I was a public-school educator for 34 years. While I recognize many of public education’s shortcomings, I am a staunch supporter. More than ever, I believe that this country needs its citizenry to be more than just educated, but also critical thinkers and lifelong learners.
Our country is a representative democracy dependent on leadership, and the direction for our country is placed in the hands of our elected officials who are our politicians. In our government, all leaders are politicians, but not all politicians are leaders. That would make a majority of our government officials, politicians and not leaders. Ideally, leaders make decisions based on the needs of the people. Politicians see the same problems and make decisions based on their needs, or the needs of their political party, or the party’s special interest supporters. This holds true for both political parties.
I first became aware of the charter school movement in 2004. It was my understanding that it was determined that public schools were not meeting the needs of students and people wanted an alternative, but they felt locked in to the public school system. Private and parochial school tuition were out of reach for many of these families. If I was understanding this correctly (not always a given), it seemed to me that the movement was taking place in urban districts, or more to the point, districts that were impacted by poverty.
An easy solution would be to attract businesses to move into the multi-million-dollar arena of education. Profit could be a great motivator to the right people in order to deal with these issues. To make it more attractive many of the restraints placed on public schools were waived for charters. The reason given was that these restrictions stifled innovation and charters needed to innovate. They never relieved the public schools of those same restrictions, but still blamed them for lacking in innovation.
Of course the cost of education could be reduced with the elimination of some of the more expensive components. The cost of educating students with disabilities is always a high-ticket item, so some charter schools develop admissions’ policies or other requirement that may exclude this student population. This may be different in individual states today.
Teacher unions ensure fair pay and reasonable working hours for teachers, but charter schools can work union-free. To further make the transition easier, many politicians and business people began to target teachers and unions as the primary reason why these schools were failing. The perspective of the politicians was probably to get the costs down to make the problem more profitable for business. It had little to do with addressing the needs of schools in areas of high poverty.
Urban schools in areas of poverty have unique problems in great numbers. Most teachers are not prepared in their teacher courses to deal with the problems that they face in these schools. Problems of poverty, absenteeism, safety, hunger, violence, lack of support and overcrowding are not the topics of undergraduate education courses. They are also not the problems addressed by politicians and businesses. Business plans do not address tackling problems of education, but rather problems of profit.
In my limited and admittedly biased view of charter schools, I see them as massive siphons. They siphon money from public schools. They siphon young teachers to burn them out with long working hours and high demands. They siphon the good will and support of the public for public school teachers. They siphon any initiative to address the real problems of poverty on education. Of course this is a generalization. I am sure that there are some charter schools that are doing the right thing. If in comparing apples to apples, charter schools are not doing any better than public schools, why not concentrate on solving the problems of the public system instead of complicating the system for the sake of corporate profits?
Of course this is my limited understanding of public vs. charter schools. This is a topic that does not have a shortage of opinion. Please feel free to add yours here.
My Island View 
Have you read Getting to Bartlett Street? It presents the issues you discuss, but from the point of view of supporters and founders of charter schools. Although the book is an argument in favor of the schools, I came away from the book with the same sentiments you express. The authors raise the many points that you do, but defend their position from the opposite point of view. The book helped me to understand the politics of the movement and how charter schools can fall short, and I don’t believe the authors gave the full picture of where the blame resides. They do blame unions and politicians. Although the authors spotlight a few students who did well, the book in the end focuses more on the politics than curriculum and instruction, teaching strategies, or why the charters are any better than public schools. Yes, omission of students with disabilities from the charters at the beginning of their inception would skew data. Thus, when comparisons are drawn between the charter students’ and the public schools’ accomplishments, one has to wonder if these comparisons are even fair if a proportion of the students who attend public schools are not representative in the sample of the students in the charter schools. The comparisons ultimately are flawed due to skewed samples. Still, the book focuses more on politics than actual students’ experiences and what occurs in the classroom, which was a disappointment.
I started the book with enthusiasm, but by the second half my enthusiasm wilted. By the end of the book, I reached the same conclusion you did, which is ironic because the authors wrote the book to present charters in a positive light, whereas a critical reader would also see the problems that charters have contributed to in draining public schools and skewing research studies.
