A few Problems about Charter Schools you Might Have Missed...

Sometimes I blog a story as a way of filing a future debating point on an important issue of the day, like charters.

Here are a few interesting observations about the "promise" of charter schools, as highlighted by Schoolsmatter.info:

The Buffalo News: Claiming that charter schools drain dollars and students from Buffalo’s traditional schools, the Board of Education voted, 6-2, Wednesday evening to seek a state moratorium on new charter schools in and around the city. board President Ralph Hernandez, who voted for the moratorium. “This is having a serious impact on the Buffalo public school system.”. . .

The latest from the LA Times editorial page:

Less clear, though, is whether charter schools offer real, long-term solutions to fixing public education in America … Studies of charter schools have been mixed; some researchers give higher marks to charters, others to public schools. One of the most recent and most comprehensive longitudinal studies, released by Stanford University in June, found that charter schools were uneven. More than a third perform worse than nearby public schools, and about half do about as well as public schools, the study found. Only 17% provide students with a "superior educational opportunity."

…charter schools have a built-in advantage. In California, most charter schools fill their seats through lotteries … It's a fair system, but it skews enrollment because the lotteries attract motivated, involved families. In addition, charter schools can require extra responsibilities for students and parents, such as volunteering time on campus, and can close enrollment when they are full. They also have more authority to expel students who do not meet their standards for behavior. Families that are unable or unwilling to invest that much in their children's education will end up at public schools, which have to accept all students within their boundaries.

But KIPP also draws the parents and students who are willing to accept regimentation, high expectations and long hours; its formula might be less successful at public schools, where many families might be less enthusiastic about its methods. In addition, the KIPP program spends significantly more per student than the public school system does, relying on private contributions to make up the difference.

At the same time, now that the number of charter schools is reaching critical mass, they are having a disproportionate negative impact on funding for public schools. Most of the state funding for those students follows them to their new schools. The public schools they leave receive less money, but their operating costs don't necessarily go down. Giving one student the opportunity to attend a charter should not mean leaving another with fewer resources.