Besides being private institutions, what is the main difference between charter and public schools?

[anonymous171]

Are there some teaching techniques that only Charters can use? Are charter school teachers better trained than public school teachers? Are their students somehow smarter? Or is it all about funding? I guess what I am trying to ask is this: Why do we so desperately need to privatize our education system? Why not simply reform the current system? :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Because for profit companies need to get wealthier by opening charter schools

As for your other questions, charters are free to make their own rules. They get tax dollars but don't have to abide by state or federal regs like traditional public schools.

[anonymous171]

8. So no standardized tests?

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. It varies from state to state

The ones in my state have to test their kids. But that's not true nationwide.

[noamnety]

22. almost all states require charter schools to do standardized testing.

The exceptions:

Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, and Georgia do not require charter school students to take the same tests as other public school students.

In Hawaii, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wyoming, testing requirements are not mentioned in the legislation.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Charter schools do not have to use union labor.

Charter schools can teach alternative curiculum, such as creationism.

Bascially, Charter schools are publicly funded private schools.

Finnally, charater have been found repeatedly to have about the same rates of success and failure as public schools.

[anonymous171]

12. So why do our politicians support them?

That's what I have been trying to figure out. What would compel a politician to support such a dubious idea?

[Ozymanithrax]

14. I've never understood that.

They were created by the right to destroy teachers unions and replaced public shools with a capitalist based system.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. That's only partly true

Al Shanker, prez of AFT back in the 80s supported the creation of charter schools. He saw them as lab schools where teachers could train each other while trying innovative ideas. Then the right grabbed the idea and saw them as a way to destroy the public school systems. Shanker stopped supporting them when they warped into the model we have today.

[Hannah Bell]

because they're owned by the same people pushing charter schools:

rich people.

[Hannah Bell]

18. dupe

[drm604]

3. You're making too much sense.

That's no allowed in this country. What are you, a Fascist Nazi communist? :sarcasm:

[rucky]

4. For one, they don't have an (elected) school board to answer to.

accountability is much more difficult this way.

I think investors pushing charter schools are seeing dollar signs because they can cut corners and turn a profit on the public dime.

FWIW, I taught at one for nearly a year. It was the most horrible working experience of my life (and I've been a telemarketer before).

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Charter schools are accused of several things.

Getting PUBLIC funding for essentially a private school
being very "selective" in the quality and racial make up of the students they allow in
being able to control their own curriculum to a large extent.
If you reform the current system, you have to treat all students equally.
Neo-cons are not much in favor of that.

[Mike 03]

6. Barron's had a great article on this a few months ago.

Charter schools have very low graduation rates, higher default rates, and questionable accounting tactics.

The bottom line of this study was: do not invest in them. And that is not an auspicious sign.

[customerserviceguy]

7. I think charter schools get to kick kids out

who are not adhering to study standards, and especially behavior rules. In the public schools, they're stuck with the delinquents.

As concerned parents use available options to remove their kids from this situation, the public schools get worse. Bring back the concept of "reform school", and you'll save public school.

[noamnety]

9. Some are private, some are public

(public management, public employees, nonprofit)

The teaching methods could be used in any school, but typically they are targeted to families that want a particular style of education. So for instance, a Montessori style charter might be inappropriate to force on every family that lives within a geographic neighborhood because some families want "traditional" education techniques. But if it's offered as a school of choice, the families who go there from a range of neighborhoods have the option to pick what is socially or academically best for their child.

Another example - in some cases, charters have a focus on the arts, and do away with sports altogether. An entire district is unlikely to prioritize their program in that way because many families put a lot of emphasis on sports and athletic competitions. A charter can serve families in a number of districts who have a shared goal or interest, where the concentration within one limited neighborhood isn't high enough to support a school like that on its own.

[DefenseLawyer]

11. You really know the answer already, right? n/t

[Swamp Rat]

13. At charter schools the Principal can fire anybody at any time for any reason.

In addition, they can teach creationism, cut out art and music from the curriculum, make teachers work even longer hours for less pay, hire unqualified teachers (no degree or license necessary), more leeway to apply corporal punishment (schools can apply for state exemptions or waivers on a case by case basis - some states like Missouri have made it legal to beat children), all while earning a profit for corporate sponsors.

[noamnety]

17. refining that answer a bit

because it seems somewhat biased in that it mentions several negatives as if they only occur in charters, when in fact they occur in all types of schools.

Traditional public schools can teach creationism - that has more to do with the state the school is in than its designation as charter or not, traditional public schools can cut out art and music from the curriculum, anyone who is a teacher knows we ALL work many undocumented/unpaid hours, even charter schools fall under NCLB - and thus have immense pressure to have highly qualified (certified in their area) teachers. Every teacher at my local charter is certified in their area. Many states allow corporal punishment in traditional public schools.

And finally, roughly 10% of charters are for profit. The vast majority - the other 90% - are nonprofit, although critics often discuss charters as if the default is for them to be for profit.

[Hannah Bell]

19. only if your definition of "non-profit" excludes the for-profit management,

real-estate & curriculum arms.

if you work through the connections, more than 10% (a dubious figure anyway, because there's no national-level tracking) = for profit in some sense or another.

[noamnety]

21. That's still a small minority.

90% of charters are nonprofit.

Of those, 14-19% contract with a for profit corporation for some amount of management services.

The vast majority of charters are truly nonprofit, not for profit and not managed by for profit organizations at all, although critics continue to discuss charters as if they are mostly for profit.

[Hannah Bell]

23. 90% (by the unreliable stats of the charter school promoters) are "non-profit"

but 15-20% contract management to "for-profit" entities = up to 28% "for profit".

If you're managed for profit, you're for-profit.

and if one of your arms runs a for-profit curriculum/training operation that you *have* to buy from, that's "for-profit". because the supposedly "non-profit" operators are making profit through the back door.

so that's some more percent.

then there's the real estate scam, where the "non-profit" also has a for-profit property arm -- &, surprise, surprise -- the school must rent or lease facilities from that for-profit arm.

&, through various financial chicaneries, the "non-profit" school can wind up being liable for the debt of the "for-profit" arm.

& the percent of for-profit entities is growing.

[jody]

15. You may as well read the charter school side and compare their view with those of many DUers who are

teachers and may have other views.

Two sources are:
Center for Education Reform

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

State laws generally define "charter schools" as "public schools" and exempt charter schools from most state education laws.

I believe most charter schools receive the money for each student that would come from the state but I don't believe many if any receive money from a school district.

You'll have to read and determine the truth and falseness of various claims.

PS My mother taught, my wife taught, and my daughter in law teaches so my view is probably biased by their influence.

[Hannah Bell]

20. they absolutely *do* get funded at the district level as well as state & federal.

[jody]

24. I worded my statement poorly. I should have said nationally charter schools receive 61% of funding

of non-charter schools ranging from MO at 99% down to NH at 37%.

Do you have a source that refutes those funding statistics?

SOURCE: http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/funding/chart.htm