Are Charter Schools Really an Enemy to Public Schools?

Up until about a year ago, my knowledge of charter schools was incredibly limited.  I had done little research on them, but frequently heard about how the charter school movement was killing public schools in Indiana.  I can admit that I believed what I was hearing without bothering to fact check.  When discussing charter schools with a relative who lives in another state, I realized that not all charter schools are created equal.  In Georgia, most charter schools work with local county Boards of Education to present another option.  All students stay within the same corporation, which is a more correct way of saying that the money stays within the the corporation.  It's quite different in Indiana.  The majority of charter schools there are not affiliated with local school districts.  They operate as separate entities.  Unlike Georgia, the money isn't staying within the district, which causes a lot of anger, frustration and anxiety for the school districts.  Then Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, and former Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Bennett, played a large role in advocating for charter schools.

While Daniels' terms were up, Bennett was not reelected last fall.  Their popularity among teachers and many parents waned as changes to public schools went into effect.  In my opinion, Bennett and Daniels made the same mistake I did.  They were only listening to one side and didn't do their research.  It appeared they neglected to understand why the people were questioning charter schools.  I failed to consider what charter schools actually do.


What's Best for Students
On the last day of school last year, I sat down with a colleague who was leaving to become an assistant principal at a charter school in our county.  I had heard many people suggest that he was making the wrong move by leaving the district and going to work for a charter school.  Though the word 'traitor' was never uttered, it was obvious that was how many people felt about him.  We talked at length about our educational philosophies, our coworkers' philosophies, and future goals.  Something he said stuck with me and since then, I have looked at charter schools in a different way.  He said he'd hope that if some of his teachers were struggling teaching a concept, that he could email me (or anyone else) and ask for suggestions.  He doubted many teachers would be willing to help.  Yet he went on to say that if we, as teachers, say that we want what's best for students, would refusing to help really be what's best for children?  I thought long and hard about that question.  I came to the conclusion that I can't advocate solely for the students in my class or in my school, but all students.  After all, I became a teacher to make a difference.  Does that difference only occur for the twenty to thirty students who enter my classroom each day?

The Facts
So here are the facts...or at least the facts as I see them.

• Charter schools ARE public schools.  They are held to many of the same regulations as traditional schools. 

• Charter schools may be a better alternative for some students, just as traditional schools might work better for others.  

• Charter schools are not necessarily better nor are they necessarily worse than traditional schools.

• Charter schools are not always successful, but neither are their traditional counterparts.  The opposite is also true. 

• Students and their parents have a right to demand a quality education.  A quality education can occur in either setting. 

Charter schools can't be the enemy of public schools if they are public schools, can they?  It's my opinion that the enemy is being uninformed and biased without basis.  If we really want what's best for our students, shouldn't everyone be informed to determine what is best for all students, not just select groups?