I have been a parent and board member in one of the best charter high schools in the country, Greenville Technical Charter High School in Greenville, SC. The charter model offers some hope for reforming underperforming schools in that tremendous energy invested by faculty and staff members, parents, and community volunteers in that particular school can bring about real change. It isn't easy and it isn't free of the politics that have crippled school districts across the country. Conversion schools will have a harder time overcoming the politics and the "we always did it this way" thinking.

I'm also a retired public school teacher from our local district. I always encourage new start-up groups to use at-will employement; no school can afford the cost of poor teachers or teachers. And, in a state like South Carolina, where charters operate with about half the funds of district schools, charter schools can't even consider keeping teachers who refuse to commit to the innovation and change that the charter pursues.

Charters can innovate while public schools can't. Thus, if anything is to change, it will need to come from the charter or private sectors. Public schools, bound by increasingly myriad accountability schemes, must be reactive to the given conditions while private and charter schools can innovate and be PROACTIVE. They are free to do so, of course, because they can be selective in their student body and often have a great deal of money behind them to fund technology initiatives. How can one apply charter principles to public, especially urban public, education is a question worthy of someone more informed than I am.

My children attended a seven-year old charter school here in Fort Worth last year because I was afraid to send them to the HUGE local middle school(1000 7th/8th graders). The format seemd good since more unusual electives were offered(ballet, Latin dance, film, etc.)
The administration was ineffective however, and the rules were applied inconsistently. The teachers were mostly young and didn't know how to handle middle schoolers, or wanted to be just like them. A few teachers were inspired, but overwhelmed by continual discipline problems and non-support. The school seemed to be a "receptacle" for kids who didn't fit in anywhere else, especially behaviorally deficient kids who thought nothing of continually swearing at teachers and kids and engaging in physical and emotional abuse of all types.My kids could never concentrate or feel comfortable.
They are in the huge middle school this year. Lots of the same type of kids, but a few, very few, here and there, as well as more good teachers. Behavior issues and blatant disrespect are the major time consumers every day. The main problems seem to be poor attitude and disrespect. Teachers should not be expected to deal with such circumstances: it is no wonder we have so few good ones. Maybe boot camp???

I do not think Charter Schools are the answer for all of the failing schools. Often, the mismanagement of funds, poor administration and political mayhem in municipalities, trickle down to public schools.
I am a true believer that if a child is fostered to their potential and required to love learning by parents and family, they will succeed anywhere. I think parents think schools and teachers are a panacea for facing obstacles in a child's life. It is about priorities.
I would also like to point out, in most cases, I certainly do not think home schooling is the answer either. I often find that people that are home schooled are socially inept and quite closed-minded. In addition, these home schooled students are not presented a solid curricula either.

Charters may sometimes be one of several partial solutions for a few schools but there are major problems that must be resolved and they must be placed on a level playing field with the publics so that their success can be measured. Here are the problems with charters:

1. They rarely accept students with significant special needs, lack understanding of special education regs and have no concept that many special needs children are not in their Least Restrictive Environment in regular classes for core subjects but need alternative curricula and small group classes.

2.They hire teachers and principals who are neither.

3. They work teachers without contracts, expect them to work longer days and years than publics and often pay less and, if they objector ask for their federally required help, fire them.

4. They normally do not work with the unions and consider them "the enemy".

5. Many are run by for-profits that take their money off the top of the budget and provide little or nothing in return, even charging the schools extra for services.

6. Those run by non-profits tend to be under the supervision of businessmen or preachers who know nothing about education.

The only way charters are going to work if if they are started and run by educators and parents and, unless specifically for a a special purpose, such as for gifted students, should be required by law to serve special needs (and not "speech only" as some in New Orleans tried to). To really be fair, if an organization runs a charter for gifted or otherwise desirable children, it should also have to run one for special education, significant needs only.

You know it really bothers me that this guy thinks he's thew teacher friendly administrator. He has trumpeted the charter schools and blasted the teachers of the public schools threatening to fire all the "bad" teachers in the "bad schools".

I don't feel the love and whil I know there are some excellent charter schools and public schools are hand-cuffed by bureaucracy and the already-always methods of operation, the problem is too deep for a band-aid.

Teacher's unions get blamed for everything (along with the teachers)but IF the public schools would allow teachers to help struggling teachers and work collaborately with administrators, and IF parents were better trained and IF students tried a little harder and IF the war on drugs worked and IF the economy was in better shape and IF administrators dien't have classroom amnesia and remembered what teaching was like and IF there was just a tad more respect...you get the picture.

No, charter school as a or the corrective procedure for the ailing public schools (and sadly in some cases, failing)is not tha answer because not all charter schools are glowing examples of success.

The answer is to get all "stakeholders" (and I cringe everytime I use that word) would get together and LISTEN to each other rather than wait their turn to get theri opinions out we might begin to turn tide.

