Charter Schools

After hearing a charter school teacher speak, my views on Charter Schools haven't all that much changed. The only problem I have with Charter Schools is that there success derives from their rarity. Of course schools in poor income areas that have lower class sizes, a higher budget, and a staff insistent upon getting students to graduate and go to college is going to have better results.

But, the issue arises, how do we replicate these results? And to this I don't think there's an easy answer. When you look at these schools, like Geoffrey Canada's schools in Harlem, and see that 2/3rds of their funding is private, you have to realize that their isn't an infinite abyss of private money willing to fund schools, the same way there isn't an infinite abyss of public money to fund public schools. What I'm trying to say is, there can only be a limited amount of successful charter schools because if they only depended on public funding, they'd likely be no better than public schools.

I think they're great to have around, especially the ones with proven track records, but one issue I have with some is the fact that they have an application process and than pass it off as if they've made the best out of the worst. Having an application completely defeats the purpose of having a Charter Schools, that's why I think a lottery system is undoubtedly the most appropriate system.

As for things public schools can do to make themselves as successful as these Charter Schools, I think it's easy. I think there needs to be more staffing in terms of college prep. Public schools should have a fully dedicated staff that meets with every student at least once a year to discuss where they're headed in terms of their academics. It doesn't even have to be about colleges alone, they could stretch it to career preparation as well. Preparing students for life after school needs to be tackled better.

I also don't believe that Charter Schools stricter standards are such a big influence as they make them out to be. Doing things like reprimanding students always is predicated upon the idea that the students want to be there. A student being suspended from a low-income school that's not a good student does not care he's suspended because he does not want to go to school. The punishments Charter Schools are dolling out are effective because the students, and the student's parents want them to be there.

This is yet another reason Charter Schools are going to be more effective. If a parent takes the time to enroll their student into a charter school, fill out the application, or even attend the lottery, they are already demonstrating their commitment to being a parent, those students have a good backing behind them and are bound to be at least a little bit more dedicated.

All in all, I have no issues with individual Charter Schools, the issue I do have is when people start looking to them as a national education solution, or taking their bloated results seriously.

One of the things I'm more intrigued to read about is how tenured public school teachers, and those alike feel about Charter Schools. It seems to me that these school's successes are predicated on being able to pay low teacher salary to young teachers. It'd be interesting to see if their was a love-loss between public and Charter School teachers.