on charter schools

If you are unfamiliar with the nuances of charters, you are sorely behind in understanding education in the United States. When I tell people that I work at a charter, they sometimes ask me to explain what exactly a charter is. I usually answer with something like, "It's a public private school: students apply to go, but it's free." I usually use the word "choice." If there are more applicants than available seats, the school is required to hold a lottery.



Money
More specifically, charter schools operate on the idea that every child is eligible for a certain amount of federal money and families should be able to take that money and patronize whatever school they choose. The charter exchanges some money and benefits associated with the public school system in exchange for autonomy from rules as regulations imposed on regular public schools.

In the charter where I work, we are always short of money. Teachers are paid about $10K less than public school teachers, educational resources are sparse, and money for special services is hard to find. Yesterday, a mother came to the school to fill out an application for her son who is entering Kindergarten with some very serious needs. I talked to him for about a minute and all I could think was, we are not equipped to educate this child. For example, our speech therapist only comes in once every two weeks. She typically meets with students for 10-15 minutes. This young boy couldn't pronounce his name. Yet legally we are not allowed to turn him away, so he will be entered into the lottery.

Theory
When charter schools were first conceived in the late 1980s, the purpose was to set up laboratory schools outside of the regular education system. Superior veteran teachers would be recruited to work with students who were not successful in the regular system. Then, teachers would be able to come in and observe new ways of educating the most challenging students.

Reality
Since the first charter school laws were passed in the 1990s, the number of schools has rapidly increased, and the theory behind them has rapidly changed. Under No Child Left Behind, failing schools could convert to charters as one method of restructuring. Many of the big players in education are proponents of charter schools (Obama, Arne Duncan, Jean-Claude Brizard, Michelle Rhee, etc.).

However, the purpose of charters has changed drastically. Now, when community schools are failing they are often shut down. Charters move in as an alternative. Some districts, such as New Orleans, are almost entirely charter. Most advocates of charters believe that we should convert the entire education system over to charter schools to create a free market in which parents are the consumers.

In the words of Diane Ravitch:

Closing a school should be only a last resort and an admission of failure, not by the school or its staff, but by the educational authorities who failed to provide timely assistance.  

Our schools will not improve if we entrust them to the magical powers of the market. Markets have winners and losers. Choice may lead to better outcomes or worse outcomes.