Charter Schools- The Basics and The Biases

At my high school, every senior was required to write a research paper during the spring semester. I chose to write mine on charter schools. Ultimately, the paper was lousy, not because I didn't do a lot of research or reflect on the issue, but because I changed sides routinely through the course of the paper. It was not an easy topic to take sides on, especially knowing as little as I did about the politics behind the issue.

Now, with a lot more reflection and experience, I can take a clearer stance, though I am still left with some questions and more than a little ambivalence.

First, a general definition: a charter school is a publicly funded school that does not have to follow the same rules an restrictions as a public school, as long as they meet certain goals laid out in their charter. Most charter schools receive anywhere from 25-40% less than public schools, though some charters inexplicably receive more public funding than public schools. Most charter schools also receive funding from private corporate and philanthropic sponsors.

In New York City, charter schools share space inside of a larger public school. That means that the charter does not have to pay any money for infrastructure- that all comes out of the public school's budget.

In New York City public schools, 14% of students are English Language Learners. In NYC charter schools, 4% are English Language Learners.

Fifteen percent of NYC public school students are labeled Special Education, as compared to 11 percent in NYC charter schools.

Charter schools serve (percentage-wise) as many Black and Latino students who qualify for free lunch as public schools (although some data argues against this).

The average class size in a New York City high school is 27. The average class size in an NYC charter school is 23.

The average NYC public school teacher makes $56,000 per year. I couldn't find how much the average charter school teacher in NYC makes, but they do not have to follow the public school salary schedule, because one exceptional school pays teachers $125,000 per year. Many charters also give teachers cellphones, laptops, and other work supplies.

Charter school principals make slightly less than public school principals, but charter school "executives" can make up to $500,000 per year.

Teachers at most charter schools are not allowed to unionize, and as far I know, no charter school offers tenure.

The data is very, very mixed as to whether charter schools outperform public schools. Some charter schools certainly do, and some certainly do not. Overall the difference is slight if there is a difference at all.

With this information in mind, here are my thoughts:

If I were a parent, I would definitely consider sending my kid to a charter school. They are (considering both public and private donors) better funded than public schools (and thus can afford better support staff and educational resources), have smaller class sizes, smaller populations of high needs students, can (theoretically) lure better teachers (while being able to fire the ones that don't work out), hire (theoretically) more committed and competent principals, and have a clear focus/mission/philosophy as laid out in the charter. It's no wonder the wait list at charter schools averages around 200 students!

I have no problem with schools that are well run and give kids quality education.

Here's the problem: all of this comes at the expense of public schools. If 10% of NYC students end up in charter schools (as Joel Klein has stated he wants), then that leaves 90% of students to deal with less money, a higher concentration of ELL and special ed students, larger class sizes, a weaker pool of teachers who don't feel supported, and weaker principals convinced that innovation and philosophical focus is the realm of charters.

I don't think charter schools are evil, but I wonder: why are policymakers so intent on abandoning public schools? Why not give public schools smaller class sizes, greater funding, greater resources, better principals, less regulation, etc.? Why create these brand new schools when their formula could be used to help fix the old ones?

I don't have the answer, but I have my guesses:

1. Elimination of teacher unions/tenure. This will never, ever happen in public schools, and perhaps they think that without it, they cannot remove bad teachers, and thus, the system will never improve.

2. Wiping the slate clean. There is some irresistible human urge to start fresh when things get too messy. Divorce is way easier in some ways than trying to save a marriage (though, on both sides of this analogy, the kids are often the one who get hurt). Starting a new school means picking your own teachers, creating your own philosophy, feeling obligated to no traditions. I'm guessing this was going through the head of the principal in Rhode Island that fired every single teacher at the school.

3. The BloomKlein stamp. Sure, they could try to fix the current schools, but that's so passe. Charter schools are a relatively new idea that could help cement their legacy as "innovators".

4. The slippery slope towards privatization. If this partially private funding thing catches on, it could greatly reduce the city's budget. Sure, corporate sponsorship could come with some ugly ethical quandries, but it works for the government, right?

As I said before, a good school is a good school, and I can't take issue with any individual charter schools that responsibly and ethically utilizes resources, teachers, and staff to effectively educate students in their communities. And in fact, even though I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see a logical argument behind starting fresh, eliminating tenure, and using private funds.

What is concerning is that Bloomberg and Klein wish to frame Charters vs. Public Schools as a clean competition (a "Race to the Top") driven by market forces that will cause all school to improve or die. If so, it is a race in which one side has been given a space shuttle and the other has been given a hot air balloon.