Argument against Charter Schools
Douglas Taylor
I have a much better understanding of Charter schools, and I would like to share them with you and the class at our next meeting. In researching charter schools, I have found that the disadvantages far out weight the advantages. A charter school is exempt from all state mandates, so the school itself does not have to abide by any state rules or regulations. This means that the teachers are NOT required to be certified or highly qualified in any subject that they teach. The school also does not have to participate in state standardized testing. From my research I have also found that charter schools have VERY high turnover rates among their teaching staff, and this is mainly due to the lack of work unions and protections for teachers under the law. Teachers often have longer work days and heavily increased responsibilities. This causes them to flee to more traditional schools or leave the teaching profession altogether. Furthermore, leadership is often hard to find for charter schools because the principal is often the sole leader in the school without any support. It is safe to say that no real progress may be accomplished because the charter school is continually changing staff every year.
Next, there is the issue of funding. Charter schools do not receive money for startup costs from the state government, so the buildings are often old and worn; there are in terrible conditions. Thus, classrooms are often equipped with fewer resources. So, the utopian tale that all charter schools are well-equipped with all the resources that are needed is simply not true. The charter school is funded over time, so students do not receive any real additional benefit unless the charter is funded by wealthy business and families. Furthermore, charter schools have a lack of standards which means that they are not required to follow the state course of study. This could be a positive attribute except for the fact that they could theoretically teach a course of study less than what is appropriate or fulfills the appropriate standards as suggested by the state board of education.
Another argument against charter schools is the fact that they pick and choose whom to accept into their programs. In a normal public school all students are accepted regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. In a charter school this is definitely not the case. They would be allowed to discriminate on any basis because they do not receive federal funds or state funds. They are completely independent as long as they maintain their charter from the state. This is definitely a negative attribute because all students should be guaranteed a free education. This does include ALL students, and this would include students in special education. In a charter school special education students would likely not be welcomed because they would bring down the charter with low scores because they are clearly not performing on academic grade level, or else they would not be in special education. So, it is highly unlikely that a charter school would admit a student in special education, not to mention having to pay an extra teacher for special education. Where will this money come from? Funds are extremely limited!
This is not to say that all charter schools operate in this way, but I am speaking from a general perspective. It cannot be simulated that by allowing a school to come to the state of Alabama that does not have to meet state standards, teacher certification and licensing, discrimination policies, state testing and accountability, teacher unions, and many other standards will likely “progress” the state of Alabama in a positive way, especially considering that people feel that our schools are already in poor condition. If our current standards are not good enough for Alabama, then how can arguably lower standards be good enough—charter schools could teach less? In my opinion, it would open the door to the abolishment of teacher unions and public schools because more schools will become private. If schools are private and not public then how can we mandate what is taught in the minimum state curriculum and standards? I do not believe that this would be beneficial enough to our state to invest the time and energy into this, not to mention the students who would become segregated in schools among the most “elite”. If you think about a charter school, it must do something to KEEP its charter. This means that it will be held on some sort of accountability measure by the state board of education. So my question is, what would a school be willing to do in order to keep its charter- discriminate against different groups of people? Perhaps they would be willing to remove the lower performing people from the program, and if they do this are the students really receiving this world class education that the public school so miserably failed? Maybe a charter school would be willing to fudge accountability measures to show that they are maintaining a standard when in fact they may not be, or perhaps a charter school could become a group of racist people who hate the opposite race—it’s just an idea but a possible idea.
