofEducation.(2015a).10yearsafterHurricaneKatrina.
Retrievedfromhttps://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/about-us/10-years-after-hurricane-katrina
LouisianaDepartmentofEducation.(2015b).Enrollmentcounts.Retrievedfrom
https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/enrollment-countsLouisianaDepartmentofEducation.(2015c).NewOrleansPublicSchools
governance:2014-15Schoolyear.Retrievedfromhttp://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/katrina/nola-governance-chart-042915.pdf?sfvrsn=2
LouisianaDepartmentofEducation.(2015d).School-by-schoolfinancialdata.
Retrievedfromhttps://www.louisianabelieves.com/data/310/LouisianaLegislature.(2005).HouseBill121.FirstExtraordinarySession,Act
Number35(adoptedNovember30,2005).MacLeod,W.B.,&Urquiola,M.(2012).Competitionandeducationalproductivity:
Incentiveswritlarge(IZADiscussionPaper7063).Bonn,Germany:InstitutefortheStudyofLabor.
118
Malen,B.,Ogawa,R.T.,&Kranz,J.(1990).Whatdoweknowaboutschool-basedmanagement?Acasestudyoftheliterature-Acallforresearch.InW.H.Clune&J.F.Witte(Eds.),ChoiceandcontrolinAmericaneducationVolume2:Thepracticeofchoice,decentralizationandschoolrestructuring(pp.289-342).Bristol,PA:FalmerPress.
Marlow,M.L.(1997).Publiceducationsupplyandstudentperformance.Applied
Economics,29,617-626.Miles,K.H.,&Frank,S.(2008).Thestrategicschool:Makingthemostofpeople,time
andmoney.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.Miron,G.,&Nelson,C.(2004).Studentachievementincharterschools:Whatwe
knowandwhyweknowsolittle.InK.E.Bulkley&P.Wohlstetter(Eds.),Takingaccountofcharterschools:What'shappenedandwhat'snext?(pp.161-175).NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.
Miron,G.,&Urschel,J.L.(2010).Equalorfair?Astudyofrevenuesandexpenditures
inAmericancharterschools.BoulderandTempe:EducationandthePublicInterestCenter&EducationPolicyResearchUnit.
Miron,G.,Urschel,J.L.,&Saxton,N.(2011).WhatmakesKIPPwork?Astudyof
studentcharacteristics,attrition,andschoolfinance(OP-195).NewYork,NY:NationalCenterfortheStudyofPrivatizationinEducation.
Misra,K.,Grimes,P.W.,&Rogers,K.E.(2012).Doescompetitionimprovepublic
schoolefficiency?Aspatialanalysis.EconomicsofEducationReview,31(2012),1177–1190.
Monk,D.H.&Hussain,S.(2000).Structuralinfluencesontheinternalallocationof
schooldistrictresources:EvidencefromNewYorkstate.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,22(1),1-26.
Murnane,R.,&Levy,F.(1996).Teachingthenewbasicskills.NewYork:FreePress.Nathan,J.(1996).Charterschools:CreatinghopeandopportunityforAmerican
education.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.NationalAllianceforPublicCharterSchools.(2015).Agrowingmovement:America's
largestcharterschoolcommunities.Washington,DC:NationalAllianceforPublicCharterSchools.
Nelson,H.F.,Muir,E.,&Drown,R.(2000).Venturesomecapital:Statecharterschool
financesystems.Washington,DC:OfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovement,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.
119
Nelson,H.F.,Muir,E.,&Drown,R.(2003)Payingforthevision:Charterschoolrevenueandexpenditures.Washington,DC:OfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovement,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.
Ni,Y.(2007).Theimpactofcharterschoolsonefficiencyoftraditionalpublic
schools:EvidencefromMichigan.EconomicsofEducationReview,28(5),571-584.
Odden,A.R.,&Archibald,S.(2001).Reallocatingresources:Howtobooststudent
achievementwithoutaskingformore.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.Odden,A.R.,&Busch,C.(1998).Financingschoolsforhighperformance.San
Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.Odden,A.R.,Monk,D.,Nakib,Y.,&Picus,L.(1995).Thestoryoftheeducationdollar:
Noacademyawardsandnofiscalsmokingguns.PhiDeltaKappan,77(2),161-168.
