Because of charter schools’ inability to produce significant academic differences, the government should shift educational funding elsewhere. Research has consistently found little or no difference in the academic performance between charters and their public school counterparts (Baker). In a study focusing on seven charter schools in eight different states, five had insignificant differences in math and reading, and two had small negative effects (Briggs). In another study done on a large amount of charter schools throughout the Midwest region, it has been found that charters have lower academic performance than public schools in state (Baker). This problem not only is prevalent now; it has also been found earlier on. Twenty years ago, the
…show more content…
Even with the increased control parents have over the school, there is obviously no difference in the overall result. Even so, it has been found that charter schools purposely avoid “score liabilities” (Ravitch). Score liabilities are ESL students, special needs, or any other student who would be capable and probable of lowering the school’s average (Ravitch). This is a method of keeping their scores “on par” or “higher” than public schools, but in reality, once the exclusion of score liabilities is factored, the scores should be devalued (Ravitch). Public schools have to accept every student, while charters can be more selective. This selectivity should theoretically create a student body that is superior, and should consequently produce better academic results. However, this selectivity produces the same academic results, proving flaws in the teaching, administration or something larger. In conclusion, charter schools should have reduced funding because of their lack of significant difference in academic achievement when reviewed alongside their public school …show more content…
An example of both of these benefits is found in the charter school KIPP, which targets inner-city children in San Francisco has eighty percent of its students attending college after, which is a considerable jump from the average in San Francisco public schools (“Charter”). Certainly, there are charter schools all over the nation that are beneficial to inner city students, however, this effect is not as magnanimous as claimed (“Charter”). KIPP, a school so heavily praised for their effects in the impoverished areas of San Francisco drops over half of their 5th grade students before their entry to high school (“Charter”). This leads to deduced ambiguity of this effect, in contrast to the magnanimity that it previously claimed, which obviously disproves the high college entry and replaced it with the strong possibilities of selectivity that belongs to a private school, not a school funded by public money (“Charter”) (Ravitch). The questioning of the bare academic results leads easily to the possibility of other warped truths that charters have created, and should lead to a caution that would reduce funding. An example of this dishonesty is K12 Inc., a company notoriously mentioned for fiscal irresponsibility to receive the most amount of public funding, which has been known to manipulate basic information such as academic achievement and attendance (Molnar).
Even with the increased control parents have over the school, there is obviously no difference in the overall result. Even so, it has been found that charter schools purposely avoid “score liabilities” (Ravitch). Score liabilities are ESL students, special needs, or any other student who would be capable and probable of lowering the school’s average (Ravitch). This is a method of keeping their scores “on par” or “higher” than public schools, but in reality, once the exclusion of score liabilities is factored, the scores should be devalued (Ravitch). Public schools have to accept every student, while charters can be more selective. This selectivity should theoretically create a student body that is superior, and should consequently produce better academic results. However, this selectivity produces the same academic results, proving flaws in the teaching, administration or something larger. In conclusion, charter schools should have reduced funding because of their lack of significant difference in academic achievement when reviewed alongside their public school …show more content…
An example of both of these benefits is found in the charter school KIPP, which targets inner-city children in San Francisco has eighty percent of its students attending college after, which is a considerable jump from the average in San Francisco public schools (“Charter”). Certainly, there are charter schools all over the nation that are beneficial to inner city students, however, this effect is not as magnanimous as claimed (“Charter”). KIPP, a school so heavily praised for their effects in the impoverished areas of San Francisco drops over half of their 5th grade students before their entry to high school (“Charter”). This leads to deduced ambiguity of this effect, in contrast to the magnanimity that it previously claimed, which obviously disproves the high college entry and replaced it with the strong possibilities of selectivity that belongs to a private school, not a school funded by public money (“Charter”) (Ravitch). The questioning of the bare academic results leads easily to the possibility of other warped truths that charters have created, and should lead to a caution that would reduce funding. An example of this dishonesty is K12 Inc., a company notoriously mentioned for fiscal irresponsibility to receive the most amount of public funding, which has been known to manipulate basic information such as academic achievement and attendance (Molnar).