Charter schools are tax payer funded K-12 schools that are managed by private companies. In the U.S. there are approximately 2.9 million students enrolled in 6,700 charter schools. Charter schools are approved and governed by city, county or state governments. Beneficiaries of private schools include real-estate investors who typically own the buildings and land where the schools are housed. Opponents of charter schools argue that they take money away from the public education system and enrich private companies and real estate investors who own the land where the schools are built. Proponents argue that students in charter schools consistently have higher test scores than public school students and note that there are millions of students across the U.S. who are currently on waitlists for private schools.
Charter schools can provide an alternative to public schools, but they cannot fix all the problems public schools face. Public schools need to be adequately funded, and charter schools cannot provide the resources and funding necessary to support all the students in a district
No, and education should not be privatized
Government funding should be focused on public schools and increasing teacher wages, but private institutions should still be able to run private schools for families that want private education for their child.
Yes, but not at the expense of funding public schools, and as long as same standards are used to evaluate. There's been some thumbs on the scale in areas to support otherwise failing charter schools and at the expense of public education.
These should definitely be non-profit.
in some cases yes but putting charter school funding over public school is morally wrong and our education system needs to be improved, its not right that 20 minutes away there's schools that cant afford basic supplies while there's schools with an influx of supplies and have extra money to afford ipads and extra things for clubs and so on.
no people shouldnt have to pay for their kids to go to a private school when the public schools do the same thing unless theyre famous or if its a private school for kids who need extra help in school (more advanced help than you would get from a public school)
No, Unless They Are Affiliated With A City School District (Like University High School Charter And Emerson Community Charter; Both In Los Angeles, CA). Regardless, We Should Continue To Fund Public Schools And Increase Teacher Wages.
Charter schools are a great compromise between failing public schools and private schools. However, they should be required to abide by the same standards as public schools (eg class sizes, etc) and there should be more transparency on where their money comes from and what they teach
I think there is limited room for charter schools within our educational system--for example, in large systems to provide specialized educational opportunities or to meet specialized educational needs; but I strongly oppose the movement toward using charter schools in a way that weakens the public education system. If I had to go all or nothing, then I would oppose charter schools.
As it relates to charter schools, off of the top of my head, and without the statistics on the viability of charter schools in front of me, I don’t feel I’ll be able to give a definitive answer. I will say, I don’t think it should take away from public school funding. When you look deeply, within the vast majority of cities in our country, I think it’s safe to say a lot of our public schools have been forgotten, in some aspects. In certain areas, they are devastatingly underfunded. At least compared to suburban areas. An example would be Montgomery County schools vs Philadelphia County schools. Or Independent School Districts within the suburbs outside of Dallas (Collin county for example), vs Dallas ISD.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion