I am watching the newspapers with great interest as lack of funding seems to be threatening the educational futures of so many children. The thing that I just don't undersand in this state is how enamored people seem to be with the charter school concept (which is funded by taxpayer moneys from the same limited pile of cash as the "regular" public schools)--which on its face allows for "choice," but in fact reduces it for everyone involved. Think about the math: if you have one pizza, and more and more people want a slice, soon everyone gets virtually nothing. If that pizza is funding, and soon all schools are underfunded significantly, how can any but the most rich get their children opportunities?
How can so many parents, in good conscience, support a system that promotes academic disparities (obviously, those who feel they are "really invested in their children" and who can to will send their children to these educational entities wherever they are--in or out of district--highlighting discrimination due to logistics of socio-economic class and transportation availability), "boutique-style" education through financial discrimination (these schools also fundraise, and are like the academic version of "club sports", rather expensive in the end; the rich obviously getting the most access, opportunities and services, the lowest class sizes, and the most homogenous class demographics, promoting "better" results on things like standardized test scores--but sheesh, who wouldn't succeed under such circumstances?) and reduced accountability (charter schools don't have to let everyone in, nor do they have to answer to the taxpayers that fund them; what business wouldn't want such convenient control, free of "messy" public input processes--and yet, where would be without the skeptical and/or freethinkers to keep them honest?)
What is it about the illusion of "choice for my kid" that makes parents who seem perfectly reasonable in other situations declare themselves on the side of "what's best for my child" at the expense of all of our children in the end?
Why is it that we can't cap the charter school movement and help the public schools learn to use the "best of" from those competing models? Ultimately, we all know public school is in trouble. But let's not forget that the charter schools are partly responsible for that mess, and that they are also at some level "public" schools. If all the district "public" schools were closed, and everyone had to go to charter schools instead, wouldn't they suddenly find themselves on the pointy end of people's criticism the way public schools are now?
The difference is that at that point, there wouldn't be much anyone could do to change things; once a public school is closed, it's gone. And so is an opportunity to do things better. For the collective good. And that's a travesty. That's why it bugs me that our district seems hell-bent on selling off our schools to private charter corporations with no clear benefit to the people it will displace, or the district who will sell them (or give them) this infrastructure asset.
At least while there are some public schools, there is still hope that the collective conscience and community--the one that teaches children that they deserve an education rather than a job in a sweatshop, and that we live in "the land of the free and home of the brave," and that this is "the land of opportunity" and that here "all (people) are created equal," and that ostensibly we value (at least for the little kids) fairness and playing by the rules--the diverse, vocal, invested, critical PUBLIC can still make things better than they are.
I'm all for conversation and action to help all of us muddle through and make things better for education. I'm also all about choice. But I'm first and foremost about reason in decisionmaking, and 360-degree analysis, and for the life of me, I can't see how the economics of Arizona's educational funding makes long-term sense: how can everyone continue to do more with less, when those on the "less" end are those with the least in the first place?
I shudder to think what we're telling those children who will be our future if we can't get past "what's good for me is all that matters now." If we don't model better decisionmaking and long-term collective vision, well, it's not going to be about AIMS scores and NCLB funding anymore, it's going to be simply about haves and have-nots.
And call me a socialist now that I'm a grown up, but I can't help but agree when I hear my kid and others say "well that's just not right--it's not fair." Can--and should--any person be able to look another kid in the eye and, with a straight face, tell them they're simply not as important as the kid they're related to?
I could never do that and sleep at night, yet I hear in people's actions just exactly that argument.
I am TOTALLY with you on
I am TOTALLY with you on this. We recently moved here from NC where they have very few charter schools, due to a cap like you were talking about. I was very frustrated with it at the time, because they perpetually have a lack of funding for public school and keep trying to pass bonds to pay for it-- We thought Charter Schools would help that...
When we moved here I was THRILLED at the options available for charter schools, but after talking to my Father in law- who was an assistant superintendent for an AZ school district- we decided against the charter schools because of the way they drag education down. I think the most important thing is the involvement of the parent. Even with low funding and less motivated teachers, if parents are supplementing the education at home by being involved and providing an atmosphere of support- PLUS being actively involved in the school, and in constant communication with teachers and principals- then our own children not only get a better education- but we are helping each kid in that school have access - to a better education- and we set a good example for their own parents-
DON'T run away and homeschool your children- TALK to them about the challenges they face in public schools, and be a part of their lives- talk to them early about peer pressure and drugs, teach them to recognize the things they should avoid etc....
