Are Charter Schools Controversial Where You Live?

[Dmmetler]

My state initially only allowed failing students or students zoned into failing schools to enroll for charters, and initially limited charters to non-profit entities or those run by the school district themselves, and weren't allowed to screen students at all. They ended up, mostly, being more of the same with only small changes. The real benefit came only because parents had to be motivated enough to do the paperwork to get into the charter rather than the default school, and charters did have the option to remove students who broke the contracts the parents had to sign to enroll.  Not surprisingly, many of the charters have struggled with the state test and some have been closed for that reason. Others have done well, but been unable to maintain it because they set themselves up with grandiose plans that cost more than the money they got per student, and, once the initial donations that helped them form the charter in the first place had been spent, couldn't do it. Most have pretty much, after a few years,simply become almost indistinguishable from the other public schools in the area.

 

When the state relaxed the limits, it mostly stayed the same, except that we did get a statewide K-12 run charter school. I know a few people who participate in it who are part of our homeschool group activities, usually only in the primary grades (by about 4th grade, it seems like people either leave the K-12 charter and homeschool on their own or end up not participating in group activities because the demands of the charter are too high). We don't have any of the charters that let you pick your own curriculum or that provide part-time classes.

 

 

 

 

[wapiti]

. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[wapiti]

. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[Elisabet1]

In this state, charter schools do have to provide free and reduced priced lunches if they provide lunch. Not all schools provide lunch and kids bring in their lunches every day. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Charter schools should be controversial everywhere.  That they receive public funds is eyebrow raising because

 

A) there are FOR PROFIT businesses running these schools

B) these schools by and large perform VERY poorly

 

Both of those are facts which are easily confirmed.

 

FTR my son attends a for profit charter school- K12.  It has been shockingly astoundingly bad at times.

 

I live in an area that has many charter schools and not a single one of them is for profit. They are all non-profit charters that receive 1/3 of the funding that goes to regular public schools. The majority of charter schools in our county out perform the public schools.

 

[Crimson Wife]

The national statistics speak loud and clear- charter schools are a failure.

Untrue. Statistics show that charters are a mixed bag. When it comes to reading, 25% of charters perform significantly better than traditional public schools serving a similar student population, 56% show no significant difference, and 19% perform worse. When it comes to math, 29% perform significantly better, 40% show no significant difference, and 31% perform significantly worse. http://edsource.org/today/2013/more-charters-including-those-in-california-now-outperform-district-schools-in-reading/34234#.UvE3TLSSAf4

 

So just like traditional public schools, some are good and some are bad.

[73349]

Not controversial here, and they're not for profit here. The school district has struggled to keep up with population growth the last couple of decades, so other schools reduce the pressure to build so many new buildings every year. There are fewer charters than private schools here.

 

Come to think of it, I think the district would be considered more controversial than charter schools. A few scandals aside, the district has had trouble managing both diversity and proximity, because there's a large, racially and economically uneven geographic area. They've done a lot of re-assignment, shifting which schools are magnets, etc., and parents really want stability--just the ability to pick a place to live and to know where the kids are going to go K-12. People especially get annoyed if one child starts at a school and then the next kid, a year or two later, is assigned to a different school (so you have a second-grader at school A and a kindergartner at school B ).

[redsquirrel]

They are controversial here. We only have one, a high school. It is controversial because, in part, because no one really saw the need for it. There is a public high school which is very good, there is already an alternative public middle and high school that is more of a student led/no grades type of school. It appeals to a particular kind of student and the ones I know who go there do very well. We also have a BOCES that has the technical schools and a Boces community school for kids who are just barely hanging on or who are parenting while staying in school.

 

The charter mainly seems to have the kids who don't much like school. They didn't fit in at the main high school (fair enough, it is a competitive place) and they know the public alternative isn't for them (not a good choice for a kid who can't self motivate). So, who do they get? Their end results don't look that great when evaluated objectively. However, for the individual students it might be that the end results are better than they would have had elsewhere. I think that for some of them the small accepting environment is the first positive school experience they have ever had.

 

This wasn't the target student group they were hoping for, I don't think. They are supposed to be organized about 'sustainability' and I know I was thinking it would be sort of a STEM type school with an ecological bent. Fine, sounds good. But I don't see how that manifests in what they are now doing. They have a farm to school program, again I think that is great

 

There was a huge negative outpouring. I believe the person who spearheaded the school is a former homeschooler (long since 'retired' as a homeschooler, lol) and the community really, really latched onto that. For a while I was afraid to tell anyone I was a homeschooler for fear I would get yelled at for the charter school. Terms like 'limousine liberal' and "homeschool haven" were tossed around. It got ugly. The funny thing is that I have a friend who taught there and she thought there were maybe three formally homeschooled kids in the whole school when she was there.  I know it appeals to unschoolers.

