Charter schools and district schools are both public schools serving public school students and operating within the same public education ecosystem. For nearly as long as charter schools have been in existence, there has been concern about how these innovative public schools that generally sit outside the jurisdiction of the school district might potentially impact other public schools that sit within the school district--or even cause harm to the district itself. One of the most common misperceptions of charter schools is that they take financial resources from the local school district, thereby causing a negative "fiscal impact" on the district and hurting the overall public education system. This report discusses Rhode Island law on the relevance of public charter schools' "fiscal impact" on school districts as a basis for limiting charter growth. Following a brief summary of the status of public charter schools and the relevance of their 'fiscal impact' under Rhode Island law, the report briefly lists arguments school districts and others make on this basis for resisting charter growth, then outlines a series of affirmative and responsive legal and policy reasons why arguments of this sort should not generally block charter growth in the state. Facts, data, arguments, and citations supporting analysis in the main body of the report are laid out in greater detail in appendices cross-referenced at the end of paragraphs of the report. While this report is a deep dive into the specifics of Rhode Island's charter sector, many of the fiscal impact arguments and rebuttals made are also relevant in other states.