What it really comes down to besides funding is when all the actively involved parents run away to homeschooling or charter schools- you leave the schools full of the kids whose parents don't care, or don't know HOW to work for their kids to have a better education-- I for one am not going to be part of the problem...
"I just do the best I can, everyday..."
I cannot see how, I, am part
I cannot see how, I, am part of "the problem" because I chose to send my kids to the school in my area that is excelling and out performing all of the surrounding schools. Perhaps we define the problem differently. I see the fact that American children are failing behind the rest of the world in science education and the fact that America must look to other countries to hire, well educated and highly qualified employees, as a problem. I see that my Charter school embraces the latest innovation and research about the optimal ways in which children learn (small group, collaborative learning, thematic units, modified year round school, teacher accountability, parental involvement, etc.), while my local "public" school still teaches the students in rows of desks with 32 students per class, dividing the day by subjects, reducing continuity and student excitement, as a problem. I see that my kids' Charter school reduces costs, by foregoing a caferteria and other innovative solutions (the kids eat healthier lunches), while my local school sends out "obesity" letters while serving expensive, unhealthy, burger & tater-tot lunches, as a problem. I can go on and on...
When I compared my neighborhood school with the close by Charter school, I chose to be part of the solution, by saying, "NO - I do not want MY tax dollars spent on the local, underperfoming school.
I saccrifice, in the hope that highly excelling schools will spread that innovation to all schools, for all children. I tuck my kids into bed and after a full day of work, then the dinner/dishes/homework/bath/story time, sorting through mail and bills, I sit down to cut out bulletin board shapes or glue molecule models for my kids' classes, because my kids' schools demand involvement of the parents, to free the teacher's time for more insturction. Public schools have every opportunity to require the same thing from their parents. But, how are they going to motivate involvement when parents can easily say, "why should I have to, if the other parents don't have to"? Well, a little competition motivates.
Are Charter schools getting you fired up and motivating you to speak up about improving your local school? Are you motivated to form a Yahoo group of the parents in your child's class in order to facilitate daily communication? Are you motivated to join with other parents to chaperone field trips and suggest exciting new projects that you heard about to the teacher? See what a little competition can do?????? This will improve schools, like more and more money never will.
Additionally, the "pizza" analogy would be great if somehow the Charter school kids were getting TWO pieces of pizza for every single piece that the "public" school get, but that's simply not case. Each kid gets the same dollar amount allotted for their education. Some kids want pepperoni and others want mushroom, but the serving size is the same!
I must preface my comments
I must preface my comments with the idea that I am talking about excelling, proven Charter schools. I would not send my kids to any old Charter school, because some of them are bad. I would not send my kids to any old traditional public school, because some of them are bad. Choosing a good "public" school is the same as choosing a good Charter school to me.
Your feelings are clearly strong, in that you seem to perceive
that Charter schools are a threat to your local school. I'm just not sure that your fears are based in fact.
Charter schools are public schools and ANYONE can attend. They are NOT free to exclude anyone, as you stated. Charter school kids are not rich.
Students in the traditional public school, are free to attend another school out of district, if their family so chooses. Any student can request a boundary exception.
Charter schools take nothing away from so called public schools. In fact, good Charter and magnet schools typically raise the performance of the surrounding public schools. You raise the bar and everyone's performance will go up, including teachers.
Traditional public school organizations can and do fund raise as well.
The federal dollars spent per student belong to the student, not the school. Schools are build in response to need. If some of that need is met by a Charter school, and the local traditional public school is not overcrowded, then the state will not build a new school yet. Are families who have more than one child, pursuing excellence for their child, at the expense of the other children in the community?
So called public school principals are free to adopt any teaching method that the Charter schools have embraced, if they so choose.
Charter school teachers and administration are accountable to the state in that the students must meet the same standards as students in "public" schools. Charter school teachers aren't heavily invested in tenure and work to improve each year or risk their job loss.
In my view, it is more socially responsible to the children, to demand high standards for them. For 50 years, the government threw more and more funding at public schools, yet performance did not improve. In districts where Charter and magnet schools exist, performance for all schools increased.
