If you have opened your ears to the news lately, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk about this ongoing debate; public schools vs. charter schools. The media has made it seem like the two are head to head, in some sort of epic teaching battle for who can produce the best students. Charter schools have become the modern rival of public schools. The conversation has turned even uglier as Teachers Unions take charge and outright defame charter schools, with efforts to remove these entities from particular states all together. I think it’s time we call for some peace.
In case you are a little behind, let’s begin with explaining the basic differences between the two: Public schools get their financing from local, state, and federal government funds. They are free and open to any student that lives within the geographic boundaries of their school district. Most of us have attended at least some of our younger years in a public school. In contrast, charter schools are relatively new.
Charter schools are a type of public school and they began appearing in the early 1990s. Today there are about 3,000 charter schools across the United States. They are independently operated and founded by parents, teachers, community organizations, and for-profit companies. These schools receive tax dollars from the state, but the sponsoring group may also come up with private funding. Charter schools do not charge tuition.
While charter schools cannot restrict which students may apply for admissions and must select students by lottery, most target their recruitment to a specific demographic. Some recruit solely gifted students, or students with specific experiences or interests; while others target high risk students, communities of color, or low-income families.
These schools must adhere to the basic curricular requirements of the state but are free from many of the regulations that apply to conventional schools. They are not subject to the scrutiny of school boards or government authorities, and usually challenge standard education practices. They sometimes specialize in a particular area, such as technology or the arts, or adopt a basic core-subjects approach. They usually have smaller classes and offer more individual attention than conventional public schools. Because of this smaller size, they often have limited electives and opportunities for sports, clubs, or performing groups.
But back to our original point: The debate questions who is most appropriately teaching our youth, one type of school or the other? This argument can be quickly interrupted as most educators take note that the students found within charter schools can vastly differ from those within public schools and vice versa.
Students attending charter schools come with an advantage from the start, as their parents have already shown interest in their child’s education by taking initiative action to gain admission and placing a ticket for the charter’s lottery. On the other hand, public schools must accept all students, from the best families to the worst. Public schools must accept students from families that take no part in their child’s education. These include families with smaller issues, such as greater workloads and lack of time; and larger issues, such as drug abuse and homelessness. The home setting plays a big part in the academic achievement of a child. If the parents are not involved, the student is already at a loss. In their most ideal form, charter schools were originally meant to serve the poorest of low-income students. In reality, however, most of them tend to only accept small percentages of these kids, and they generally do not admit extremely high risk, high need, or challenging students.
Furthermore, once admitted, charter schools may set grade or attendance requirements for students to continue enrollment. If you don’t keep to the standard, you’re out. Public schools don’t do this and are required to keep all of their students, failing or not. Charter schools are also not required to offer special education classes and resources. While some include it as an explicit part of their mission, many don’t. Families with special needs students may not have access to the support they need at a charter school and thus public schools are their only option.
Most importantly, numerous studies on both types of schools have found that students perform, on average, quite similar in either setting. Test scores between the two are more alike than they are different, with variations being rather indistinguishable. Some charters are very successful, some are troubled and struggling, and the rest are somewhere in between just like public schools.
We should remember that the original impetus for the creation of charter schools was to increase competition for students, thus giving parents more choices in terms of where their children go to school, but the battle for public funding and concerns about privately-run public education raises the stakes in charter school conversations. This makes it difficult to find objective information and unbiased analysis.
On the brighter side, we could see the opportunity for growth in this matter. Increased competition between public and charter schools could lead to better educational programs for all students. We all want the best for our children, and it is without a doubt that our education system is in need of constant innovation and changes. What if teachers and administration from both parties could join forces? Without collaboration our growth is limited to our own perspective. A wider view could benefit the students most.