Are Charter Schools Controversial Where You Live?

[JumpyTheFrog]

I don't get it. People easily accept federal grants being used at private colleges, but yet charter schools are controversial.

 

I was just reading an editorial about the charter schools in the next district over. Almost 13% of students in that district attend one. The editor is upset for two reasons:

 

1) Loss of money to the public schools, although it seems like he's ignoring however much the district saves in not needing as many schools or teachers. He mentioned how much the charter schools get per student and I'd bet that it's less than what the distict spends per public schooled student.

 

2) Charter schools don't have to provide bussing or free/reduced lunch. He called this "segregation." There are state colleges that are largely filled with poor students and others that are more moddle-class but people don't call it "segregation" to allow the money to follow the student. What is so different that one is acceptable and the other is seen as secretly rascist?

[JumpyTheFrog]

Okay, I looked it up. The charter schools get $3100 per student. That district pays $9600 per student in regular public schools.

[Ellie]

I don't get it. People easily accept federal grants being used at private colleges, but yet charter schools are controversial.

 

I was just reading an editorial about the charter schools in the next district over. Almost 13% of students in that district attend one. The editor is upset for two reasons:

 

1) Loss of money to the public schools, although it seems like he's ignoring however much the district saves in not needing as many schools or teachers. He mentioned how much the charter schools get per student and I'd bet that it's less than what the distict spends per public schooled student.l

 

2) Charter schools don't have to provide bussing or free/reduced lunch. He called this "segregation." There are state colleges that are largely filled with poor students and others that are more moddle-class but people don't call it "segregation" to allow the money to follow the student. What is so different that one is acceptable and the other is seen as secretly rascist?

 

Not yet. Mainly because there aren't very many charter schools in Texas (at least, not where I live).

 

Of course, in some states, you have to specify whether it's a campus-based charter school, with students who physically attend daily, or home-based charter schools, where the children stay home and their parents facilitate their learning, and then you further have to specify whether the parents use textbooks and whatnot (which they usually acquire through some sort of stipend) or it's an Internet-based charter that uses K12 or Connections. Whew!

 

Yeah, not a simple discussion.

[SKL]

I don't get it either.  If kids are learning, what is the problem?

 

They are not controversial in my neck of the woods.

 

There are many minority children attending charter schools in my neck of the woods.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I am only referring to campus-based charter schools.

[JumpyTheFrog]

This is the second article I've read in the last week complaining that charter schools "aren't fair" to poor people.

[Ellie]

I am only referring to campus-based charter schools.

 

Then I don't see why people should get their knickers twisted. o_0 I don't understand how they wouldn't be "fair" to poor people.

[SKL]

This is the second article I've read in the last week complaining that charter schools "aren't fair" to poor people.

 

It's politics.

 

[nerdybird]

Charters schools do not have a big presence where I live.

 

That being said, I do not compare most charters to private colleges. They are more like for-profit colleges and career schools, imo.

 

I believe that they are unfair in that if a charter school loses funding, or the backers decide that the venture isn't profitable or worthwhile, they can just shut down and move on. What happens to the kids then? They have to go into public schools or transfer to another charter. Or maybe hope to get a voucher if their district allows it. It's not fair in that sense.

 

One of my cousins was in an ROTC charter when he was in middle school. The program closed at the end of his seventh grade year, no warning. Fortunately, his grandparents were able to afford for him to go to a private Lutheran school for 8th and 9th grades until he was eligble for enrollment in a Naval training program at a public ROTC school. If they hadn't have had the resources, he would have been shuffled back into the ps system and probably wouldn't have gotten the grades that allowed him to qualify for ROTC enrollment his sophomore year.

 

Another cousin is up against the wall with her daughter next year. They want to put her in a charter school. It's lottery based though and if she doesn't get in, they will have to put her in a Catholic or Lutheran school since the schools where they live are not accredited by our state. Private school is expensive unless you qualify for scholarships and such.

