Almost everyone in California seems to acknowledge that the state charter law is broken and needs reform. Governor Gavin Newsom created a Task Force, under the leadership of Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, charged with coming up with ways to fix the law. Since the majority of the Governor’s Task Force has ties to the charter industry (including two members of the state’s charter lobbying organization), it bears watching to see whether the proposals are effective or cosmetic.
Now the California School Boards Association has released its recommendations. Its report mentions in passing that only one of every three charter schools outperforms the public schools in the district where it is located.
“After more than 25 years of continued charter school growth, California now finds itself far removed from the original mission and vision of the Act, which was, in part, meant to improve student learning with an emphasis on those who are academically low achieving, and to help generate innovation to benefit students in all schools. California is now a state where only one in three charter schools produces student outcomes that are significantly better than those of the traditional public schools that those students would have otherwise attended.5 Moreover, rapid expansion has brought about examples of inequitable access to schools of choice, financial misconduct, and governance challenges.”
Frankly, after reading this brief document, I found myself wondering yet again, why is the government supporting two different systems? Charters are not more innovative than public schools, are not more successful in educating students, are less accountable, and do not cost less. Remind me, what’s the point?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This document is an attempt to mollify and appease disparate groups. It tries to deliver a gentle message that the current culture in privatization needs to change. While it makes validate points about the need for change, it has no capacity to make those changes. It can advise and outline, but it cannot mandate change. It is like trying to lock the barn door after the horses have run away. Privatization has been a reckless, non-productive distraction that has siphoned far too much money from the schools that best serve all students. I agree with Diane. There is no point to sending public dollars to private companies if the educational results are not significantly better.
Correction: valid points
The point- anti-unionism, less for the kids of the 99% and, dollars robbed from taxes to spread around to vested interests.
That 1 out of 3 statistic is a real-eye opener when you consider that charter populations are consistently gamed to favor easy-to-teach children.
The LA Times editorial board just published another terrible opinion article on this subject, admitting that some of the California charter regulation bills afloat are needed and past due, but falsely claiming that some of the bills are — gasp and choke — hurtful toward charters. Poor babies! They wrote that there should not be a cap on charters in 2020 as per AB 1506, and that charters should continue to be able to appeal to the state for applications.
There were originally only supposed to be a hundred charter schools in California. Now, thanks a stinking heap to Reed Hastings and the billionaires, there are thousands. There are far too many. They are draining funds from public neighborhood schools far too much. And yes, there is no point, absolutely no point given that charters don’t “outperform”, in having dual competing systems in the first place. Charters were supposed to be run by teachers and parents, not by corporations anyhow.
What a mess privatization is.