Charter schools provide better education for the money spent. They require more parent participation, which involves donations of time and supplies. This makes parents more aware of what is going on in the school, and causes them to be more involved with their children's education, which helps the children succeed. It is a big plus.
Public schools are limited by government controls and their funding. They have to accept just about anyone who qualifies, and they use their funding for specific areas of the school, based on local regulations and rules. Private schools tend to be weighed down by traditions or organizations that they are attached to. Charter schools do not have either of these problems, and so they can be more efficient, financially.
I believe that charter schools are more financially efficient, because they are generally smaller and more direct than public or private schools. There are less students, smaller campuses, and less extracurricular activities. This means they get less financial support, but they have less areas to spread the funds to, so they can accurately spend their money on things that matter.
History goes to show that, in most cases, charter schools are more efficient, though at times only slightly, than private and public schools in neighboring areas. This may be due to the closer oversight in these schools, where in public schools, much of the resources may be tied up in the local and state bureaucracy for several years.
Charter schools have been proven to provide a viable alternative to public schools in areas where public schools are poor, especially in urban areas with large African-American populations. For instance, in the city of Buffalo, New York, only one in four black males will graduate from the public school. It is unlikely that those other three black males would have been able to afford private school. And for them, charter school should be an option.
The facts don't lie. Charter schools are more efficient probably because the private businesses who run the schools know that they have to be successful as well as make a profit in order to continue. Government run schools have so much bureaucracy to deal with that it takes a while before they are held accountable for failing schools. A privately run business MUST be successful or it will collapse.
The reason behind the financial strength of the charter schools is the support which they have on their back from the board or other institutions for running the affairs the school. In this way they become more financially strong as compared to the other schools that are owned by public or private sector.
Charter schools are free from long standing union rules that govern teacher retention. Principals are able to hire and fire teachers without union interference which enables them to recruit and retain top talent, while staying under budget at the same time. This allows them to control salaries, which is their largest cost. Additionally, charter schools don't need a massive infusion of cash for capital improvements because they're generally housed in small complexes. This keeps maintenance expenses low and reasonable. Therefore these organizations are able to meet their goal of providing a high quality education, and control their operating costs which makes them far more efficient than traditional schools.
Charter schools are not only an important educational option but also a market force which drives down costs through specialization. The market competition of schools focused on one segment of education allows some schools to provide programs unavailable in public or private schools. A charter school can focus on arts education where funding is lacking at other schools by attracting students focused in that area to a single location.
Our public schools are ill maintained, what subjects are taught are less open then anything, and the return for the 12 yrs of life is very unrewarding getting into the job market. IF you want results, you need to fund, and reform. A charter school would work if you can fund it.
Public schools nowadays have a lot of pressure to keep their costs within a very tight budget, so much so that in some locals they have had to cut sports teams or art and music programs. Just because a school is public, does not mean that they are inefficient. Likewise, just because a school is private, does not mean that they spend their money in the absolute best possible ways all the time.
Where is the logic? Charter schools are publically funded schools that cost the district the same amount of funds to run as the regular public school, but they use those funds differently. Charters are mostly non-union and pay their teachers much less than regular unionized public schools, so you would think they would be cheaper to run. But most charters pay their administrative personal rather handsomely at the same salary or often times more than public schools pay their administration. Charter schools hidden cost come when they have to pay the Charter school directors who are the businessmen and women like CEOs of banks skimming money from those public funds. So, no, charter schools are not financiially efficient because charters should be cheaper because they pay teachers less, but are not because they have to pay already high salaried directors usually 6 figure salaries.
Charters are funded publically. Local communities are already cashed strapped and are running budget deficits, yet politicians and supposedly education reformers are pushing for more charter schools to open up in areas that already have a public school. How are districts going to fund these new charter schools when they already have public schools in the neighborhoods. They are going to have to raise taxes. The whole concept of publically funded charters is then finacially inefficient.
While the idea of having an efficient alternative to public schools is attractive, charter schools too often have become the dumping ground for public school disciplinary problems, and are a school system's way of getting around teacher unions. You end up with marginalized students being taught by marginalized teachers.
Most of the students enrolled in charter schools do not pay a tuition or regular fees for attending the school. Also, a lot of government programs are available to charter schools, like reduced lunch. Charter schools often need to raise money to fund the schools' costs, such as payroll for the teacher, most of whom teach more than one class, so no, I do not think that charter schools are more financially efficient than traditional public or private schools.
Public financing of schools has not proven to be more efficient then private schools. Private schools are more efficient in my view, because they do not rely on government money. When any institution relies on government support, it is put at risk and thus, it is not efficient. Efficiency depends on stability, and only a private school that has been paid for with private money is most secure. When the government refuses funding to a school, the school suffers, and the education suffers - this includes charter schools which still rely on taxes and public funding.
Not all charters schools are more financially efficient than public or private schools. It boils down to who is running the school. Generally speaking, charters can be more financially efficient because their run by people with business savvy, but one should not make the sweeping generalization that all charters are somehow more fiscally responsible, because that is just not true and a faulty argument.
Charter Schools can refuse applicants. Public schools can not. Charter schools are not required to meet the same standards as public schools. Public school have a tradition of being spend-thrift to maximize stability. Many charter schools go bankrupt due to lack of accountability. Public schools are held to much more rigorous standards. Teachers in public schools must be certified. Charter teacher do not need to be certified. Ultimately, Charters are used to put pressure on public school teacher's unions by forcing lower wages, pushing many bright teaching candidates away from the profession. All of these factors contribute to charters being a poor value. Do you want your kids taught by a low paid semi-professional, or a dedicated, well paid, certified teacher who must re-certify on a regular basis?
Private schools are the most efficient because they face the most competition for parents' dollars than either of the other two options, and therefore have the strongest incentive to find the best solutions for child education, and will be the most responsive to parents' needs when compared to either of the two public options.
Reminding all that any expense the Charter has, the public pays for. Building/Real Estate: Charters must rent or buy a separate location. Classroom space is not cheap. There is a separate administration (a duplication of what the public school has) that must be paid for. And, then there are the marketing costs. Charters advertise and have open house events that all use the public money.
But, the real issue is what are you getting for this money? Arguments for Charters say they can pay their teachers less. Sure, but not enough less to offset all the other costs. And, if they pay teachers less, then the quality of education cannot be greater. Better teachers seek better pay.
So, if all the children in Charters went back to their public schools all the tax money would follow. There would be no increase in costs other than hiring back laid off teachers. Solve the problem, not the symptom.