 

Ultimately, it is politics. Public education is supposed to be for the greater good of the public, but it rarely is, imo.

[City Mouse]

In the Houston area, there are two "chain" charter schools that have been shown to be very successful-Kipp Academy and Harmony schools. KIPP Academy was founded specifically for "at-risk" kids, so I don't see how that is unfair to low income families. The big deal with these two are that they both require more (time and study) from families than the regular public schools can, so families that don't agree with the philosophy are asked to take their kids elsewhere.

However , there have been several charter schools with poor results and/or criminal mismanagement that have made the news.

Beyond the political issue of taking money away from the local school district, there are valid concerns with the results of some schools.

 

Where I live now, there is not any controversy with brick amd mortar charter schools that I have heard as they are either in higher population areas or areas that are under served by traditional schools. On-line charter schools are relatively new here and very controversial.

[Crimson Wife]

There is a local Montessori charter school that we applied to a few years ago when it looked like we might not be able to continue to HS. Several of the policies seemed to me to be explicitly designed to keep out the less affluent students in the area (poor by Bay Area standards, probably not below the Federal poverty line).

 

#1. Parents are expected to donate $1000 AND volunteer at least 10 hours per month per child. Legally this wouldn't be an enforceable requirement but just the mention of the expectation during the tour might be enough to scare off many lower-income families.

 

#2. The school does not offer kindergarten. So families that do not have their children in a private preschool offering a kindergarten class (most of the ones in the area do) and who are unable or unwilling to HS for K would need to have their kids change schools twice in 2 years.

 

#3. No cafeteria offering hot lunches so no free or reduced price lunches.

 

#4. No school buses (the PS don't either except for special ed students) and the school is located in a wealthy neighborhood without easy access to public transit.

 

#5. None of the paperwork was bilingual the way all the district paperwork is. If the parent isn't fluent in English, he/she would have to find someone who is to help fill it out.

 

#6. To be in the application lottery, a parent has to spend 2 hours observing a class, and obviously that has to happen during the normal school day. If the parent cannot afford to take the time off of work to do the observation, the child cannot be in the lottery.

 

The whole school just left me feeling like they were trying to do everything they could legally do to keep out the hoi polloi. I was probably a bit sensitive as DH was between permanent positions at the time and we were struggling financially on what little he was making on consulting jobs.

[SKL]

I believe that they are unfair in that if a charter school loses funding, or the backers decide that the venture isn't profitable or worthwhile, they can just shut down and move on. What happens to the kids then? They have to go into public schools or transfer to another charter. Or maybe hope to get a voucher if their district allows it. It's not fair in that sense.

 

I don't understand how this is a fairness issue.  A child got a chance to pursue an alternative education thought better than public school for him/her.  Even if it is temporary, how is it worse than having had no choice other than public for that period of time?  Surely the parents know that there is no guarantee that the school will operate until the child graduates.  Even public schools close and redistrict etc. etc. (or adopt Common Core or change graduation requirements) and the families are stuck with the results.

[stripe]

I think of them as being controversial, but they don't seem to be very controversial around here. However, my local charter schools' test scores are not actually very great. I looked at some of them and was shocked (!) at how not great they were, especially given the proud parents with kids enrolled there! I mean like less than 40% qualified in math. And I am not sending my kids to school to be taught by someone with less math education than I have.

[SKL]

 

I also think a lot of people find the concept of public funds going to for profit companies unsavory.  Especially when we are talking about schools. 

 

Every contractor that does work for a school, from the construction crew to the milk delivery truck, is a for profit company.  So are most of the contractors that work for every other government-funded enterprise, including the White House and Congress.  So that doesn't seem to be a logical complaint against charter schools.

 

[SKL]

Well yes, but really who wants their kid to be in a different school every other year?  I don't think that's ideal.  Especially if you are dealing with schools who each may have very different philosophies and approaches. 

