Joy Resmovits has a good article at Huffington Post describing the growth of charter school enrollments and the absence of adequate oversight.
Currently, about 5 percent of all American students are enrolled in these privately managed schools. In some urban districts, the proportion is much larger. The districts with the greatest number of students in charters are New Orleans, Detroit, Washington, D.C., Kansas City, and Flint, Michigan. In 25 districts, at least 20 percent of students attend charters.
With the support of a bipartisan combination of President Obama, Congress, conservative governors, and rightwing groups like ALEC, these numbers are sure to grow. And the privatization of one of the nation’s most essential public services will continue.
The article mentions that local school boards “argue” that charters reduce their funding. That’s not an argument, that’s a fact. When students leave to attend charters, the public schools must lay off teachers, increase class sizes, cut programs. The more charters open, the more the public schools decline, especially when they lose their most motivated families and students. This is not simply a matter of transferring money from Peter to Paul, but crippling Peter to enrich Paul.
If charters had a stellar reputation, the logic might be on their side. But there are few studies that show charters outperforming public schools even on the crude measure of test scores. With only a few outliers, most studies show that charters do not get different results when they have the same kinds of students.
Chester-Upland, Pensylvania, schools may be an example of what happens when well-funded charters (funded by the district’s own revenues) grow as the host dies. The CU schools have been under state control for nearly 20 years. The local charter is not only thriving but providing handsome profits for its founder. Meanwhile the public schools, having lost half their enrollment to the charter, are dying. A state emergency manager just issued a lengthy report with high benchmarks for future success.
The plan calls for school closings and sets goals for academic gains. The bottom line in this plan for recovery is that the public schools will be extinguished if they can’t meet ambitious targets:
““If the district fails to meet certain scholastic performance goals, such as federal annual progress targets, by the end for the 2014-15 school year, the plan calls for the schools to be run by external management operations such as charter schools, cyber charters, and education management companies.”
Is this the future of urban education in the United States? Will this be the legacy of the Bush-Obama education program?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This entry points out that students who seek a better education will be disproportionately attracted to charter schools and characterizes this as “crippling Peter to enrich Paul”. But forcing Paul to attend a school that does not allow him to achieve all he is capable of IN THE HOPE that it might enrich Peter also seems morally questionable.
LikeLike
Baloney. Take your right-wing propaganda elsewhere. From here on out I suggest NOBODY respond to your lying posts.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t think this concern is “right wing”.
The idea that strong students and concerned parents should not be allowed to leave a public school seems to violate Kant’s categorical imperative in that the strong student, Paul, is being treated as a means to Peter’s education, not as an end. On the other hand, if you are a utilitarian you might argue that Paul should be required to sacrifice his own education in order to enhance Peter’s education because the sacrifice by Paul is small compared to Peter’s gain.
These differing philosophical perspectives on ethics don’t seem to me to fit neatly into the political spectrum.
LikeLike
You can leave a public school whenever you want. Privatization is not a good answer for public services. It enriches the sponsor without providing better service or equitable service. Remember that old idea: equality of educational opportunity? Some of us still that it remains relevant.
LikeLike
Students can certainly leave the public school system if their parents have the ability and interest to pay for private education.
My comment was about the reasons to object to charter schools in the initial post. If you are a utilitarian you might argue that Paul should not be allowed to change schools because that will lower Peter’s outcome and therefore lower total utility generated in society. If you are a Kantian, the fact that Paul’s leaving hurts Peter’s outcome has no moral relevance because you are treating Paul’s education as a means to Peter’s better outcome.
I would also argued that the geographically determined admissions policies of public schools mean there is no equality of opportunity in most public school systems.
LikeLike
Have you worked in any charters? I’ve worked in two and they are a con. They are not better than the local urban district. The staff turns over constantly, there aren’t enough books, there are barely any supplies, and the children aren’t, on average, performing above a 15 on the ACT. Guess what? The CEO employs tons of family members while enriching himself. Teachers have barely any supplies but his office with family members is gorgeous!!! Ah, isn’t privatization wonderful??It’s all a lie
LikeLike
I am making a point about the argument against charters. The statement that more able students will leave geographically zoned public schools to go to charter schools is a reason to oppose charters IF your are a utilitarian. It is not a reason to oppose charters IF you are a Kantian.
LikeLike
I don’t think anybody suggested that strong students and concerned parents should not be allowed to leave a public school. I do think that public funds should not be used to encourage Paul to leave the system at Peter’s expense. As the original post says, this is crippling Peter to enrich Paul. As John Dewey so beautifully said in School and Society, “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy.” Supporting the Pauls at the expense of the Peters splits, rather than unifies, communities, and is contrary to the spirit of public schooling and the spirit of our democracy.
