Arguments Against Charter Schools

problem lies in the fact that most public schools have fixed costs from heating costs to teaching staff that cannot easily be adjusted or downscaled when a few students leave in a given year. The result equates to “squeezed funding at traditional public schools” (Daniel Simmons Ritchie). School choice is not necessary. According to Julie Mack, “the neighborhood school is not necessary a good environment for every child” because one size does not fit all. May it be because the neighborhood school is too big, or not big enough; too academically ambitious or not academically ambitious enough; classmates may be problematic. However, Rebecca Klein argues that a not having a choice is a privilege despite the belief that with money comes more

According to the Truth about Charter Schools, charter schools are required by law to generally accept all students who want to attend, including students with disabilities and english learners, regardless of previous academic performance. However according to Gary Miron, charter schools “nationally serve fewer students with disabilities” - eight to ten percent of their average students in comparison to district schools, which serve thirteen point one percent. Charter schools receive financial funding from the state they are thereby considered to be public schools in the eye of the state. Since they are considered to be public schools then by default, these charter schools are considered open to all sorts of students, disabled and not. If charter schools are “truly marketing and recruiting broadly from their communities, the student population of students with disabilities should be comparable to that of a traditional public school” (Gary Miron). However, this is not the case due to the fact that “charter schools are actively encouraging families from enrolling disabled children and counseling them to leave when they do manage to enroll.” (Gary Miron). For example, a study that was conducted on this topic commissioned by the U.S Department of Education, published in 2000 found that “a pattern of charter schools systematically counseling out students with disabilities

The pro side of the debate feels that charter schools are necessary to public education. They believe charter schools should be encouraged as an alternative to traditional public education simply because education is not a “one size fits all” (Genma Holmes). Not all children will excel in the same environment due to the mere fact that students all have different needs as individuals. However, what they do not recognize is that it comes at the cost of implementing more economic and racial segregation, widening the gap in student achievement. The establishment of these schools also means the “loss of funding for traditional public schools, leading to fiscal inefficiency” (US Connect). The pro side of this debate will argue that charter schools foster innovation and are worth the loss of funding for traditional schools in the long run, however if this is the case, then why have many charter schools across the nation turned into nothing more than money making opportunities for entrepreneurs with very little interest in educational innovation? Not only are these schools taking away from traditional public schools, but they also discourage students with disabilities by counseling them out instead of providing accommodations. This refusal to serve disabled students means traditional public schools are left with a higher-than-expected concentration of students requiring additional resources because they are mandated by