I can look every kid in the eye and tell that I am pro school choice because competition is good and it motivates all schools to improve. I care that much about ALL children, present and future, to support raising the bar and demanding excellence. I grew up and went to school in NY, IL and CA. NY and CA are the only states with Regents programs and diplomas which improved student performance across the board. Likewise, I am for the AIMS test here (provided that the criteria and curriculum is well defined, which realize needs improvement).
I will be moving from NJ to
I will be moving from NJ to AZ in the near future (15 yo & 12 yo) and I am extremely concerned and confused about the schooling in AZ and how it works. If both the public and charter schools are being funded by our taxpayers dollars, how is their education any different? Do the teachers feel that they should give more if they are getting paid more by the charter school? The ones that are getting paid less, are they just letting kids squeak by to get passing grades or possibly fail due to their lack of concern for the kids? This is one thing I can't comprehend when it comes to kids getting an education. If both schools are using taxpayers monies to be funded how do the teachers get paid on a different pay scale? The other thing I don't understand is why does it seem that parent participation is lacking so much? I would think that parents would want their kids to excel more than they were able to as kids themselves.
There are dedicated teachers
There are dedicated teachers in both school types.
Some of the best teachers are attracted to the best charter schools, for the same reasons that the parents are. In OUR case:
1) smaller class size (max of 20 +full time aide)
2) modified year round schedule
3) K-8th grade (vs K-6th)
4) science class for kindergarteners
5) tech lab, music, science, PE sessions rotate every two weeks, so that they attend continuously each day
6) parents pack lunches (healthier)
7) free to design teaching methods, lessons (as long as curriculum is met) - creative, innovative teachers like this
8) parental involvement - school requires 80 volunteer hours per family. Teachers LIVE for the added help and commun.
9) thematic units - kids LOVE learning this way and the teachers are excited by the kids enthusiasm.
My son's teacher was interviewing in several states and she chose to move to AZ for this school, in order to teach according to Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. She was excited to use her graduate studies and touches base with her college mentor biweekly.
These are some reasons...
I just cant seem to agree
I just cant seem to agree with you on this issue. The problem as you call it is not with the charter school but with the governments lack of focus or attention on our schooling as a whole. I dont see how offering parents choices when it comes to what is best for their child and his or her educational needs is a bad thing. Charter schools get a bad name as schools for problem children but they are actually good schools for kids who need that little bit of xtra help or attention the 35-1 ratio of a normal public school just cant provide. We need to stop pointing fingers at different types of schools for problems that are essentially a result of a poor decision making government. Why is it we can raise taxes to fund a sports complex but not to fund our childrens future? If they were to tax cigarettes and alcohol and use that tax for education i don't think funding would really be that big of an issue. But i guess our government likes sports better than education.
I'll give you my background
I'll give you my background before you read my take. I'm a former education researcher at ASU and the husband of a first grade teacher in a westside Title I district school.
In this day and age of high stakes testing and over-the-top accountability, charters schools have made themselves an attractive alternative to traditional district schools. While the choice is offered to parents, what this choice creates are widespread funding problems, more socioeconomic inbalances in schools, and the illusion that a better education is available than the one in your community.
Funding
Charter schools are often managed by EMOs, big companies that centralize their administration in a place that could be 2,500 miles away from your school. They claim that this centralization allows them to pay for fewer administrators and in turn allows them to spend more money on each child. Most EMOs are for-profit industries. They take public education dollars, squeeze them, and keep a piece for themselves. As you can imagine, this opens the door for corruption on an unprecidented level--research Edison Schools and see how their failures have added up in wasted public dollars. It is the lack of oversight that is attractive to big, for-profit companies for the management of public schools--they could fail for five or six years before anyone notices and they heaped a nice pile of profit by the time they're forced out. In the mean time, the funding that the schools which were supposed to be teaching these kids has been pulled and resultes in larger class sizes, fewer teachers and ultimately a school primed for failure in a system that values test scores above all other means of measuring academic achievement (an argument for another day).
