An Alternative to Public Schools: The Debate over Charter Schools

The concept of a Charter School began in New England during the 1970’s.  An educator by the name of Ray Budde suggested that groups of teachers be given contracts or “charters” by their local schools boards to explore new approaches to teaching and education.  According to the Public School Review, Charter Schools were a step in a much needed school reform direction.  Advocates of Charter Schools saw this new reform as a opportunity for choice and responsibility not only for the students but for all involved- teacher, administrators, and parents.  Philadelphia, Minnesota, and California were among the first places where Charter Schools were instated showing success in what they stood for- an effective alternative to the standard public school in the district giving students a choice in the education.

Charter Schools are public schools that are funded through the district in which they are located.  Districts were Charter Schools are located must pay per-pupil to the Charter School to maintain the expectation of a free public education.  One of the strongest arguments against Charter Schools involves the delegation of funds from a district to the Charter School.  According to research studies on the location of Charter Schools, they typically open up in low SES areas with struggling schools.  While the intention of a Charter School may be warranted- offering students another learning venue, these Charter Schools are taking money away from the struggling school, creating an even worse situation for the original public school.

Charter Schools tend to give more authority to the teachers and students to make decisions concerning their education.  While I agree that a school is everyone’s domain and that decisions should be a collective democracy, I also believe in structure in a school system and hierarchy.  There are some decisions that must be made from administration- with suggestions from teachers and students. Charter schools are typically free to hire or fire personnel, design curriculum, and promote specific values.  Each specific charter may vary, because each state has different education laws and each charter school is designed to be unique in focus or student clientele- e.g. focus on math, science, or the arts. However, all charters describe school goals, how the school will be run, the amount of public money it will receive, and the degree of freedom it will be given.  Instead of being accountable for compliance with state rules and regulations that public schools are under, Charter Schools are accountable for academic results and for upholding their charter.

An article posted by education.com describes Charter Schools as addressing the needs to individual community needs where the charter is enforced.  Less regulation means there are many different kinds of charter schools.  Charter schools may serve gifted students, low-income families, or religious communities.  By serving a specific type of student, the diversity gap widens among schools.  Educators and politicians argue about whether it is good to have large differences between schools.

In closing, the debate over Charter Schools is growing on the state and federal level.  The current presidential team and the federal department of education is taking a closer look at the effectiveness of Charter Schools and whether or not students are benefiting from them.  As global competition becomes a reality, it is important that all schools- public, charter, and private graduate well rounded citizens who can become innovators of the future.  It is a waste of time and energy to run schools that do not produce.