Can someone explain the arguments both for and against Charter Schools?

[ThomWV]

I see posts about Charter Schools all the time and I don't know a thing about the subject - in fact I don't even know what a Charter School is. So tell what they are and what the arguments for and against them are. Inform me if you would, please.

[salvorhardin]

1. The wikipedia article on this topic is actually pretty good

Charter schools in the United States are primary or secondary schools that receive public money (and like other schools, may also receive private donations) but are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.<1> Charter schools are opened and attended by choice.<2> While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition. Where enrollment in a charter school is over subscribed, admission is frequently allocated by lottery-based admissions. In a 2008 survey of charter schools, 59% of the schools reported that they had a waiting list, averaging 198 students.<3> Some charter schools provide a curriculum that specializes in a certain field—e.g., arts and mathematics. Others attempt to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

There is a good section in there on criticisms too.

The benefits touted depend on the individual school. Some schools offer things like self-paced learning, focus on particular subject areas, smaller class sizes and "innovative" teaching.

[callous taoboy]

10. What's funny is that, being free from state-mandated testing, it sounds like teachers can actually

do real / innovative teaching at charter schools.

My only big problem with charters is that they receive public monies like my public school does but they are not held accountable for their results in the same way that my school is. That is very unfair. Also, I do not want my money funding a religious education. I feel very, very strongly about that.

[salvorhardin]

13. I agree

The idea of charter schools has potential, but all too often they're a way of diverting public funds to religious education.

[Fire1]

15. AND segregated education. n/t

[elleng]

2. I'll just add to salvor's post, as to benefits: provide an option

Depending on where they are, rules, etc., they can be more or less successful.

[Fire1]

3. I can tell you 30,000 have failed. n/t

[salvorhardin]

4. Do you have a source for that statistic?

It seems improbable. In the 2007-2008 period there were only 100,000 total public schools in the country so it seems unlikely that 30,000 charter schools could have failed. I'm not a fan of charters by any means, but that stat seems way high.
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/quickfacts.asp

[Fire1]

6. Yes, it's from Diane Ravitch's latest book, "The Death and

Life of the Great American School System."

[callous taoboy]

11. Fantastic book which explains exactly how I've been feeling since NCLB came in.

[KossackRealityCheck]

5. Some "for" arguments

But first it's important to point out that the term "charter school" is applied to a bewildering array of schools that are not necessarily alike. There are several kinds. I'm referring to just one kind, but the kind that predominates in many cities.

"Charter" means something like "constitution," "compact" or "contract." In other words, the constituents for the school, parents, teachers and administrators, got together to decide how to run the school by drafting a charter.

Many city charter schools are simply schools founded by parents, teachers and administrators who are dissatisfied with underperforming local public schools. It's a chance to start something new from scratch and to innovate -- apply what works and not apply what doesn't work. They often are given classrooms in existing school buildings but are run as separate schools.

They give urban parents the same opportunities to create and manage schools that typically exist in small towns, where small local government enable parents and teachers to have much more say in how to run the local school. In New York this kind of local control was tried in the 60s through the creation of community school boards that oversaw school districts. But the boards were taken over by the political machine and became a sort of first rung in the political ladder rather than a way to improve schools.

[LWolf]

7. Charter schools are, to begin with, different in every state.

Because every state has their own laws regulating them.

Some charter schools are run by private-for-profit corporations. Some are run by private, non-profit corporations. Anyone can start a charter school, if their proposal is approved by whoever has to approve it in that state.

Some are good. Some are terrible. What they all have in common is this: they use public money to run a private school. Private in these ways: While they are reviewed periodically, and can be disbanded, they are not under the direction of the local school board. They don't have to use union labor, they don't have to abide by the contracts between local school districts and their employees, and they are exempt from many, but not all, of the laws regulating public schools. In some states, their teachers don't have to be licensed.

Another thing they have in common is this: while some may filter out students they don't want directly, all charter schools act as tools to segregate, and all can subtly, if not blatantly, turn students away or counsel them out. In other words, they don't have the same legal obligations to serve every student no matter what that public schools do. Here are some ways this works:

Some schools are designed to serve special populations, which automatically segregates them from the general population. The merits, or not, of these kinds of schools can be debated elsewhere. A limited argument can be made for some. Overall, though, segregating students from the general population is a long-term negative.

Many charter schools, drawing from a much larger area, cannot provide transportation from a whole region; parents must provide transportation themselves. This automatically segregates students by SES, which, not coincidentally, is a larger factor in student achievement than the school that student attends. Who is the most likely to be unable to transport their children themselves? The poor: those whose work hours keep them from being able to transport before and after school, those who don't own a car...

Another thing that all charter schools do: They siphon money from local school districts, leaving them with less money to keep their schools open and programs running.

I'd like to point out that I've used the words "some" and "many" when necessary, and that I have acknowledged that charters are administered differently in every state. There are some DUers who will jump aboard to argue that "their" charters "don't," without acknowledging that "their" charters aren't the only charters in the nation.

Some charters can, and do, accomplish good things. Some don't. In the big picture, though, they are tools used to privatize and to union-bust. They damage the public education system. They also set up "tiers" of education using public money, and that is anti-democratic, and anti-american. EVERY student needs equal opportunity to a high-quality education. Public school districts and schools need the same flexibility to innovate offered to charter schools, WHILE retaining enough regulation to protect students and staff. THAT wouldn't benefit the charter movement, though. If every school and district had that flexibility, there would be no need for charters.

Finally, I'd like to note that charter schools, and their defenders and promoters, insist that they ARE "public" schools. They can do this, because they use PUBLIC money. That, though, is the only way in which they are "public."

I'll stick to calling them private schools run with public money. It's more accurate.

[Starry Messenger]

9. I'm bookmarking your post.

:thumbsup:

[jpgray]

12. Excellent post

The important thing to remember is that, while they receive public funds, charter schools differ significantly from what are referred to as "public schools" in this country. By calling the former by the name of the latter, there is the implication that charters are bound by the protections and regulations which apply to wholly public schools--this may not be, and is often not, the case.

[Fire1]

14. Best summation I've seen yet. On point. n/t

[Statistical]

8. What makes it complex is that it varies from state to state.

However the general concept is they are "outside" the school districts thus a charter school isn't part of a particular school district.

The charter school receives a charter from the state to operate as a public school (hence the name). The charter specifies the conditions under which the school operates and what metrics it must meet in order to continue to operate. Anyone can propose a charter school however the more radical the concept and/or cirriculum the less likely the charter will be approved by the state. Without a charter from the state you don't have a charter school. Period.

Charter schools receive public funds. Usually it does on a per student basis. Thus states looks at education spending dividess it by the number of students and issues an equivalent amount to the charter school (based on enrollment). Generally (but not always) they are open to all students (open enrollment) however demand is VERY high in some areas (sometimes 3 applicants for each seat) thus many have lotteries each year to fairly determine which kid "gets in".

Some arguments for:
* provides choice for low income families (rich families ALWAYS have choice via private schools).
* provides competition w/ traditional district schools.
* may be the ONLY option for some poor students in bad districts to get a quality education.

Some arguments against:
* provides an alternative to district school system (and this can be bad in terms of employment, benefits, seniority, tenure, etc)
* splits funds between district schools and charter schools
* can provide an unfair comparison. While charter schools are open to everyone the district school is the default option thus it is generally parents who care strongly about their kids education (regardless of income) who go through the process to enroll in a charter.
* some (not all) charter schools are run by for profit companies.
* the track record is mixed. There are some very good schools and some horribly bad charter schools.
* potential for union busting