 

I'm sure it's the exception rather than the rule.  But it isn't the end of the world for a child to change schools.  It happens all the time.  If people cared about it being unfair, then they would never allow school systems to redistrict etc.

 

[SKL]

I am not saying I necessarily believe what I am about to say, but one of my former high school teachers has written several articles about why charters are bad. I can see some of what he's saying, but don't agree necessarily with all of it. Basically, charters pull money from the other schools, as well as students whose parents are most interested in their education. Those who are left may have more disinterested parents, and consequently, those children who are left will do even worse than they otherwise might have with the postive influence of the children of interested parents. It's the same argument for leaving gifted children in the regular classroom. They'll lift up the others. My former teacher is interested in the greater good of all children, and not the individual good for one parent's child. There are also complaints about wasting money and about charters being ineffective with actually raising the all important test scores, etc. I am sure there is fraud and abuse, as there is in regular public schools.

 

As the parent of both a high achiever and an average one, I might prefer for my average kid's class to be full of average kids so she didn't look like an underachiever just because some kids are overachievers.  I would prefer for the teacher to have some time to teach less gifted kids at the level they are at, which might be more likely to happen if the high achievers went somewhere else.

 

[stripe]

Every contractor that does work for a school, from the construction crew to the milk delivery truck, is a for profit company.  So are most of the contractors that work for every other government-funded enterprise, including the White House and Congress.  So that doesn't seem to be a logical complaint against charter schools.

 

In my area, I observe a big interest in outsourcing things like janitorial services. On the other hand, a 14 year old girl was recently sexually assaulted by a janitorial staff member [outsourced from a private company] who had a prison record AND a history of sexual abuse when he was hired. Maybe schools would have done a better job at keeping out violent offenders from the staff, but who knows.

[SKL]

What is an overachiever?  Someone who works hard is uncool, icky, and belongs elsewhere?  WOW

 

I was just trying to be brief.  I think people know what it means.  Someone like my younger daughter, who academically doesn't belong in 2nd grade but is chronologically too young for a higher grade.

 

I was trying to say that not everyone agrees that forcing the high achievers to be in the regular classroom is necessarily *better* for the average kids.

 

I happen to have both of my kids in the same class (by choice).  I was just making the point that sacrificing the gifted to "raise up" the average is not necessarily as kind as some people think it is - to either party.

 

It really goes back to politics, if we're honest.

 

[ondreeuh]

They are everywhere here! Our school district has:

 

Core Knowledge K-8, longer day, ability-grouped for math and LA, Spanish and TKD

Middle College. 11-12th grade duel enrollment school.

Standards-based 2-12, Core Knowledge, lots of computer-based courses

Russian Old Believer K-12, up in a separate community, 21 students

Waldorf K-8

Spanish Immersion K-8

Correspondence School. K-12, minimal on-site classes, stipend, teacher support

Day School that has zero information on their website - I think it is for kids with behavior issues who have been expelled.

Secondary School for incarcerated kids.

Core Knowledge K-8 with multi-age classrooms. They don't call themselves Montessori but I think there is some influence.

Homeschool-PS hybrid. K-12. Stipend, lots of on-site classes, teacher support

Career & Tech high school

Small class size high school - individualized instruction, focuses on remediation and acceleration.

 

Then there are programs run by other districts in the state that have local offices. I an enroll with a school district a thousand miles away and get a stipend, teacher support, lending library, etc.

 

 

[Farrar]

They are sort of controversial where I live, but now about half the students in my district attend charter schools, so they are a HUGE presence.  No public schools provide bussing here and many of the charters (most?) do provide free lunch.  The bigger issues here have been around the teacher's unions, but with so many kids in charters and the rise of the power of the charters, they're mostly at a detante now.

