MWB wrote:Charters use public funds to supposedly educate all. They have a habit of getting rid of problems though, for various reasons.
I've seen you make general statements like that before in this thread, and I have to say it comes off as stereotyping.
I've taught in a charter school for four years and can recall one student being removed from the school. If anything, most of our students are "undesirables" sent from public schools that couldn't handle them.
To an extent, you're probably right that I'm stereotyping. I'm just basing that thought on research I've read on various charters and the methodology some use in selection. I don't mean to make any blanket statement though, or say that all charters are bad. Some have shown excellent results.
Some charters use a lottery system to select students. That, in itself, means that they are getting kids who have parents who have an interest in education their children. They're not going to get kids who have parents who don't care and aren't involved. Others have certain behavioral contracts that need to be adhered to. If they aren't, or if parents don't agree to the policies, then they don't have to take the kids. There are also some charters, like KIPP, that have a fairly high attrition rate, especially in middle school years. Charters, in general, educate fewer ESL kids, fewer kids with IEPs, and fewer homeless children. These are schools that use public money, yet they can choose not to educate certain kids to some extent.
My comments aren't meant to paint all charters in a broad brush. It really has more to do with some viewing charters and privatization of education as a panacea. Simply put, charters (in general) don't perform better than public schools.