Answer: it depends on the school.
And that, I would argue, is the problem.
Why?
Because the mere mention of the word “charter” often evokes connotations of “better” when it comes to education, especially in urban areas like my hometown of New Orleans where the quality of public education has been lacking for years.
And yet, as the Washington Post article below mentions, nationally, test scores from charter schools are about the same as scores from public schools.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060802174.html
Like many things in life, charter school performance probably correlates to a normal distribution: some are awesome, some are terrible, and most are average.
The article talks about the “invasion” of charter schools in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina: post-Katrina about 53% of public school students are enrolled in charter schools; pre-Katrina about 2% were.
While some folks may feel the leaders of new charter schools in New Orleans are “opportunistic” and decry their surge to prominence, I think the move to charter schools will benefit New Orleans public education in the long-run as long as people remember that just because a school is a charter doesn’t mean it is or ever will be a great school: some will be excellent, most average, and some terrible.
The crucial difference in the charter model is that you can identify which ones suck and, after a suitable period of time, shut them down and divert their funds to schools that are better.
And what’s the price for this charter system of competition in public education?
There is an initial 3-5 year period, which New Orleans is just starting now, during which many unproven charter schools are started.
They all have excellent leaders, models, and ideas on paper, but eventually reality will set in: some schools will be better performers than others.
However, you won’t know which ones suck until they’ve operated for 3-5 years and proven that they belong on the low end of the normal scale.
In the meantime, children will attend the bad charter schools and will have paid a price: they will receive an education which may be no better and come with a higher price tag (a lot of charters in New Orleans have extended school hours), or be even worse, than one they could have received at a regular public school.
Each community in America that allows charter schools to operate in their school system deals with this issue.
In New Orleans, parents, teachers, students, and officials have apparently decided that, given the terrible state of public schools before Katrina and their literal destruction post-Katrina, having some bad charter schools around for a couple of years is a price they’re willing to pay to get the good ones.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Well-stated. I sometimes wonder if charter schools aren’t as interested in providing a better education for the students as they are in turning a profit or at least providing employment. Given how many fail in the first 3 -4 years, especially for financial reasons, it makes you wonder where the money goes.