 

I think how the charter debate unfurls depends so much on individual districts and what type of charters end up being actually built.  In some districts, charters have been a way for white, middle class families to create their own "academy" that doesn't serve poor populations well.  In other districts, they've become places where poorer minority families have tried to escape the lack of education their kids are receiving in the ps, only to end up in a similar situation in the charters, but with less funding per pupil.

 

And, of course, they can also be controversial because they sometimes represent the interests of for profit companies.  They also sometimes are fronts for religious groups, which is obviously controversial.  And while sometimes the charters do a good job for less money, they sometimes do it at the expense of paying teachers a living wage or having decently equipped buildings, so that can be controversial.

 

I think one of the basic ideas behind the charter school movement was to give parents choice in education.  However, in many districts, there's only one or two charters and if a student doesn't fit their profile, then it's no choice at all.  One of the reasons charters have worked here is that in an urban, high-density district, you can actually have a marketplace of charter schools.  If I wanted my kids to attend ps, we would have to go into a lottery, but we'd be able to choose to apply to Spanish or Chinese immersion schools, Montessori schools, schools with missions grounded in volunteer work, experiential learning schools, high intensity study schools, schools specifically for kids from impoverished backgrounds, schools with extensive aftercare programs and more.

 

[OneStepAtATime]

There are several charter schools that have sprung up in our area.  One in particular is quite popular.  It was set up specifically to give all kids a chance to go to college since there are a lot of under performing kids in our area.  Many are below the poverty line.  There are also a lot of wealthy people and upper middle class.  Resources are not terribly evenly distributed, and there are some pretty awful schools here.  It goes from kinder thru 12th and they start taking even 5th graders on limited tours of colleges in the area, branching out to colleges further afield by high school to encourage a desire to go.  To graduate, as I understand it, you have to have applied to several colleges and been accepted to at least one.  The school works hard to help students get scholarships and encourages and assists students and their parents with carefully considering which schools would be the most financially feasible while still giving the student a good education in their potential field.

 

The charter school has now branched out into other cities.  Parents have to sign a contract agreeing to support their child with certain very specific guidelines, but the school is willing to work with the parent if both parents work or it is a single parent situation (which happens a lot here).  You don't pay to get in but it is popular so you have to get on a waiting list.  Uniforms are required but not very costly.  The school has a zero tolerance policy for bad behavior.  For instance. the second day of school at the high school level a new student tried to sell drugs to two other students.  All three were caught and the student trying to sell drugs was arrested at the school and walked down the hallway in front of all the other highschoolers, who were told to sit there watching.  The other two were also walked down the hallway and expelled.  Afterwards, the principal told the other students those three kids had tossed away a great opportunity.  He asked if anyone else wanted to chunk theirs and if so, please leave now.

 

They also expelled two students because their mothers got into a fist fight over a parking space right in front of a kindergarten P.E. class.  That type of behavior on campus breaks the code of conduct that all parents are required to sign.

 

The charter school actually receives a lot less funding that the normal public schools in our area.

 

The charter school is popular, and they claim to have a 100% acceptance rate for kids applying to colleges.  I have friends whose kids have gone through this school and love it.  But this charter has not been without controversy.  A teacher was arrested for molestation, there have been some questions about the funding, etc.  And when they opened up a new one near our home, we applied and got DS in.  He was really excited because the established ones had a great reputation.  However, at least for the one he went to, the experience was honestly nightmarish.  They were terrible poorly organized, they kept losing students, the librarian actually told the brand new students that they were untrustworthy and she wasn't going to let them even touch a book until they could prove they wouldn't mess them up, there was a lot of yelling and not a lot of learning, kids were frequently belittled and insulted, etc.  We pulled him out after two weeks.

 

I don't really understand the financial structure of charters, though.  Are each of them run differently?

[MarkT]

.  For instance. the second day of school at the high school level a new student tried to sell drugs to two other students.  All three were caught and the student trying to sell drugs was arrested at the school and walked down the hallway in front of all the other highschoolers, who were told to sit there watching.  The other two were also walked down the hallway and expelled.  Afterwards, the principal told the other students those three kids had tossed away a great opportunity.  He asked if anyone else wanted to chunk theirs and if so, please leave now.

 

They also expelled two students because their mothers got into a fist fight over a parking space right in front of a kindergarten P.E. class.  That type of behavior on campus breaks the code of conduct that all parents are required to sign.

 

 

A school with some backbone.

 

[regentrude]

No. Because there are no charter schools in a 100 mile radius.

[Bootsie]

There are not many charter schools where I live (in Texas).  Here many of the charter schools are filled with students that the public schools do not want.  I have heard of many situations where parents are called into the public school when a child is either a disciplinary problem or behind grade level.  The principal tells the parents that the charter school would be much better at meeting the needs of the child.  This way the school does not have to handle the problems if it is discipline related and the child's standardized test scores aren't included in the school's test scores.

 

In other parts of the country, I have heard of just the opposite happening--the parents with the resources to drive their kids to a school, etc., often leaving the public school district with a more challenging set of students to educate.  

 

The charter schools threaten the power of the school districts and the employment of those working for the school districts.  This employment factor can be huge.  My cousin did a study of the employment of school districts in one state and found that the school district was the largest employer in every county in the state except two.  

[MarkT]

Charters are mostly non-controversial in AZ. 

 

1)

Maybe a few PS Elementary schools shutdown because of an overall lower PS enrollments.  They are more popular at the K-8 level because the extracurricular activities at that age are parent funded anyways but later on a lot of kids want to go to the regular high schools for the sports, band, drama club, etc which the charter schools really can't afford because of their size.

 

 

2)  That is why they get less money per pupil (and that is the correct posture). My gifted son goes to a charter where the additional costs are almost zero. My special-needs son goes to regular public school. The charter school rules and regs could never be followed by my IEP son. He requires a one on one aide to get through each day without hurting himself or others.

 

 

What's disappointing is that more specialty charters don't exist such as for Arts and Music.  A friend of mine has a daughter who is gifted in music but not so much in other areas.  She did not do well at my son's accelerated charter.  She would have been more motivated to study her history lessons if it also meant losing the individual music studies program such as piano (this course does not exist). They withdrew her.

[Butter]

There aren't very many charter schools around here yet, but the number is growing.  I haven't noticed that they are controversial.  They are really into school choice around here and there are magnets that out of district (but in county) students can go to.  Many of the kids my daughter attends school with (creative writing magnet program) are from out of district.  The in-district kids get bused from the high school they would attend normally, but the out-of-district kids don't technically have bus service and get driven (some are driven to the closest in-district high school rather than all the way to the high school - no one really cares if they do that).  I suspect that because of that the busing issue with charters isn't a big issue in most people's eyes.  The schools here are considered very good so most people just stay at their regular public school rather than choosing to go to one of the few charters or a magnet.

[Crimson Wife]

I am not saying I necessarily believe what I am about to say, but one of my former high school teachers has written several articles about why charters are bad. I can see some of what he's saying, but don't agree necessarily with all of it. Basically, charters pull money from the other schools, as well as students whose parents are most interested in their education. Those who are left may have more disinterested parents, and consequently, those children who are left will do even worse than they otherwise might have with the postive influence of the children of interested parents. It's the same argument for leaving gifted children in the regular classroom. They'll lift up the others. My former teacher is interested in the greater good of all children, and not the individual good for one parent's child.

This is not an argument I find at all compelling. It's the same B.S. attempted guilt trip that I've been hearing ever since we decided to HS.

 

What I think *IS* a legitimate criticism is when the school implements policies that are discriminatory on the basis of finances rather than parental involvement. Parents with low-to-moderate incomes can be very pro-education and determined to see their kids succeed academically.

 

If you're a snob who wants your precious little snowflake go to school only with other rich kids, there are plenty of private schools in the area.