The agenda has been known for awhile: there is a group of people, and I don't think this is a widespread conspiracy like the Illuminati, to create a Voucher program where on the surface it seems like a level playing field, but in truth is a way to further separate the masses by class distinction. Ultimately, public education is the dinosaur and a new regime that educates the wealthy and leaves the other 95% to fend for themselves.

Let us awken before it is too late and realize the enemy and forge together a new model that is fair to all and recognizes the needs of all.

Charter schools are not a solution. It's not that I'd call them a "wrongheaded" solution, so the wording of your "no" response doesn't reflect my opinion (nor, I'd bet, the opinion of others who are clear-eyed enough to see through the "it's a miracle!" hype). They simply AREN'T a solution.

Overall, charters do no better than traditional public schools, despite having the advantage of creaming for higher-functioning, more-motivated students, plus being showered with money and support by philanthropists and with uninformed but gushing praise from political leaders and the gullible mainstream press. (No charter advocate can actually name any "innovations" being pioneered in charter schools -- that's just more hype and puffery.)

Meanwhile, charter schools harm traditional public schools by draining away money, support and the more motivated students. So charter schools are not only NOT a solution -- they violate the principle of "doing no harm."

Children in some of the worse areas of the inner cities do face violence and disruptive students in their schools. There are also examples of adults who have been raised in public housing in the poorest areas by parents who care and make sure they get to school, come home, study and learn. They are the exception, but the only such cases are ones in which a parent – usually a mother – has been vigilant and caring and insisted that they learn.

It think that is the key. You learn not from the schools alone, in fact the school can do little unless it is supported by the home. We do teach character education, but if it is not reinforced at home, it does not help. If a child comes home and says today we learned ways in which to “be truthful” and the parent puts that down or tells the child that’s a stupid idea, the child will be very confused and likely listen to the parent.

I agree that we need to put more money into education, and hopefully save in the long run on jails. However, I do think putting money into the school is not the total answer. It has to be an investment in the community. The poor are not stupid, but often they are under nourished, do not have sufficient clothing or sanitary conditions in which to live, and all too often have to ’stay out on the streets’ if a parent want the use of the house for ‘whatever.’

Also some groups arriving in this country do not value education at all. The children did not go to school unless the family was wealthy. In our area this is true of much of the population who make up a large portion of our city schools. Too many also are here illegally, so there is not much that can be done even to help them. The schools do not ask if they are legal or not, but take everyone who enrolls. By high school many of them see no reason for further education. Their families do grass cutting, or pick vegetables, or are day laborers and they see no reason to do anything else or aspire to anything else. If they are not legally here, that is another drawback to being able to get a job beyond simple laborer, so why go to school? Again, there are many exceptions to this which occur if the parent is interested in education.

Sadly, though we are a very rich country, many people would refuse to allow money to be spent to improve the conditions of the communities in which these schools exist. They would rather pay for jails. I think that is very sad.

#1) There is no one way to "fix" the problems we have with public education.
#2) Charter Schools offer one solution to a complex problem that is not complicated but because of local communities' various needs/gaps/problems/etc. there is no one way to fix what is a serious systemic educational issue in this country.
#3) Should charter schools be given an opportunity where the need suggests that the charter school model would work? Absolutely!
#4) There are also processes that involve training and preparing teachers that have been effective in turning around schools like the Teacher Advancement Process TAP by the Milken Brothers through the Milken Foundation. This process gets buy-in from instructional staff before it is implemented at a school and because it is not a "program" but rather a "process" the results indicate that TAP works to increase teacher effectiveness thereby increasing student performance towards academic achievements that have no limits.
#5) Bottome line - People, schools, teachers, parents, institutions and all stakeholders need to "want" change, need to "want" to "do better", need to "want" better educational opportunities for our future generation in order for real sustained change to occur. Will a school or a process do it alone? No! but people can! we can! all of us can! if we "want" too!

There is no one way to "fix" the problems we have with public education.
#2) Charter Schools offer one solution to a complex problem that is not complicated but because of local communities' various needs/gaps/problems/etc. there is no one way to fix what is a serious systemic educational issue in this country.
#3) Should charter schools be given an opportunity where the need suggests that the charter school model would work? Absolutely!
#4) There are also processes that involve training and preparing teachers that have been effective in turning around schools like the Teacher Advancement Process TAP by the Milken Brothers through the Milken Foundation. This process gets buy-in from instructional staff before it is implemented at a school and because it is not a "program" but rather a "process" the results indicate that TAP works to increase teacher effectiveness thereby increasing student performance towards academic achievements that have no limits.
#5) Bottome line - People, schools, teachers, parents, institutions and all stakeholders need to "want" change, need to "want" to "do better", need to "want" better educational opportunities for our future generation in order for real sustained change to occur. Will a school or a process do it alone? No! but people can! we can! all of us can! if we "want" too!