Odden,A.R.,&Picus,L.(2000).Schoolfinance:Apolicyperspective,2ndEdition.New
York:McGrawHill.Odden,A.R.,Picus,L.,Goetz,M.,&Fermanich,M.(2006).Anevidence-based
approachtoschoolfinanceadequacyinWashington.Hollywood,CA:LawrenceO.PicusandAssociates.
OrleansParishSchoolBoard(2016).Unificationplan.Retrievedfrom
http://opsb.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Unification-Plan-Aug-30-OPSB-Approved.pdf
OrleansParishSchoolBoard(2017).Charterschoolperformanceframework.
Retrievedfromhttps://opsb.us/portfolio_office/charter-school-performance-framework/
Reckhow,S.(2010).Disseminatingandlegitimatinganewapproach:Theroleof
foundations.InK.E.Bulkley,J.R.Henig,&H.M.Levin(Eds.),Betweenpublicandprivate:Politics,governance,andthenewportfoliomodelsforurbanschoolreform(pp.277-306).Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.
RecoverySchoolDistrict(2015).EnrollNOLAannualreport.Retrievedfrom
http://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/katrina/2015-0210-annual-report-for-public-release.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Sass,T.R.(2006).CharterschoolsandstudentachievementinFlorida.Education
FinanceandPolicy,1(1),91-122.
120
Schneiberg,M.,&Clemens,E.S.(2006).Thetypicaltoolsforthejob:Researchstrategiesininstitutionalanalysis.SociologicalTheory,24(3),195-227.
Sims,P.&Rossmeier,V.(2015).ThestateofpubliceducationinNewOrleans:10
yearsafterHurricaneKatrina.NewOrleans,LA,TheCowenInstituteforPublicEducationInitiatives.
Solmon,L.,Block,M.K.,&Gifford,M.(1999).Amarket-basededucationsysteminthe
making:Charterschools.Phoenix,AZ:TheGoldwaterInstitute.Taylor,L.L.,Alford,B.L.,Rolins,K.G.,Brown,D.B.,Stillisano,J.R.,&Waxman,H.C.
(2011).EvaluationofTexascharterschools2009-2010.CollegeStation,TX:TexasEducationResearchCenter,TexasA&MUniversity.
Tiebout,C.M.(1956).Apuretheoryoflocalexpenditures.TheJournalofPolitical
Economy,64(5),416-424.Urquiola,M.(2016).Competitionamongschools:Traditionalpublicandprivate
schools.HandbookoftheEconomicsofEducation,5,209-237.Winters,M.A.(2012).Measuringtheeffectofcharterschoolsonpublicschool
achievementinanurbanenvironment:EvidencefromNewYorkCity.EconomicsofEducationReview,31,293-301.
Wohlstetter,P.,Griffin,N.C.,&Chau,D.(2002).Creatingandsustaininglearning
communities:Earlylessonsfromcharterschools.InS.Vergari(Ed.),Thecharterschoollandscape:Politics,policiesandprospects(pp.32-53).Pittsburgh,PA:UniversityofPittsburghPress.
Wohlstetter,P.,Smith,J.,&Farrell,C.C.(2013).Choiceandchallenges:Charterschool
performanceinperspective.Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.Wohlstetter,P.,&VanKirk,A.(1996).Redefiningschool-basedbudgetingforhigh
involvement.InL.O.Picus&J.L.Wattenbarger(Eds.),Wheredoesthemoneygo?Resourceallocationinelementaryandsecondaryschool(pp.212-235).NewburyPark,CA:CorwinPress.
Wohlstetter,P.,Wenning,R.,&Briggs,K.L.(1995).CharterschoolsintheUnited
States:Thequestionofautonomy.EducationalPolicy,9(4),331-358.Yin,R.K.(2003).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,
CA:SagePublications,Inc.
121
122
TableA-2HumanResourcesinTPSandCharterSchools
OrleansParish,2014-15 Allschools Orleans
ParishSchools
Non-networkcharters
Networkcharters
Allcharters
YearsofAverageExperience-Teachers
8.0 16.4 9.1 6.2 7.4
AverageSalary–Teachers($)
48,139 50,004 48,674 47,522 47,992
YearsofAvg.Experience–Pupil/Instr.Support
9.4 20.4 11.0 6.9 8.6
AverageSalary–Pupil/Instruct.Support
49,753 50,768 49,390 49,868 49,673
YearsofAverageExperience–Admin
10.8 13.5 14.1 8.3 10.6
AverageSalary–SchoolAdministration
65,149 50,641 72,574 61,969 66,295
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134