Should Charter Schools Be Publicly Funded?

What a Charter School Actually Is

Free write (5 min): should charter schools receive public funding? Then name the room — what kind of school are we in?

The definition, precisely, because most of the argument turns on it:

• A charter school is a public school — tuition-free and open to all, on a first-come first-served basis or by lottery.
• It operates under a legislative contract — the charter — held by a group or organisation: a school district, a board of education, or in some states a for-profit company.
• The charter exempts the school from certain state and local rules.
• In exchange for that flexibility, it must meet the accountability standards written into the charter.

The enrolment picture:

• Charter enrolment more than doubled, growing by 1.7 million students, while district public school enrolment grew by 1.3 million. Charter students went from about 3% to 6% of all public school students.
• The number of charter schools grew by about 2,400 while traditional public schools fell by about 2,600 — so the total number of schools slightly declined. Charters went from 5% to 7.5% of all schools.
• There are more elementary than secondary charter schools. Ask why before offering the deck's suggestion — parents may be more willing to try an experimental model early than during high school.
• Enrolment is not evenly distributed. Over 10% of Black public school students and 7% of Hispanic students attended a charter school in 2016–17, against about 4% of white students.

Assign the readings, due before Tuesday:

• Charters Were Supposed to Save Public Education. Why Are Americans Turning Against Them? — Washington Post
• Can We Stop Fighting About Charter Schools? — New York Times
• Critics of Charter Schools Say They're Hurting School Districts. Are They Right? — Chalkbeat

Evidence That Refuses to Settle

Mindful moment (5 min), then the achievement data, which needs handling carefully:

• Test scores 2005–2017. Fourth- and eighth-grade math and reading scores rose at both charter and district schools, with charters improving more steeply. By 2017 charter students scored close to district students in math and slightly higher in reading.
• But the most rigorous studies find charter schools are, on average, neither better nor worse than their traditional counterparts.
• And the average hides everything. One study found 17% of charters posted significantly better gains, 37% significantly worse, and 46% were statistically indistinguishable. Some cities — New York and Boston among them — show strongly positive results.

Then push on measurement itself: are test scores the best way to judge a school? The deck's own note says they capture educational attainment but not broader student wellbeing. Ask what else should count — and how you'd measure it.

Both Cases, and the Funding Fight

Mindful moment (5 min), then the two arguments the deck lays out:

For charter schools:

• Because they're publicly funded, all families get to choose a school — not only those who can pay tuition or move to an expensive district.
• Competition may push nearby district schools to improve. Ask the theory question the deck raises: how would competition improve schools, and does competition generally improve competitors? Students have views on this from sports and music.
• Charters enrol high numbers of minority students, and some studies find low-income, Black, and Hispanic students see the largest score gains.

Against charter schools:

• They draw public funding and students away from district schools, leaving those schools with fewer resources.
• Performance varies enormously despite accountability standards, and there are concerns about transparency.
• The "no excuses" model used by many prominent charters — strict behavioural standards enforced with demerits, detentions, and suspensions — draws serious criticism.

Then the funding question, which is more subtle than either side usually admits. If money follows the student, why would a district face a shortfall? The answer is fixed costs: a school that loses two students per grade loses that per-pupil funding, but still heats the building and employs a principal. Whether that's a fatal objection or a manageable transition cost is a real argument.

Before students leave: themes, lingering questions, and one new resource for Thursday.

The Suspension Paradox

Mindful moment (5 min), resources shared, then the single best statistical moment in the Year 1 rotation.

Charter schools have a higher overall suspension rate than traditional public schools — and a lower suspension rate within every racial group. Both statements are true of the same data. Give students time to work out how that's possible before explaining.

It's Simpson's paradox: a pattern that holds in every subgroup can reverse when the groups are combined, if the groups are differently composed. Charters enrol a larger share of Black students, who are suspended at higher rates system-wide, so the combined charter rate rises even though each group's rate is lower.

The closing questions:

• What are the pros and cons of charter schools — for students, for teachers, for districts? The three answers differ.
• How could charter school quality be better standardised, and how would you measure it?
• Is innovation in public education a good thing? Do charter schools actually innovate?
• If you were unhappy at your school and had the option, would you switch?
• Who should have most say over charter funding — students, parents, teachers, or districts?

Score Your Participation

The four reflective questions, then the participation matrix. Students also use the participation rubric to score the week and explain the score.