I couldn’t have said it better. This is exactly how I feel also. I have never taught in a charter school or in an urban setting, but it seems to me that charters siphon off money. I have asked fellow educators who support charter schools how this will help the students who remain in the failing public school. I never get an answer. The answer always revolves around how great it is for the students who get to leave. It seems like a band-aid approach to education instead of focusing on fixing real problems such as poverty.
I’m a former public school teacher, and feel strongly about supporting public schools. However, having taught in urban schools, I also have a hard time telling parents there to just “wait until it gets better”. If I were a parent in these school districts, I’d take any avenue that provides a way out – NOW – not when the public schools get around to fixing themselves. While choice is complicated, it’s better than no choice, especially in situations where children are not safe in their schools. This is the micro picture that I wrestle with.
On a macro level, I have bigger problems with charter schools because studies show they don’t always fix anything. I also know a variety of people who teach in charter schools, and while some can be great, they can also be terrible. It really feels like the ‘wild, wild west’, with no regulation or quality. I seriously question how the model can be sustained long term when there is such little regulation. Many charter schools are started by businessmen with little knowledge of education. While I can appreciate the sentiment, schools need to be run by educators, NOT businessmen.
So that being said, I can’t really make up my mind. On the one hand, I think it’s good for public schools to have ‘competition’ so they start caring enough to improve (I’ve seen MANY schools that are so mired in politics that they don’t care at all). On the other hand, I hate to see public schools lose funding because it hampers that very ability to improve.
Oops! Left my wrong blog address… here’s the right one… http://adventuresinelt.blogspot.com/
Tom, thank you for these observations about what I call “Partial Schools”. Obama noted last night that we need, “A Level playing field.” That should be true for how we evaluate the privatized and the public schools, but is is not. Terrible damage is being done to students because a partial education will not work for them in the long run and it certainly will not create better citizens.
I was once a believer in Charter Schools. I worked with community members to design and open the second charter in our state. Our goal was to improve public education, not get rich taking money for students and spending it on replicating what already existed while leaving out the essentials of comprehensive, interdisciplinary, fact-based curriculum. Leaving out Americanization and the dynamics that built one cohesive America.
In my book, Vital Lies: The Irrelevance Of Our Schools In the Information Age (MillennialBooks.com) I go into great detail about where we are, how we got this way, and where we need to go. I trace the charter school fiasco from its beginning. I hoped, when researching and writing the book, that it could be a format for a national dialogue about these issues. The answers/identification of all of your questions are addressed in the book.
I just returned from 52 days talking to students and discussing American education in the England, UAE, Africa, Prague, Berlin, and UK-Scotland. What I learned enhances the foundation of my understanding of our American education system and how it is being destroyed for greed and political power. All of the results so far tell me that this privatization, competition, greed-driven system is wrong and has the potential to end the American Dream for all of us.
Tom, I appreciate that you admit that your understanding is limited and that you are operating under generalizations. Other very popular and very public commentators are not as ethical and forthcoming as you.
In keeping with that spirit, I am a former charter school director, a charter school parent, and continue to be a charter school supporter. As such, I want to address a few of the points:
• At last count, the majority of charter schools in the United Stats were still non-profit. Most press, though, seems to go to the “for profit” charters. Unfortunately that generalization is incredibly damaging, as non-profit charters usually operate much differently than the others.
• While you said that the perception was that public schools “were not meeting the needs of students,” I think it is more accurate to insert the word “all” into that statement. Charters should function as an alternative for students that are not best serviced by the traditional public school offerings at their disposal. It is about choice and having options and not being forced into the cookie-cutter, industrialized model that is stifling traditional public schools and making them a poor fit for many students – both urban and suburban.
• Most new charters receive start up funding from the federal government, thereby prohibiting ANY entrance requirements or selection preference. And, in California, most charter schools receive special education services from the districts that charter them. My school, for example, had a higher special education and second language learner population than our chartering district (by percentages). We also closely mirrored the ethnic balance of our district and community.
• While, by definition, we did “siphon” our funding from our students’ home district, we were still funded at about a 20% deficit compared to traditional public schools (as determined by California’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office).
• We attracted a mix of experience levels among our faculty, and did not require extraordinary work hours outside of emergency or special situations.
