Charter Schools - Ok for some, not a model for all (repost)

Freedom of choice. Our democracy is founded upon the ideals of freedom and the right to choose what is in our best interest. It is a fundamental right and one that we have fought for many times over the years. Whether it is the god we choose to worship (or not) or the means by which we can express ourselves, freedom of choice is foundational. Yet, in the realm of education, choice has always been severely limited. During the infancy of this nation and throughout its history, there have only been limited choices in the institutions of education.
The system of education replicated from the European model of classical studies became the basis of learning here. Schools were erected on the prairie and in the cities to pass on religious values and traditions. The growth of a public school model took many years to spread and the curriculum changed with the times. Yet, the choices have remained few; public or private.
Private schools are outside the auspices of public (taxes) funding and the curriculum is aligned with the founder’s goals. These schools can be either secular or religious. They service only that portion of the population that can afford the tuition and therefore are exclusionary. They can restrict access on whatever grounds they believe the applicant is not a good ‘fit’. Homeschooling is an option for some, yet it is a difficult process for someone not trained in education, has a built in expense of materials and is very time consuming to engage individual students(s) one on one for an entire school day. What remains is a public education system that is state and government regulated and provides professionally trained educators. Public schools cannot restrict access to anyone.
The public system has many flaws and as the political whims of the nation swing back and forth concerning ‘the whys’ and ‘the who’s’ to blame, this system educates the majority of Americans. Yet, seeking a choice between private schools and public schools has not been an option until recently. The push for charter schools as a solution to the nation’s ‘failing’ public school system has been gaining momentum. People have clamored for a choice and the private sector has responded. Privatized schools that are ‘public’ (taxes) yet are managed privately – either through a for-profit or a non-profit organization (Educational Management Organizations-EMO) are spreading throughout the country and rapidly in New Jersey. But is this choice an equal one? Are we comparing ‘apples to apples’?
One of the key differences between charter schools and traditional public schools is their regulatory freedom and autonomy (in terms of staffing, curriculum choices, and budget management), which they receive in exchange for their charters being reviewed and renewed or revoked by the authorizing agency. Charter schools tout their success stories as not only an alternative to public education but the solution to our public education woes. Yet, in many instances, charter schools perform at a rate equal to or below their public school rivals. Policy makers continue to point to these schools as the preferred model (lack of union teachers also a consideration?). Closer examination of the data reveals that in many instances, the schools have not operated long enough to provide meaningful data. The results are skewed in other ways as well:
· Parents that place their children in an alternative setting are more involved in their child’s academic future and by nature, their children will perform better.
· Charter Schools have a high attrition rate of students that drop out of the charter school and return to the public school system.
· Charter schools only serve a small percentage of exceptional students – whereas the public school system reports AYP with data from all areas of the student population.
Charter schools have been successful in many places, especially in economically depressed, low income regions. EMO’s seek to spread schools into areas that have a history of successful schools and dilute dwindling state funding. Suburban school districts are facing the challenges of competing with charter schools and fighting for whatever trickle of funding dollars that is still coming out of Trenton. This battle is being held in both the northern and southern areas of the state. The Governor’s push for charter schools is seen more as a political maneuver to defund public schools and divide the union rank and file.
The Center for Public Education has determined that it is too early to tell whether the charter school model is effective. It certainly is not a panacea. If a parent is looking for a viable and effective alternative to a low performing public school, then a charter school might be an option. But policy makers looking to charter schools in order to revamp, reform or reduce the public school system need to take a closer look. The successes of charter school are based upon a population of students that are not equal to the same students that come to the classroom when a public school opens its doors.
• Charters should be an option. But they shouldn't be allowed to crop up where they aren't needed and reduce valuable state funds from good schools.
• The state of New Jersey needs to provide better oversight of charters, monitoring their academic performance, management, and financial practices.