The other way charters schools keep their costs down is by hiring new teachers. In some cases, they offer slightly higher salaries for first year teachers to hook them in, but don't offer the same step increases that teachers receive in the public district school system. After a teacher realizes this, they obviously leave (after four or five years) and the charter reloads with another young teacher. Don't you want your children learning from experienced teachers? And when you have a crop of young teachers, what kind of curriculum are your kids receiving? Often it's a computer-based, one-size fits all education that teaches to the standardized test. The teachers rarely have a mentor like they do in their public district schools, and they are asked to work more hours (research Las Vegas' charter school history) and perform with little to no oversight from the state. Add to it the fact that teacher retention rates are much lower for charter schools than they are for public district schools, and it's a bad place to start a career. My wife informs me that there is a bias against teachers who choose to teach at charter schools and then apply to teach at a public district school. The only ones who get a break are the ones who worked on reservations or in an alternative school with difficult-to-educate or last-chance kids.
Socioeconomic Impact
I think that when the concept for charter schools came about, the idealized impact on low-income families was the hook. Let's get these kids some help by opening another school in the area that can offer a better educational environment to children. Actually, the opposite happened and I'll kindly call it an unintended consequence, although my jaded mindset doesn't quite believe it.
What happened was the kids on the higher end of the spectrum (family income, two parents, higher test scores) were leaving for charter schools. This created district schools with greater concentration of minorities and fewer children ahead of the curve who serve as models to their peers. It also robbed the school of its active parents. It segregaged these schools and set them up to fail.
We need to realize what we've done--choice has sent us back to the time before Brown v. Board of Education. If those parents had a choice, we never would have integrated public schools. And whether you realize it or not, choosing to send your kid to a charter school is likely contributing to segregation.
Lastly, here in Arizona, the very people the charter schools were designed to help--the impoverished--often have a language barrier and no access to the internet. How do they find out about charter schools? SUre, the charter school could market themselves to the Spanish speaking parents out there, but they choose not to. Why? Because the higher-end kids have a better chance of making thier school succeed and because their parents have the time to be more involved and raise money if need be. They don't view the needy population as a good BUSINESS decision. Now you see why I'm not so sure this is an unintended consequence.
Let's examine this issue with money. Let's say Child A comes from a well-off family, and Child B comes from a single, Spanish-speaking parent home and receives free-or-reduced lunch. Does Child A cost the state as much money to educate as Child B? Of course not. Yet we break our funding down in a crude average. Let's say these kids go to a school whose per-pupil funding is $4000. Well, it probably costs the school about $3,000 to educate Child A and $5,000 to educate Child B. Yet, when Child A leaves for a charter school, $4000 go with him because that's the "per pupil funding." This leaves the district with less money to educate children who are harder to teach and require more money.
OK, I'm going to get off the soap box.
But I highly recommend that parents considering charter schools or those with a serious interest in this education reform read the policy briefs assembled by the Education Policy Research Unit at ASU entitled, "School Choice: Evidence and Recommendations." This report is takes an objective look at the school choice movement, reveals statistics and anecdotal evidence, and offers recommendations from the top education policy professors in the country.
I see your points about the
I see your points about the funding issues. I do appreciate that no system is perfect.
The charter school that my kids attend is not owned by a corporation, but was started by a PhD., education researcher, who was looking to provide an alternative to the high priced private schools. She saw her local school struggling and after YEARS of working in the system, she thought that she could do better, and she was right.
This school has MANY of the original teachers who started there 11 years ago. The teachers are paid well and they choose to stay because it is a creative environment with highly involved parents.
To liken highly involved parents to segregationists, is so offensive that you lose listeners for your argument.
It seems to be a question of short-sightedness vs long sightedness. Long term, ultimately, competition is good and improves performance for all. Will there be growing pains? Absolutely, but there were growing pains in other industries as well, as manufacturing jobs were outsourced. The job losses cause pain for those affected. But, long term, people will see that they can't and shouldn't expect to start and end a career with one campany and they will see that they must continually develop new skills to be marketable.
It seems that pushing for better funding options is the answer then - Not eliminating choice and the competition that raises the standard's bar for all. Perhaps a reduced "average" dollar amount per student and a more ala cart dollar menu for remedial education costs. If what you say is true and charter schools somehow don't have to spend as much money educating it's students (although they still have to provide all of the same federal 504 and IDE accomodations!), then public schools will win with ala cart financing. However, our Charter school already chooses to allocate their dollars differently. Our school does not have a cafeteria, sports fields, sports teams or a stage. If we have extra dollars for an exemplary science program, small class sizes and higher pay to attract the best teachers, it's not by accident.
If there are issues to resolve, then the public school experts ought to resolve those issues, not attempt to eliminate the competition.