[stripe]

They are sort of controversial where I live, but now about half the students in my district attend charter schools, so they are a HUGE presence.  

Wow! I looked it up, in my county, it's apparently 11%.

 

I wonder how it is in big cities (like DC) where the public schools have a bad reputation. According to an article I read that cited a report by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Detroit and New Orleans are the two cities where more than half of public school students attend charter schools. DC, Detroit, and New Orleans seem to have something very obvious in common: a majority black population.  I found an interesting article from Jackson, MS here, because apparently there aren't any in Mississippi (or weren't at the time of the article, in May 2012). 

[mommymilkies]

The closest one to me is like 3+ hours away, so no they aren't controversial. lol

[Butter]

 

I wonder how it is in big cities (like DC) where the public schools have a bad reputation.

 

Apparently 44%, higher than any major city other than New Orleans.

 

http://focusdc.org/charter-facts

[umsami]

We have lots of charters here in Florida.  As far as I can tell, they are not controversial as they come under the local school district.  They do provide bus services, and reduced/free lunches as well.  Follow the district calendar.  Use the state standardized test.

[Ellie]

 

 

Another cousin is up against the wall with her daughter next year. They want to put her in a charter school. It's lottery based though and if she doesn't get in, they will have to put her in a Catholic or Lutheran school since the schools where they live are not accredited by our state. Private school is expensive unless you qualify for scholarships and such.

 

 

 

Why does it matter whether or not the schools are accredited??

[wapiti]

They are not controversial in our district, where there are about a dozen (B&M), plus some other types of alternative schools.  I can't say I'm a fan of for-profit types of operations though I don't have a lot of familiarity with them - I don't think there are any of those in our district.

[maize]

I don't think they are controversial in my area. There are several charter schools around, I thnk people like having options.

[nerdybird]

Accreditation is a big deal in my state because several of the larger districts have lost it over the past decade or so. It doesn't matter so much at the elementary level, but at the high school level it is a huge deal. The diplomas are worthless.

 

 

[Mergath]

They're not at all controversial here.  Of course, Minnesota was the first state to have them, with the first one opening back in '91, so we've had plenty of time to get over it. ;)  The small town I grew up in even had one back when I was in high school, for struggling students who couldn't handle the regular school.  They're just another school option around here, like private schools or homeschooling.

[stripe]

Apparently 44%, higher than any major city other than New Orleans.

 

http://focusdc.org/charter-facts

From a Washington Post article

 

According to the non-profit organization [National Alliance for Public Charter Schools], 79 percent of public school students in New Orleans attended charters in the last school year, followed by 51 percent in Detroit, 43 percent in D.C., 36 percent each in Flint, Mich. and Kansas City, Mo. and 35 percent in Gary, Ind.

 

And some very interesting charts at 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/11/the-10-school-districts-with-the-most-charter-school-students/

[JumpyTheFrog]

I was googling today and came across somebody claiming that charter schools are "biased" against kids whose parents don't understand how to apply to the lottery system. Sheesh!

[Farrar]

I was googling today and came across somebody claiming that charter schools are "biased" against kids whose parents don't understand how to apply to the lottery system. Sheesh!

 

Well, I don't know of a better way to do it than by lottery, but why don't you think that's true?  If you're a parent who speaks limited English or who never graduated from school yourself, then you could be at a disadvantage in getting your child into a competitive charter school.  Whereas before the charters, the school would have made the decisions and you didn't need to think about it.  Some districts have people whose job it is to help parents fill out these forms and reach out to communities that may need more support in applying and navigating these options and therefore try to eliminate this bias.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Well, I don't know of a better way to do it than by lottery, but why don't you think that's true? If you're a parent who speaks limited English or who never graduated from school yourself, then you could be at a disadvantage in getting your child into a competitive charter school.

