Reply #19: Any more generalizations stuck in your craw?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

The charter school definition and requirements vary from state to state. Their results vary from school to school. There is really not a lot of apples to apples data out there. General trend seems to be no worse than public schools, and in many areas, somewhat better. Many of them are specialized or flavored in one way or another (arts, language immersion, etc)

Some states require teacher certification, others do not. Some pay into the state retirement system, others do not. It varies from state to state and school to school.

Charters get public funds since they are public schools. However, they get to take different approaches to things and can control who enrolls in most states. They are also very sensitive politically. Detractors say they get away with things that should not be allowed. Supporters say that they get scrutinized to a level unseen in the regular public schools. Much of it depends on the laws of the state involved. Certification, evaluation, and resources are always a fight and bring out the worst in both sides who both claim they are doing it "for the children"

At a macro level I tend to think charter schools do better that regular public schools due to the implicit parental screening. If a parent takes the time to seek out a charter school for their children, they tend to be more concerned/involved in their child's education, which is one of the prime determinants of educational success. That in turn leads to better results for that school and lower results from the school that child would have otherwise attended. I can't back my conclusion with numbers, but I think it is pretty self evident.