 

Anyway, they are in the crosshairs and there was just a lawsuit filed to revoke their chater because their enrollment isn't as high as some say it should be. The lawsuit failed and their charter was renewed. The school is under constant FOI bombardment, to the point that dealing with that is a big part of the director's job when it should be spent building a better school.

 

So, yeah, Common Core in these parts? Not really all that big a deal. State testing in the schools? A big deal. Charter schools? well, name calling, screaming at Board of Education meetings, neighbors not talking to each other, vindictive actions by the Board of Education, angry letters to the editor sort of a really big deal.

[NCMom]

Controversial here because a. the charter does better (all grade levels) than any other school in the county by a fairly large margin (there are 4 other high schools) and b. the county was allocating our state education funds illegally and the charter sued to get that fixed and won.  They spend much less per pupil.  It is so popular that there is a lottery to get in. It is classical and to graduate requires 2 Latin, 2 Logic, Rhetoric, and 4x4 of the other stuff.

 

Out county public schools try to shut out the charter from all activities in the surrounding area.  The charter has to play sports with teams from other counties, etc.  They have to drive at least an hour to do anything.   I saw the copy of the letter the superintendent sent out, telling his schools to shut the charter out. Man it's all about the money here!

 

Sigh.

 

Georgia

[MotherOfBoys]

The teachers union is making our one charter school here a big deal. It's not for profit and backed by a state university. The union picked one day because of the whole what's good for the group mentality. Our teachers didn't want the competition. Then when a teacher sex abuse with a 14 yr old boy surfaced and the teachers wrote notes to the judge saying "it wasn't that bad and it was consensual" parents became inflamed that the school board couldn't fire everyone of them. Whom the parents trust with their children. So half the school went to the charter. Then the teachers had a bigger fit that our public transit, not public school busses, are taking students to the charter. Our local school just loves to scream funding for all there problems but then when a charter school does it cheaper, way cheaper, they are called out. Testing shows the charter school has just as poor children attending but higher test scores. Oh and the teachers make half the money. :)

 

It's bare bones paper and pencil learning but the learning gets done. Parents have to show support for the child's learning, they are not babysitters, they are a school. 

[MistyMountain]

Charter schools are not controversial where I live. There are lots of charter or alternative programs or programs housed in neighborhoods schools here and I haven't heard anything about trying to get rid of them. Some have been here for decades already. Right now vouchers is a local issue that is being discussed that is controversial and I am personally very against. I don't think charters are the magic bullet solution to the schools in this country that do not perform by a long shot. I also don't think they make things worse either. I like that charters offer different learning approaches and freedom of curriculum and it is available to anyone who applies via the lottery and gets chosen with no cost. I like being able to have a choice of a school where parents are all very involved and there are no bullying problems. What I don't like is that yes it can pull the involved parents out of the neighborhood schools and it can be hard for parents who can't afford to drive to them and have no way of getting their kids there. I also know of parents who have kids with varying special needs and they couldn't get their kids in certain charter schools because they couldn't meet their needs.

 

I know the results across the country vary and some charters score really well, some are just ok and some are bad. In my area the charter schools and alternative programs all score really well. The best scoring schools in my city are the charters and one very high income school. One charter doesn't score well but the parents who would chose that school would not be concerned with test scores. Other are schools within schools and they house several programs that also include special needs programs.

[Guest]

I am not a fan, but they are very popular where I live so I save the debate/discussion for the internet.

 

 

 

 

[Arcadia]

In my area B&M charter schools are common and people talk about it including which ones are better run. In my immediate neighborhood, charter schools are emotionally controversial as parents annoyed with the school district have transfer their kids to charter schools.  Before my kids were school age, it was either the assigned neighborhood school or private school.  Those who opt for private schools for their kids had stayed in private schools.  Those unhappy parents who might have gone to the assigned school and try for lottery or move house now applies for the charter schools so money is "leaving" the district.

There are name calling among the neighbors that those who choose charter schools are not sticking around for the common good   :confused1:

[rmtzc2009]

We have a charter school within 20 minutes of us in Northern IL.  At one point we even looked into it and I don't recall anything alarming but I do recall thinking they had a lot of rules that I thought were excessive.  The school has been around for at least 4 years I believe and has a ton of staff turn over and student turnover.  One of the biggest complaints about the school is they have poor communication with the parents.  I'm sure not all charter schools are the same but our local one seems to be having a hard time working out all their kinks.