I think the author meant that a lottery is biased against parents who can't handle signing up by the deadlone. It seems reasonable to make some accommodations for non-native speakers. But to get rid of charter schools because some parents are too disorganized to apply in time? That seems like "If everyone can't be from a family that applies in time, then nobody should have the opportunity."

 

ETA: I'm assuming that applying to the lottery is something simple like: child's name, address, phone, and grade.

[wapiti]

ETA: I'm assuming that applying to the lottery is something simple like: child's name, address, phone, and grade.

FWIW, at our school, the form is identical to the initial form for enrolling in the regular PS.

[OneStepAtATime]

I think the author meant that a lottery is biased against parents who can't handle signing up by the deadlone. It seems reasonable to make some accommodations for non-native speakers. But to get rid of charter schools because some parents are too disorganized to apply in time? That seems like "If everyone can't be from a family that applies in time, then nobody should have the opportunity."

 

ETA: I'm assuming that applying to the lottery is something simple like: child's name, address, phone, and grade.

I don't know how other Charters handle it, but here most people are at least passable in two languages (regretfully I am not) so forms are in two languages and the schools can usually answer questions in either language.  It really isn't an issue from that perspective.  Even if there is a third or fourth language, since there are some around here, usually that can be handled very professionally.  As to there being an issue with a parent's ability to write at all, that is another matter.  I know in some families where the parent cannot read or write, they are usually too embarrassed to try and fill out forms, so yes, those kids may not get a chance to go to the charter school, which is probably their best, or even only chance of at least having the possibility of going on to college (since that is what the charter school works for: college acceptance for all students that come to their school).  And that is unfortunate.  But I don't know how you would address that without insulting someone or violating some code or something.

[stripe]

FWIW, at our school, the form is identical to the initial form for enrolling in the regular PS.

I must have been having a rough day because I looked up the enrollment forms at several local charters and they were one page documents, like, name, age, phone number, school previously attended, and so on. 

 

I should mention when my mom filled out the forms for me to attend public high school, they wanted all sorts of information like when I'd been toilet trained, when I said my first word, and so on. It was rather odd.

[Crimson Wife]

ETA: I'm assuming that applying to the lottery is something simple like: child's name, address, phone, and grade.

The Montessori charter that we applied to had a very lengthy application form, much longer than the one I had to fill out for my youngest (who is not HS) to register for kindergarten in our district.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

They are not controversial at all where I live in Northern CA. Here they are kinda the norm and we have about six homeschooling charters for a rural collection of towns with a combined population of 70,000.

[PeterPan]

bump

[Sarah0000]

I'm also in Northern Ca and they don't seem to be controversial. They sound different than other charters though, at least the way my local homeschooling families use the charter. They basically take the stipend for curriculum and private lessons, but don't use the campus for much of anything, and only do the bare minimum as far as meeting with the oversight teacher and testing requirements.

[Butter]

From a Washington Post article

 

According to the non-profit organization [National Alliance for Public Charter Schools], 79 percent of public school students in New Orleans attended charters in the last school year, followed by 51 percent in Detroit, 43 percent in D.C., 36 percent each in Flint, Mich. and Kansas City, Mo. and 35 percent in Gary, Ind.

 

And some very interesting charts at 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/11/the-10-school-districts-with-the-most-charter-school-students/

 

The link I posted is from DC's own FAQ about their charter schools.  I would not put it past them to try to look better than everyone else/inflate their numbers ;-P

[Clear Creek]

Charter schools are not controversial here in TX; they are public schools that offer a different curriculum than the other schools is all.  They are funded just like a public school, students are required to take the same standardized tests, and anyone can walk in and enroll their child.

[stripe]

The link I posted is from DC's own FAQ about their charter schools.  I would not put it past them to try to look better than everyone else/inflate their numbers ;-P

Ha! I wasn't really suggesting that (or that you were wrong) -- maybe the numbers have changed, or are comparing different things? Or maybe if you count the subset of public school students who attend charters, versus the percent of ALL school aged children? I don't know.