Charter schools operate like public schools in that they are free of tuition, open to all students and must take state and federal standardized tests. While they operate in many of the same capacities as public schools, charter schools have more freedom in their curricula and are exempt from some regulations that public schools must adhere to. In exchange for this freedom, charter schools are more strictly monitored and must achieve their academic and charter promises in order to retain funding.

As of 2014, charter schools were found to be more diverse than public schools. Charter schools across the U.S. have an average of 34 percent white, 27 percent black, 30 percent Hispanic and four percent Asian/Pacific Islander students. This relatively diverse student setting is much more balanced than traditional public schools, which average a 51 percent white, 15 percent black, 25 percent Hispanic and five percent Asian/Pacific Islander makeup of their student body.

Beyond the obvious benefits to participating in an increasingly diverse world – like increased tolerance, cultural awareness and collaboration, to name a few – diversity in the U.S. is rapidly increasing. By being educated in a more diverse setting, students in charter schools will be more equipped to work in a diverse setting and better operate in the world around them. Students who go through less diverse public education will be less equipped and knowledgeable than students of charter schools when operating in a diverse world outside of their schooling.

In the Midwest, cities that once were majority white are becoming more diverse at a faster rate, meaning the status quo of homogeneous Midwest suburban neighborhoods will be disrupted in a short amount of time. Missouri and its neighboring states are experiencing “the greatest rate of [racial and ethnic] change,” according to a Washington Post article analyzing U.S. Census Bureau data.

Photo courtesy of washingtonpost.com

Charter schools in the Missouri and Kansas more accurately represent the racial and ethnic makeup of the states than do public schools.

In Missouri, charter public schools have an average of 10 percent white, 78 percent black, nine percent Hispanic and one percent Asian students – whereas traditional public schools have an much less diverse average of 76 percent white, 15 percent black, four percent Hispanic and one percent Asian students.

Charter and traditional public schools in Kansas are more closely representative in the state average of racial makeup of traditional public schools versus charter public schools. Traditional public schools are on average composed of 69 percent white, seven percent black, 15 percent Hispanic and two percent Asian students whereas charter public schools have an average population of 76 percent white, seven percent black, 10 percent Hispanic and one percent Asian students. However, it is important to note that this balance comes from the state average – among the three different school districts in the study with a high population of students, charter schools were shown to be much more diverse than traditional public schools on a district level.

Not only is diverse schooling important to prepare students for the diverse world and work spaces that they will operate in, it is crucial to be better for human purposes. A lack of diversity breeds ignorance and, sadly all too common, hatred or animosity against other cultures because of that ignorance. One of the best ways to ensure the next generation of people is less ignorant than the last is to better educate them.

By having a more diverse racial and ethnic makeup than their peer traditional public schools, charter schools will more likely educate more socially conscious and tolerant individuals.

Besides educating more socially adept students, charter schools consistently gain higher letter grades than traditional public schools in the cities examined – New York City, Los Angeles and Washington D.C.

The higher average of academic achievement can be attributed to the fact that charter schools, and the funding they receive, are bound to the academic standards they specify in their charter. If a school does not meet the goals of the charter, or requirements by the state, they will likely lose funding – this motivates them to try to achieve more.

Opponents of charter schools cite a high faculty turnover rate as an issue with the type of schooling as a whole. A high faculty turnover rate means less stability for students, which can negatively affect the grades and overall education of the student. The teacher-student relationship is a key part of a successful education.

While a high teacher attrition rate is an issue in charter schools, the issue is not solely due to the nature of charter schools. Public schools have similar issues with retaining teachers – for instance, over 20 teachers left my school when I was a junior in a public high school. The issue of teacher attrition is complex and must be comprehensively dealt with in every type of schooling. Nevertheless, because it is not a problem that can be attributed to only charter schools, it should not be a reason that charter schooling is singularly criticized.

Charter schools have many benefits. Since they are public, all students are able to go and have no tuition. However, charter schools also receive private funding – allowing them to specialize their education techniques and goals. The increased diversity better equips students to be successful in the outside world and workforce. The benefits of charter schools, a hybrid of private and public education, outweigh criticisms against the type of schooling.

Photo courtesy of WBUR.