[GSOchristie]

No, not controversial here, nearly all of our friends who do not hs or private school send their kids to

A charter. I think there are 7 or 8 here in Greensboro.

[In The Great White North]

 

 

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

 

 This.  Really, I'm not sure there are any in the entire state.  The population is too low and spread out to collect enough kids to finance another school.

 

What we do have, that I've not seen anywhere else is "sending towns".  These are towns that do not have a high school and will pay the state per pupil average to any school you want (except religious).  It could be the next nearest public school or Philip Exeter.  Other towns without a high school have a contractual arrangement with a nearby town.  Some have both, and the family can choose.

[laundrycrisis]

We have a charter school within 20 minutes of us in Northern IL.  At one point we even looked into it and I don't recall anything alarming but I do recall thinking they had a lot of rules that I thought were excessive.  The school has been around for at least 4 years I believe and has a ton of staff turn over and student turnover.  One of the biggest complaints about the school is they have poor communication with the parents.  I'm sure not all charter schools are the same but our local one seems to be having a hard time working out all their kinks.

 

I think we must live close to each other, and I know the school.  There are very few charters in IL, and our school district is not exactly warm and fuzzy about having a charter in the boundaries that can pull students away from the district-run schools.  I believe the teachers' union is also not a fan of it because the charter school is not unionized.  I heard that the biggest reason for the staff turnover is that the only teachers who go to the charter are the ones who could not find either a union job in a public school, with all the union benefits, or a private school that is a nice place to work.  So they teach at the charter until they find a job with more pay at a private school or with union benefits at a public school.

[NCMom]

This. Really, I'm not sure there are any in the entire state. The population is too low and spread out to collect enough kids to finance another school.

 

What we do have, that I've not seen anywhere else is "sending towns". These are towns that do not have a high school and will pay the state per pupil average to any school you want (except religious). It could be the next nearest public school or Philip Exeter. Other towns without a high school have a contractual arrangement with a nearby town. Some have both, and the family can choose.

Based on the Phillip Exeter comment...

If you live in NH there are most assuredly charter schools. If you are in VT then no there is not a single one. NH has a virtual high school also. VT likely never will have either, lol. Maine has a few, just a very few charters.

 

Here if the town can not afford a high school they contract with another district then they boot everyone on over. Uugh, I like your area's way better.

 

Georgia

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I'll throw out the main concern I've heard from PS teachers (DW's profession).  In a nutshell, if you take the allotted public funds (pick a number...$5k) out of a school's budget and divert them to a charter for Student A, but student A washes out of that charter (because charters don't have to take or retain every student), when student A dumps back into the public system, those funds are not likely to follow the kid back, especially if it's mid-year.  Now you have a reduced budget to educate a student who could not be accommodated in the charter, and once money goes, it's hard to get back.  Ramp that up to many students, and the economics grow kinda quickly.  Extreme cases push that right over the edge, like the two kids who moved into DW's district at once who each needed outside residential placement, at a cost of nearly six figures a kid -- granted, that's a rare circumstance, but public schools have to take up that slack -- charters don't.

 

It does not seem to be an issue here, but then, leafy NE NJ is supposed to be full of "really good" districts (LOL).  All the newer HSers who moved here "for the school" tell me that.   :tongue_smilie:

[Entropymama]

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.

I don't understand how it's not fair that they can close at any time. Isn't it better for those kids to get a few years at a high quality charter, even if it's not there forever? I agree that it would be a bummer for it to shut down, but at least they get the benefit in the meantime. For what it's worth, I've never known a charter school to shut down (although I'm sure it happens). In our area there are wait lists for them. 

[Entropymama]

  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.  

 

But isn't it the same number of teachers working? What I mean is, if a charter school moves into town and hires ten teachers, they might leave the public school system but they're still working, so the levels of employment are the same. 

[bttrflyvld]

We have several charter schools in the county I live in.  As far as I'm aware they aren't controversial.  They are sot after. Their waiting lists are extremely long.  I think charter schools are good in the respect that if they don't perform, parents will not support them.  And if their teachers don't perform they fire them.  Public schools get into this tenured teacher problem that they can't get rid of non performing teachers.  If I didn't have an option to hs I would all for a charter school for my children.

[stripe]

This is not true.  Loads of poorly performing charters are allowed to continue for years.

Exactly.

