Reply #21: 5 year old article.

[noamnety]

This is more current: "Charter schools managed by for-profit organizations serve a far higher percentage of poor and minority students than the national average of these students (as do nonprofits).(10) Moreover, when one compares their performance on state assessments with the average statewide performance, "the average gains for the for-profit managers relative to state gains round to 5, 6, and 8 percentage points for one-, two-, and three-year intervals."

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/eag/227383.htm

As has been noted elsewhere, this doesn't take into account that the people most likely to enroll in a charter school are the ones whose needs aren't being met in a traditional school.

That said, this from your OP bears repeating: What they need is what they used to have - ie: the funding necessary to do the job and a commitment from the public that every kid is entitled to a good education, not just the rich or connected.

Local bond issues increase inequities - with the result being that the rich get the best schools, and those in power don't have a personal stake in fighting for better funding overall.

Another issue is not recognizing that different students learn best in different environments. The best funded school of 2000 students isn't going to create the same environment as a school with 200-300 students. I stayed 3 hours late today, for example, beyond my part time (cutback) schedule, because a student I knew had special needs asked if he could use one of my computers after school while waiting for his ride. He's not my student, I've never had him as a student, but I've had meetings with the special ed teacher to talk about how I can best serve his needs (at my request), and I've stayed hours late on several occasions because we're a small enough community that we know the students who need extra care from time to time. Funding doesn't address that - and even the best teacher with the best skills can't know the needs of all the students when they are being churned through school factories. Alternatives - one way or another - are needed so students can find what best works for them.

I figure the kids aren't so different from adults. Some of us thrive in more disciplined environments at larger companies, some thrive in small creative environments, some thrive best when they are outside and working with their hands. More funding is needed, but with a one size fits all approach to every kid in the community, schools will still fail various segments of the population. That's the reason charters have sprung up - it's not funding; very very many get by with less funding than traditional schools. (Ours gets 2,000 less per student than the state average). They spring up because where there's a vacuum, something will fill it. People need to be willing to ask themselves some hard questions about WHY so many minority students feel there is a vacuum in the public schools. Funding is only one part of it. I think some charter school opponents are unwilling to face the deeper issues that have created that vacuum.