What charters were intended to be as proposed by Ray Budde and what they have morphed into being are very different. The initial concept was for teachers to run schools by developing contracts with school boards that outlined the design of their educational programs. All school resources were to be realigned to support teachers efforts. While the business theory of competition was a strong advocacy ploy, except for our few virtual schools that are attracting children through open enrollment, the market concept has not panned out. Milwaukee Public Schools, our largest district in the state, serving one third of our student population is not financially impacted by the 10 non-district sponsored charters within its borders. The arguement that charters are bastions of innovation has not proven true here either. What charter schools are, are public schools at their very best. They are smaller schools, with active parent involvement as the result of parent volunteer contracts. What charter schools provide are more options. We have health-focused, engineering focused, environmentally based, montessori, fine arts related charters that serve either small general or special populations. You are right however, public schools can do many of the things that charters can do. But they don't, thus the significance of the smaller charter school options.
Posted as a reply to:
Why charters were created in California by Anthony Pina
|
|