 

NPR: Like previous studies, the one from CREDO concluded that kids in most charter schools are doing worse or no better than students in traditional public schools. About a third, though, are doing better.

 

Washington Post:

Researchers at Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes looked at test data from charter schools in 26 states and the District and found that 25 percent of charters outperformed traditional public schools in reading while 29 percent of charters delivered stronger results in math. That marked an improvement over a similar 2009 study by the same research team.

 

But 56 percent of the charters produced no significant difference in reading and 19 percent had worse results than traditional public schools. In math, 40 percent produced no significant difference and 31 percent were significantly worse than regular public schools.

 

And it's worth noting that one way charter schools may end up with higher test scores involves the fact that fewer "difficult cases" enroll in charters, like "special needs" kids, and those who speak little English.

[Crimson Wife]

I'll throw out the main concern I've heard from PS teachers (DW's profession).  In a nutshell, if you take the allotted public funds (pick a number...$5k) out of a school's budget and divert them to a charter for Student A, but student A washes out of that charter (because charters don't have to take or retain every student), when student A dumps back into the public system, those funds are not likely to follow the kid back, especially if it's mid-year.  Now you have a reduced budget to educate a student who could not be accommodated in the charter, and once money goes, it's hard to get back.

Here in CA, almost all of the school funding comes from the state general revenue fund and is given out based on Average Daily Attendance. So if a student moves mid-year from a charter school back to a district school, that ADA money follows him/her. Now where people get angry is when students who were previously in private schools (B&M or homeschool) enroll in a charter school and now the overall education budget has to be divided by a greater number of kids. So from a financial standpoint, the charters that are likely to attract students who would not otherwise be enrolled in PS are much more controversial than other charters.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Here in CA, almost all of the school funding comes from the state general revenue fund and is given out based on Average Daily Attendance. So if a student moves mid-year from a charter school back to a district school, that ADA money follows him/her. Now where people get angry is when students who were previously in private schools (B&M or homeschool) enroll in a charter school and now the overall education budget has to be divided by a greater number of kids. So from a financial standpoint, the charters that are likely to attract students who would not otherwise be enrolled in PS are much more controversial than other charters.

And in NJ we have something like 600 districts funded by local property tax. Why? Because we're insane.

[PollyOR]

Honestly, I have given charters little thought. 

 

My granddaughter started attending a non-profit charter this year.  The original charter school has been in operation since 1992.  Apparently the community is happy with it if it is still in operation and has expanded to three campuses.  

 

The school my granddaughter attends is in a small (pop. 10,000) town.  It is the IN place to send your kids. Most of the families that attend church with my daughter's family send their kids to the charter.

 

Things that might discriminate against low income families:  

No bus service.

Until this school year, the kids had to bring their own lunch.

Uniforms required.

 

So if your parents own one vehicle and it is needed for transportation to work, who is going to pick up "junior" at 3pm?

edited to add - school bus service is provided to the local Boys & Girls club.

 

If you qualified for free lunch (and many kids in that community do), bringing your own lunch increased the cost of attending the school.

 

Uniforms cost money and you have to travel approximately an hour to find a store that sells them.  Fortunately the school arranges uniform swaps.

 

But, am I going to discourage dd from sending her kids there?  No.  The school follows the core knowledge sequence.  They use Saxon math and Riggs for reading/spelling instruction.  Sounds good to me.  

 

The school's scores are similar to the other schools in the community.  If I remember correctly, their writing scores were weak.  

 

[kitten18]

Here in CA, almost all of the school funding comes from the state general revenue fund and is given out based on Average Daily Attendance. So if a student moves mid-year from a charter school back to a district school, that ADA money follows him/her. Now where people get angry is when students who were previously in private schools (B&M or homeschool) enroll in a charter school and now the overall education budget has to be divided by a greater number of kids. So from a financial standpoint, the charters that are likely to attract students who would not otherwise be enrolled in PS are much more controversial than other charters.

I agree.

[shawthorne44]

In my area B&M charter schools are common and people talk about it including which ones are better run. In my immediate neighborhood, charter schools are emotionally controversial as parents annoyed with the school district have transfer their kids to charter schools.  Before my kids were school age, it was either the assigned neighborhood school or private school.  Those who opt for private schools for their kids had stayed in private schools.  Those unhappy parents who might have gone to the assigned school and try for lottery or move house now applies for the charter schools so money is "leaving" the district.

There are name calling among the neighbors that those who choose charter schools are not sticking around for the common good   :confused1:

 

 

I never understood that "stick around for the common good."  

I mean, really, what kind of lowlife sacrifices their children?