Locke spends significantly more than nearby schools. As described here, "progress is coming at considerable cost: an estimated $15 million over the planned four-year turnaround, largely financed by private foundations. That is more than twice the $6 million in federal turnaround money that the Department of Education has set as a cap for any single school." Those costs pay for extra overhead of smaller schools and two psychologists and two social workers.

Refer again to More with Less or More with More & Why it Matters!.

There's no shame in spending more to provide a better education especially to high-needs students. But, without factoring spending into the discussion, promoting Green Dot as a model, is disingenuous. In fact, given how much more they spend, I seriously wonder whether regular public schools could've done even better with the extra money (either raised scores more with the same extra money or raised scores the same for more kids).

At a high-level, this kind of charter promotion looks like a bait and switch, or what I refer to as "success theater". A small percentage of charters is propped up (with extra funds) to show success and pave the way for charter expansion. A much larger percentage of charters don't get such funding benefits and tend to do no better and often worse than regular public schools. And, worse, the expansion of charters undermines regular public schools. So, the overall effect is a worse education especially for most students most in need.