Enrollment is not the only thing to have increased in recent years. Support for the charter school system seems to also be growing at an extremely high rate among some Americans. Not to mention the fact that this is an issue of contemporary American politics that both sides of the aisle can actually agree on. Charter schools have even been endorsed by the last four U.S. Presidents.

Courtesy of Royal Palm Charter Schools.

Independent teaching, the potential for innovation and freedom from government regulation are just a few of the things heralded as benefits of this movement toward charter schools. Advocates widely regard these new and improved public schools as the education for the next generation.

With this vast optimism and support for charter schools, it seems as though the American education system is finally being led down the right path. Parents have the ability to remove their child from failing public schools and place them into the charter school of their choice, while maintaining the favorable benefits of public schooling. Charter school advocates are ready to move on from the traditional public school and never look back.

I believe this trend has the potential to be a costly error for the future of American education.    

Charter schools have an extremely promising premise. Fundamentally, charter schools seem to be a flawless alternative to what many consider a defunct public education system. Children are left behind, academics are less than rigorous enough to prepare students for college and funding is becoming insufficient for public schools all across the country. Therefore, there seems to be undeniable benefits of the movement towards charter schools. However, it is important that we remain wary of the very real negative externalities of charter schools.

There are many ways that charter schools negatively impact modern-day education in the U.S., but there are two key factors that justify my position against charter schools.

Charter Schools Defund Traditional Public Schools  

In theory, charter schools are funded in accordance with enrollment levels. The more students a certain charter school has, the more government funding it receives. Anyone who knows the slightest about government spending could probably gather that there is a limit to the amount of money that can be spent on education. This means that money to fund charter schools is usually drawn from the funding of public schools. Unsurprisingly, this creates quite a significant problem.

In Pittsburgh, for example, charter school tuition payments cost the city 53 million dollars in 2014. Due to this massive cost, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett cut reimbursement payments to public schools. As a result, every student that left the Pittsburgh public education system for a charter school led to a decrease in funding for public schools. Without reimbursement costs, traditional public schools are forced to maintain the quality of the education and facilities they provide with considerably less funding.

This defunding hits already struggling school districts even harder. If a failing public school loses the little funding that it needs, it cannot be expected to continue to effectively educate students. These effects are real and prevalent in today’s education system. We cannot let charter schools further contribute to a problem that is already out of hand.  

In practice, the funding of charter schools does much more harm than it does good. If we truly want to improve the education system in the U.S., I would strongly recommend that we do not start with carelessly taking money away from our traditional public schools.

Re-Segregation of American Schools

It is not the intention of charter schools to move American education back to segregation, but that is precisely what seems to be happening. Segregation in the traditional public education system has long been a topic of discussion. Segregation in charter schools, however, has not been looked at closely enough.

As part of the University of California at Los Angeles’s Civil Rights Project charter schools were examined as a driver of re-segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina. In this particular case study, there were two key conclusions regarding segregation and charter schools.  

“First, the departure of some middle-class, white, Asian, or academically proficient students from traditional public schools for charters makes it more difficult to create integrated schools. Second, charters indirectly undermine desegregation when district policy makers implement a politically palatable plan that does little to address segregation because they are fearful that a more vigorous pursuit of diversity in pupil assignment plans will trigger flight to charters.”

This is not to say that all or even the majority of charter schools are segregated, but charter schools do leave open the possibility of re-segregation to a certain extent. This should be a cause of concern for all Americans. Charter schools may have the capability to successfully develop the best and brightest young minds of America’s youth, but it all means nothing if it cannot be done together.  

At a time when diversity is more important than ever in the U.S., we need to ensure that we eliminate any obstructions to the integration of all students. It is possible that an improved charter school system could disallow the possibility for this movement. Until that happens, I believe that improving upon the current public school system is the best way to maintain diversity with American schools.

Courtesy of Getty Images.

Creating an American education system based on individual choices may seem like the best option remaining for American students, but this is not the case. In fact, I think it is an extremely dangerous thing to do. If we do completely switch to a system such as this, it will allow for even further exclusion of certain students in the U.S..

Therefore, we need to look for ways to improve the current public education system. Attempting to defund traditional public schools in order to grow the charter school system will only set American education back further.  

Photo courtesy of WBUR.