LikeLike
It is not clear to me that the charter movement encourages Paul to leave publicly managed schools. Under the traditional system, Paul is only allowed to attend school A at the expense of the state, but allowed to attend other schools at his own expense. The charter system allows Paul to choose from a variety of schools at the states expense. School A does lose the built in advantage, but it is hard to argue that Paul is worse off because he is able to choose from more schools.
You say that Paul’s choosing another damages Peter, and that is a reason to tip the scales in favor of Paul choosing school A. This damage must be more than just the transfer of funds, or the fact that Paul is an able student is not relevant to the argument. Saying that Paul must be discouraged from transferring must be based on the value for Peter of having Paul as a fellow student. As I said before, there are philosophical views, like utilitarianism, which would see this as a valid argument. I certainly think Peter Singer would agree with it, for example. Other philosophical perspectives would reject this as a reason to discourage Paul from transferring. I suspect Jack Rawls, for example, would reject this kind of argument.
LikeLike
The “choice” disappears when the charter is the only school in your neighborhood. Many parents need to have their children walk to school or ride a city bus nearby. The “choice” concept is false and a complete waste of money. Not having a traditional neighborhood school makes the neighborhood far less desirable.The charters certainly aren’t providing a better “choice”.
LikeLike
You may be correct that in the long run students will have no more choice in schools than they are allowed today in the traditional system. It is possible, however, that some parents may not need their children to walk to school or ride a city bus. They might still benefit.
I also agree that having a poor neighborhood school, charter or public, makes a neighborhood less desirable.
LikeLike
Charter update from Nashville:
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/school-board-votes-close-one-charter-passes-fighting-state-over-another
LikeLike
The first thing that needs to be made clear is that charter schools are NOT–repeat NOT–public schools. They are private schools that take public money but are not held to any kind of accountability to taxpayers who finance these fake “schools.” They were put in when schemes to have school vouchers provided to private schools proved unpopular with voters.
LikeLike
Has anyone tried to privatize other “essential public services” like police, firefighting, even politicians the way they are trying in public education? Can we imagine a place where all public services were privately managed by corporations and profiteers? Just wondering if the comparison has been made.
LikeLike
Many essential services are provided privately. Healthcare, sanitation, food, energy, and communication services for example.
LikeLike
Yes, prisons and hospitals are privatized, often at a huge cost to the taxpayer with big profits for the provider.
LikeLike
Yep, you are right, we do have privatized, profit driven, healthcare.
Result:
We pay more per capita than any other nation.
We do not have better outcomes.
So we should try this in education because…..
Cost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
Infant Mortality rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Outcomes:
Click to access 411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf
LikeLike
I certainly agree that there a many problems in the healthcare market, and it is likely that innovation in medical care will lead us to a single payer plan.
I look forward to your entry concerning the even more essential issues of food and shelter. I am hard pressed to find an argument that the government should be the monopoly producer of either of these essential public needs, but no doubt I have just missed it.
I should also add that if you ignore the health outcomes of the poor in the United States, our health statistics are amount the best in the world. The problem is not that of private provision of health care, it is a problem of poverty.
LikeLike
Among, not amount. Autocorrect strikes again.
LikeLike
I worked for a year at the Chester Charter School (2000-2001 school year) and I was surprised that the school was allowed to operate. I had heard tales of a great school where teachers would be given freedom to develop curriculum and try progressive ideas. When the school year began I realized that actually the school had no curriculum in place and anything that would go on in the classrooms was completely up to the teacher to create and implement. The administration was well intentioned and the parents were supportive but this was a school that had no business operating in the public system. I later heard that it had closed down, indeed the building was about to fall down. I hope this school was the exception to the rule but I was completely shocked that without any textbooks, without any curriculum and seemingly without any direction apart from having students wear uniforms a school was allowed to operate. Chester is an area that deserves better, and they need something better.
LikeLike
I’ve had similar experiences in other charters. I’m convinced that most are this way. Many should never be allowed to operate and make money. Do you ever wonder who made money off of that school?
LikeLike
I have only ever stepped foot in one charter school: the Community Roots Charter School in Brooklyn. It seems like a well functioning school. Does anyone have any experience with that school? Should it be shut down because it is a charter school?
LikeLike
Charters vary dramatically by design. Some function very well. Some are run by incompetents. Most are not different from traditional public schools.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that there are a wide variety of charter schools. I do not think any reasonable person would argue against the closing of dysfunctional schools. The editorial position of this blog, however, is that all charter schools, including the ones that function well, should be closed as soon as possible. I think reasonable people can disagree about that policy recommendation.
LikeLike