HowlerKarma-
The charter movement was originally intended as a way to free up public schools from some of the requirements that kept it from experimenting with new educational styles. By allowing a school to hire, as an example, an accomplished artist or a professional research scientist, rather than someone with a BA and a credential, schools could tinker with some changes and be free from some Ed.Code rules. They could try an adapted Montessori model, or Waldorf, or focus on group projects or IB, what have you. It was designed as an experimentation model to find successful other ways that could then be applied to traditional schools. It was never intended to be an us vs. them or an either or model.
For example, I spent two years as a teacher trainer at a technical high school that was specifically designed to take kids coming out of juvenile hall or probation and to give them a career. They were not kids who were going to college (for the most part) or kids who had big hopes and dreams. Our entire goal was to give them a GED and skills that paid better than selling drugs. Our Construction Management program was run by a guy with 40 years in the industry and he had his own company, hiring most of the graduates out as an apprentice.
It worked and it worked well. In the 4 years the school was in existence, every single kid passed the CAHSEE (exit exam in CA) or got their GED and not one of them returned to juvenile hall in the time we tracked them. In a tragic turn of events for these kids, the district shut us down because our AYP was not satisfactory. Moving a bunch of kids from far below basic to basic and giving them jobs, does not help AYP. You need kids in proficient and advanced to do that.
I don't think that experimentation, creativity and student focus is coming out of most for-profit, nationally run charters. It defeats the entire purpose of boots on the ground local control. If the principal has no budgetary control, the teachers report to someone in another state and there are 15+ schools in the network it is just a large, bureaucratic school district.
That's not to say it doesn't work for some kids. I have heard great things about Connections for being flexible with gifted kids, compacting and accelerating students as necessary. (Not so much with k12). But they also seem to have local hands-on people that are more in touch with the kids, in addition to the upper levels of bureaucracy. I don't know if it's a sustainable financial model in the long run. I got offered a job with k12 and just about died laughing when they offered me $23,000 to work full-time in California, with several years of experience and three credentials under my belt.
The often left out dialogue of the charter debate is that the schools are often non-union. This gives the teachers' unions fodder to fight against new charters, even if the school is helping kids, doing well and serving the population better than their current employers. Some charters pay horribly (example above!) while others pay the same or better than their neighboring school districts. My long-time employer pays 6% less than the district. However, when you add in the union dues that we don't pay, the matching 403B account my employer provides and the $500 gift card for class supplies at the beginning of the year, it comes out pretty close. In good years, my school has also paid for conferences, teacher training, units beyond your credential at the university level and stipends for mentoring new teachers.
Charters are like gifted kids- if you've seen one, you've seen ONE. And that's the intention.
