The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

Or would you say "I bet these employees are poorly managed. I'm sure they can work more effectively if we change aspects of the process."

Here's an idea that doesn't cost any money: segregate students by ability so that kids can learn at their own pace.

And who care enough to move (showing a massive parental interest in their child's education).

This is why using test scores to compare schools, be it charter vs. public in the same district or public vs. public in another district, is inherently flawed.

Or go STEM, work your butt off, and get paid well. These are grown up choices.

1) As far as I know, only one school principal has broken the $500k+ barrier, and that is a charter school principal from a failed school in Florida. I do not believe this specific detail was that convincing.

On the topic of graft, this is hard to pin down but it's not insignificant. See http://neatoday.org/2015/06/04/can-charter-schools-be-rescue... for one commentary:

> Some charter advocates may dismiss reports of malfeasance as the shenanigans of a few bad actors, but the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) exposed the massive scale of the sector’s shoddy practices in a series of startling reports. In April, CPD revealed at least $200 million in 15 states had been squandered or misused through various activities – everything from the use of taxpayer funds to support other businesses to outright embezzlement. That total is probably higher, but, according to the report, it’s difficult to pinpont “because the federal government, the states, and local charter authorizers lack the oversight necessary to detect the fraud.”

If the books are private, it's hard to really tell if there's graft, no? At least with public schools it's easier to see where the money goes.

Charter school supporters should push for more transparency, as this veil of corporate secrecy makes a great target.

2) "Funding often comes directly from the local school district, most of which are already severely cash-strapped."

There's no question that this is true for many districts. For example, in Pennsylvania, the local public school system must reimburse charter schools based on their own per capita costs per student. Students on the autism spectrum are more expensive to teach, as are students who are emotionally disturbed. At Chester Uplands those students make up 8.4% and 13.6% of the student population, respectively. At one local charter school, those are 2.1% and 2.8% respectively, while at two other charter schools, those are 0%.

As a result, the school district sends more money to the local charter schools than it gets from the state, and may soon be bankrupt.

See http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/08/pa-charter-vampir... for a summary.

In Ohio, according to this report http://innovationohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Unfair-... , "Because of the $774 million deducted from traditional public schools in FY 2012 to fund charters, children in traditional public schools received, on average, $235 (or 6.5%) less state aid than the state itself said they needed."

I therefore think this is valid critique by exelius about how charters are funded, independent of the quality of the education provided.

3) "Educational standards are different"

Isn't that also true? https://www.the74million.org/article/whitmire-5-ways-to-stop... comments, in defense of good charter schools, that opponents to charter schools have some valid arguments. One is:

> Identify the low bar, and enforce it.

> This is another lesson from California, which leads the nation in actively trying to boost charter quality. There is no agreement on what makes a great charter; depending on the student population being served, that will vary greatly. But there should be an agreement on the low end of the bar. So set that bar, and enforce it.

> That low bar has to be precise about what constitutes academic achievement.

If charters have a lower bar than public schools, then there's inventive to teach to that lower bar, which lowers cost for a charter school, and leads to profit for the charter owner rather than savings for the taxpayer.

I believe this a valid critique, though I do not know the evidence.

3b) "Also, most states offer some sort of funding incentive based on test scores -- which just encourages schools to play the numbers game by finding reasons to suspend/expel struggling students, encourage cheating on tests, etc."

There are any number of sources which say that the charter schools cherry pick students. There are any number of those which say the opposite. You can dismiss it the claim, but all evidence is that it's part of a valid critique of the charter system, and intimately tied with the funding question.

You commented: "and that charter schools are stealing things"

By stealing, do you mean violating the law? I liked this text from https://preaprez.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/in-chicago-98-mill... :

> When the story broke last week that Juan Rangel’s United Neighborhood Organization funneled $98 million dollars in state grants to friends and relatives of higher ups in the organization, Patrick O’Connor, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s aldermanic floor leader said, “Nothing being reported means they’ve done anything illegal or improper. It might sound crude, but it’s kind of like picking your nose in public. It looks bad. It’s not classy. But it’s not illegal.”

Or do you mean the metaphorical sense, like "stealing a child's future"?

With zoned schools you can have an interest in your childs education and have no way of getting in simply because you can't afford it.

The point is that those who claim that charter schools get to pick the good students and leave the bad ones with the public schools are simply wrong. It's the public schools in the rich areas that get to pick their students simply by whether they can afford to live where they do or not.