It seems that the public school system is simply mad that somebody moved its cheese. It's 2008 - time to find new cheese, not bemoan the fact that it's gone and demand that it be put back, like the shortsighted characters in the well known book.
My kids will only be starting their academic careers once and I'm going to provide the best opportunities for them that I can. I'm sorry, but in OUR case, public school is not the best for them. If that changes, I'll be first in line. You can't blame the consumer, that the product is flawed. Should Motorola blame us with..."I know the phones have problems, but if you bought more of our phones, then we could put more money into R&D and give you better phones!". Nice try...call me on my LG phone, when you've got yours working....and we'll talk.
Two things: I never called
Two things:
I never called parents who send their kids to charter schools, "segregationists." I said whether you realize it or not, you are contributing to a segregated school environment. It's an unintended consequence.
Second of all, your argument "Absolutely, but there were growing pains in other industries as well, as manufacturing jobs were outsourced".. is inappropriate when talking about public education. Public schools need to be free from commercial influences; experimenting with privatization puts the well-being of our children at risk. Too many kids' education have been ruined by this system...just because you found one of the few golden apples in a system that has robbed the public coffers and our youth of a good education doesn't make the system right.
Now back to my soap box.
The mindset that our nation's public education system was failing was created by the Bush Administration. We're one of the few countries that attempts to education EVERYONE, so therefore, our test scores are not going to be on par with countries that only educate their elite after the age of 14. This faux need for accountability and education reform has made many people rich (curriculum and test companies like McGraw Hill, the owner of which is long time friends of the Bush's; EMOs) and brought down a system that was the only thing in our society that gives every child their shot at the American dream. Every child can go to school and by the time they're in high school decide if they want to educate themselves and become something. What Bush and No Child Left Behind have done is rob the system of its backbone--dedicated teachers who are judged solely on test scores. And when those test scores come back less than perfect, the school gets a label, charter schools pop up, and now we have no oversight at all as to how these kids are being educated or how the money is being used.
I digress. You may have made the right choice for your kid... the end result of your decision will not have a negative impact on your child because he/she was probably going to succeed regardless of whether he/she was in a charter school or the district school. Your child has two supportive parents who want what's best for him. My point is that charter schools were meant to help the kids who don't have that kind of support. The kids who don't have that kind of support and aren't in the right environment.
I guess what I want to know about your charter school is how many ads they run in La Prensa or La Voz? How many English Language Learners are in your school? What's the demographic breakdown?
My point, once again, is that the system was set up to help the impoverished, hard-to-reach children. I don't think that's your kid.
Now, the system has evolved into some charter schools offering specialty programs in science and performing arts. And I'm sure there are some that do a great job, but so do magnet schools. I have no problem with private schools, either. They earn accreditation and don't use public money. School choice when it comes to public schools has accelarated our regression to segregated schools--it's bad for all kids.
I think that I'm mostly offended that you're comparing education to cell phones. I know it's a metaphor, but a very poor one. You don't play with the well-being of minors... their education is too important and too valuable to have someone rolling the dice with their future. You should trust a system that educated you, me and millions of other Americans. Last I checked, we're still the richest, most powerful nation in the world. That didn't happen by accident.
By the way, did you read the research I linked to? Or are you too busy to be confronted with the facts?
My metophors were about the
My metophors were about the idea of competition spurring innovation and improvement for any system. That is valid and indisputable. I don't suggest that we "play" with kids' futures. I suggest that there is a solution to the problems, that the public schools perceive, that does not involve eliminating choice for parents.
I appreciate that you rephrased your segregation comment, because you also likened charter school parents who seek the best opportunitites for their kids to the white parents in segregationist days, who saw white only schools as the best opportunities. Sending my child to a charter school, so that he can learn science in a full lab as a kindergartener, is not the same as sending him to a school so that he doesn't have to sit next to a minority. So, your inference is...well...many different adjectives come to mind! Again, Charter schools are open to ANYONE and EVERYONE.
Frankly, I've never seen an ad anywhere for our charter school. It seems to attract students through word of mouth and through it's posted test scores on www.greatschools.net.
On a personal level, we as parents were not educated by the AZ public school system, a system that you imply worked well for me. We stay in AZ because prior to having children and knowing a thing about the schools here, we convinced all of our extended family to move here. Now that the kids have cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents here, we can't just pack them up and take them to a state with decent schools. So, we're making the best of a bad situation.
