|
For a new book on the school choice debate, Thomas L. Good, Ph.D. and
Jennifer S. Braden made an extensive review of the existing research on
charter schools. Here, in brief, are a few of the broad conclusions they
reached:
-
Critics of the
public schools argue that they have become bloated with highly
paid—and often unnecessary—administrators, and that schooling as
it is currently configured results in reduced spending in support of
classroom instruction, something charter schools would change. In
marked contrast to this allegation, the data we reviewed illustrates
that charter schools, as a group, have led to the transfer of a
significant percentage of states’ funds from instructional to
administrative costs. Hence,
to date, charter schools have increased administrative costs.
-
Another belief
of charter school advocates is that these schools hold the potential
for transforming the uniform, one-size-fits-all approach to
curriculum and instruction. Unfortunately,
this hope for innovation has yet to be realized.
In fact, researchers have consistently found that charter
schools have not put forth new educational ideas and methods.
To date, virtually no exciting new approaches to teaching
have occurred in charter schools, despite their smaller classes and
freedom from many bureaucratic structures and rules.
This lack of innovation, in some states, has occurred despite
the fact that charter school legislation often mandates innovation.
-
Though
increased student achievement is touted as one of the many
potentially beneficial outcomes of charter schools, student
achievement, in general, has not been positively enhanced in charter
schools when compared with other public schools.
Clearly, as with public schools, some individual charter
schools have been associated with high student achievement, while
others are associated with dreadful student performance.
Given that charter schools spend less on classroom support
(teaching, computers, books) and have not implemented new ideas, it
is not surprising that student achievement has not been enhanced.
-
Supporters of
public schools have argued that charter public schools avoid special
education students. We
found that, although there are some notable exceptions, charter
schools have generally not accommodated special-needs students, and
many charter schools operate in violation of federal law.
-
Critics also
have noted that charter schools have increased social segregation in
their recruitment of students.
Indeed, charter schools in general have further segregated
students on the basis of income level, ethnicity, and special needs.
Some charter schools have even been organized around
parents’ cultural and religious beliefs.
If this practice continues, such schools will lead to a
larger social separation of Americans—creating and maintaining
schools that affirm and re-establish certain social, economic,
religious, and cultural boundaries.
These are but a few
of the findings we have gleaned from our own research and our review of
others’. In some cases,
charter schools have allowed creative individuals to develop exciting
new educational settings for children.
But, these successes notwithstanding, we conclude that, to date,
the investment of public monies in charter schools is much more
representative of a wasteful experiment than an informative one.
The
Great School Debate: Choice, Vouchers and Charters.
Thomas L. Good and Jennifer S. Braden, University of Arizona. http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=27good.h19 |