• And, to address the comment above, I certainly can answer the question of how do charters benefit all students. The benefit is that families now have options that they may not have had before, and options that are not dependent on addresses, zip codes, or financial standing. If they choose not to exercise that option, at least it was there. And – ideally – traditional public schools will become less crowded and encouraged to forge a more meaningful mission, vision, and identify as a result of facing “competition” from charters.
All of that said, of course I wish that traditional public schools faced less restrictions as well. But the reality is that they do, and that the various structures that are keeping that system in place are not likely to subside any time in the near future. I didn’t feel like waiting. The parents and students in my school didn’t feel like waiting. And the teachers on my staff didn’t feel like waiting.
Charters are not perfect. Charters are not a silver bullet or a magic cure-all. But I – and many others – will continue to support the existence of choice and options and the public’s ability to forge their own solutions when they are not satisfied with the solutions that are being forced upon them. I appreciate your efforts to bring a civilized and balanced conversation forward regarding this topic, and I hope that I have contributed to that conversation in the same spirit.
In response to Dave Childers. Dave, I agree there are good people who operate charter schools. Even when I seek them out and focus on what they are doing, I find that charter schools are only partial schools duplicating resources that already exist.
Here are the questions I ask: What curriculum do you follow? Is it the standard comprehensive curriculum offered in most district schools? If not, what essential areas have you left out or modified? Using civics as an example: Do you require fact-based civics and government? In many charter schools, if civics is taught, it is a mismatch of NRA, ALEC, Fundamentalist, extreme viewpoints. I have documented some of these perverse manipulations of the Constitution and States Rights. Many charter schools are operated by those who are inculcating their particular ignorance, hate and bias.
In fact, the largest operator of charter schools in America is not an American company. How did that happen? When this kind of money is available to anyone who can put their quarter on the bar, every greed-driven, fact adverse individual or corporation can become rich off of the money allocated to children.
Where does the money go that is allocated to children in your charter school? Typically, a large amount goes to providing facilities. Often the facilities are rented from the operator of the school, paying off a mortgage for the operator. (Literally buying a building for the charter operator). Another chunk goes to teaching materials and equipment. Again, the operator may end-up owning these assets. Usually a large part of the allocated money goes to teachers salaries and benefits. Where the operators are also the teachers – whether certified, competent or effective – money is siphoned-off to the operators.
Typically, only blocks away from a charter school is a publicly owned, elected governance, public school. The public school has facilities, equipment, playing fields, arts and performance areas, certified and non-certified staff, accountability, and the responsibility to serve every child. If that system is clunged-up, is what you are doing better in your charter, imported back into the district school? Does your charter school end and merge back into the district school? That was the original idea behind charter schools. They were never intended to be stand-alone businesses that were alternatives in public education.
Yes, the charter school concept was hijacked. Yes, the level of theft and the access to children and public tax dollars given to unqualified and often greed-driven nuts, has destroyed the American Dream for thousands of kids.
The bottom-line is: Our energy must go into improving our district schools for all kids. Giving access to our education tax dollars to ideologues and greed-driven corporations does not improve American Education. Where there are charter schools that have created better ways of educating, their knowledge must be directed back into the district schools.
Ed- I understand your viewpoint about the innovation being directed back toward the public schools – and that would be great – but the fact that it doesn’t happen is not a fault or function of the charter school. It is a combination of the restrictions that exist that stifle innovation in traditional public schools, as well as a general disinterest on the part of most districts to embrace the charter school methods. And, again, when I speak of charters I speak of independent, organic charters – not corporate or for-profit charters. I wish there was more effort to differentiate between the two, because they are vastly different.
[…] I was a public-school educator for 34 years. While I recognize many of public education’s shortcomings, I am a staunch supporter. More than ever, I believe that this country needs its citizenry to … […]
Sadly, charter schools have spread over to the UK as ‘Academies’ and now ‘Free Schools’. I say sadly because all they appear to be is a way of privatising the education system, into the hands of a few ‘corporations’ who can employ whoever they want, under whatever conditions they feel appropriate. What is more, the excuse they give for what is in effect cost cutting, is that is best for the children. I still can’t see how employing cheaper, less qualified staff, expecting them to work harder and longer, will magically make students into academic stars. Maybe I am just too old and cynical…
However
Check out this story about the human cost of this… and yes it is the Church of England who have set up this free school.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19468076