I appreciate your passion and devotion to fighting for what you think is right. If I see legislation that addresses the inadequate funding for remedial and English as a second language students, then I will vote for it. But, I won't vote for a solution that isn't a solution for me, i.e. one that removes choice for parents.
If you can conceed that I seem to have made the best choice for my children, then how can you tell others paretns that they shouldn't make that choice for their children?
We should be careful not to slay at windmills...
Competition is good...if you need more funding to compete, go after that. Many schools have and won. But, many charter/magnet schools have still outperformed them by allocating their resources differently. "Not enough money" is a old argument. Even when funding increased substantially, performance didn't. Innovation is the answer for our kids.
First of all, I'm sorry if I
First of all, I'm sorry if I get nit picky here, but I didn't need to rephrase my comment. I originally said: "And whether you realize it or not, choosing to send your kid to a charter school is likely contributing to segregation." I assume that you didn't make this choice realizing what you were doing in this respect. Most people don't. It's just that this is the end result of the charter movement and it is contrary to its purpose.
You made my argument for me: Word of mouth and scores on the Internet. Chances are, you're not running in the same circles as the impoverished kids in your school district so word of mouth doesn't reach the people who really need it, and second of all, the impoverished don't have Internet access at home. Do you see why this business model is so sound? Market yourselves to the kids who can succeed and you too can run a successful charter school. Meanwhile, the district school suffers, losing its top performers and its money.
YOu can't talk about the charter school problems without talking about accountability. There used to be great programs in public schools for gifted and talented, but once the accountability system came in using test scores, the focus of most public schools turned to the borderline kids...to get them over the "proficient" line, which meant the brightest kids and the kids struggling the most were left behind. The accountability measures forced them to focus on that population or they'd be labeld "failing." And if you (not you, Optimist, necessarily, I mean the general "you") consider yourself a fan of privatization and turning our public school system into a free-for-all of every PhD with a dream or every EMO hungry for a profit, then you can see the genius in the accountability system. Smart kids don't get the attention they need at a public school and THEY jump to charter schools... not the kids who really need the extra attention. But you load up the charter movement with smart kids and supportive parents and guess what, most of your "innovative" teaching methods are going to be successful whether they're really "best practices" or not. Now you use this demographic to "prove" that this reform works when it's not tested on a true representative sample of children. That's dangerous on so many levels: segregation, funding, best practices, for-profit entities getting public education dollars...
Before I finish up here, I just want to say that your charter school itself may be a good school and your kid might be getting what he needs. The reason why choice is bad when it comes to PUBLIC schools is because it results in segregating school, and the engine driving that movement is NCLB's accountability measures. But taking choice away in the public school system doesn't remove choice from equation. If this school is as good as you say it is, why couldn't it function on its own as a private school? There are tons of tuition assistance programs out there for parents who want their kids in private schools but can't afford the full price.
The bigger problem here is our accountability system which is pushing good students away from their district school. Our state has a bill in the legislature to be the first state to abandon No Child Left Behind and turn away the millions of dollars the federal government provides for districts and states that follow this accountability system. Once our state gets back to providing an education that isn't tied to the punitive accountability system, our public schools can go back to giving the right education to all kids.
"More evidence on how
"More evidence on how charter schools are raising the bar about what’s possible in public education was released today by the U.S. Department of Education. Charter High Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap comes on the heels of the most important charter school story of the year in which The New York Times Magazine showcased middle-school charters for their success in closing the achievement gap among low-income and minority students. Both accounts illustrate that charter schools can, and do, work at scale."
I searched the internet for over an hour and I could not find any articles talking about the '"funding" issues for charter schools. In fact, I find the opposite articles - ones that talked about charter schools being underfunded, in relation to public schools.
I also found numerous research findings that the ethnic makeup of charter schools is proportionate to the surrounding public schools.
Lots of information about teacher's unions opposing charter schools, while teachers flocked to them (200 applicants for 7 open positions, etc.).
I read the article that you offered and frankly found a lot of...."If this happens, then that could happen" and "If that happens, then this could happen", etc. Unfortunately, the research shows that "this" simply never happened! The data shows that the theoretical negative consequences simply have NOT happened. I agree that they are valid points to consider and that the charter schools could theoretically affect the public schools negatively, but data is not showing that to be the case.
Myths and fears aside, charter schools are working and growing....