Charter schools are school systems that are self-sufficient in terms of capital since they are founded by educators, society, and students while adhering to charter guidelines and national authorities in the United States. Significantly, the United States has been subjected to pressurized arguments that provide differing perspectives on why charter schools may be more matched with technical and vocational training abilities than public schools. The discussions emerged, which pondered the allegations that Charter schools were causing harm to public schools in the United States. I will offer two arguments and weigh in on the topic: “Are charter schools detrimental to public education in the United States?”
Charter Schools are Detrimental to the Public Education in the U.S.
Beyond the government accountability standards for teachers in key subjects mandated by “No Child Left Behind” legislation, open-enrollment charters have essentially no recruiting and firing limitations. They may recruit uncertified teachers or offer talents and experiences that would not be valued in traditional public institutions. Furthermore, charter schools encourage academic success segregation as well as school segregation by race and class, which may not be appropriate for certain students from public schools (Riel et al., 2018). More pupils may leave Charter schools to attend public schools, resulting in an increased workload for public school instructors. These variances result in certain variations in the qualities of both personnel and students in the two types of education: open-enrollment charters hire less-experienced instructors who are less inclined to have a postgraduate degree.
- Premise 1: Teachers may lack the necessary qualification, or they may have abilities and experiences that are not recognized in traditional public institutions.
- Premise 2: Charter schools promote ethnic and socioeconomic segregation.
- Premise 3: Charters incompetently serve students with special needs (Jason, 2017).
- Premise 4: Children with disabilities are suspended at a greater rate in charter schools than in regular schools.
Conclusion: Charter schools aggravate two forms of discrimination—academic achievement and school isolation by race and class (Riel et al., 2018).
Evaluation of the Argument
When you look at the premises of the argument above, they truly support the article’s explanation for the leadership of these charter schools. I believe that this argument may be strengthened if it included statistics proving or demonstrating the sorts of instructors employed by charter schools. If charter instructors are less experienced than those public schools are, the claim should be supported. Concerning school segregation, the report accords with the findings of Jason (2017), who claims that charter schools do not appropriately serve students with special needs. Charter schools suspend more disabled students than public schools, and there have been several incidents of insufficiency owing to a lack of resources. According to Jason (2017), the discrepancy is quite minimal throughout the country: 12.6 percent of public school pupils have special needs, compared to 10.4 percent in charter schools. However, the argument is invalid because many charter schools, such as Utah’s Spectrum Academy for autistic kids and Minnesota’s Metro Deaf Charter School, serve special needs children exclusively. They also point out that charter schools are more racially homogenous than regular public schools since they serve a greater number of minorities. Both eliminating discrimination in schools and enhancing the quality of schools targeting minority students are essential goals, but they are not reciprocally exclusive.
Charter Schools are not Detrimental to Public schools
Charter schools are a sort of public school that allows for greater pedagogical independence in exchange for improved educational attainment. They do not pay course fees, with the exception of private schools. Charter schools have benefited lower socioeconomic pupils of color, who are strongly linked to education reform initiatives in the United States, since the founding of Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) (Stahl, 2020). In the midst of the education reform movement of the 1970s, charter schools were imagined as a school-within-a-school where chosen public school instructors were licensed for experimentation. Charter schools are overseen by state education regulators, local school districts, nonprofit businesses, and even for-profit companies as of 2018. Charter schools have widespread political support and have been highlighted as an important component of the federal school reform approach stated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (Stahl, 2020).
- Premise 1: Charter schools provide greater freedom (“Beacon Academic Charter School,” 2021).
- Premise 2: Charter schools change learning experiences for vulnerable people.
- Premise 3: State education authorities and local school boards support Charter schools.
Conclusion: Charter schools have strong political backing from school boards and are a critical component of national education reform, allowing them to provide the high-quality education that the community requires (Stahl, 2020).
Evaluation of the Argument
The article’s thesis is supported by a powerful conclusion. The premises given above corroborate the arguments made in the article in this case. For example, according to Stahl (2020), when it comes to Charter School Management Organizations’ (CMOs) policies, teachers do their best when they are underrepresented. As a result, charter schools in inner cities provide greater flexibility, alternate teaching techniques, and respite from the public school system, allowing these pupils to learn more throughout their education. Furthermore, according to Stahl (2020), charter schools embody the U.S. education reform movement’s ambition to apply neoliberal ideologies of localization, grassroots transparency, and deregulation of school management. This argument’s premises and conclusion corresponded to studies. Charter schools, for example, provide distinct independence and flexibility not seen in public school systems, according to Beacon Academy (2021). They also have less red tape in public education, which allows them to devote more money and effort to assisting pupils in exceeding academic requirements. As a result, because the public education system may require assistance, charter school administration can be employed to enhance the overall education structural reforms in the public school sector.
Evaluation of Arguments in Scholarly and Non-Scholarly Sources
Both Reil et al. (2018) and Stahl (2020) scholarly research publications present compelling reasons for their distinct conclusions based on their respective findings. Non-scholarly sources, on the other hand, regularly make statements that are either unsupported or backed only by other biased sources. For example, Beacon Academy is a biased source since it originates from a recognized school of thinking. Second, Jason (2017) does not provide statistical analysis to back up his claims in his papers. Furthermore, no peer-reviewed publications are accessible for these types of articles. In contrast to Reil et al. (2018), Stahl (2020) employs peer-reviewed publications to back his points, improving their trustworthiness and validity.
As I reflect on the study conducted for this work, I understand that the more quantifiable data that can be found, even in scientific publications, the better. However, these sorts of articles are highly useful for arguments that depict controversial issues, such as the one that has just been addressed.
Beacon Academy. (2021). Benefits of charter school.
Jason, Z. (2017). The battle over charter schools.
Riel, V., Parcel, T.L., Mickelson, R.A., & Smith, S.S. (2018). Do magnet and charter schools exacerbate or ameliorate inequality?. Sociology Compass, 12(9), p.e12617.
Stahl, G. D. (2020). “We make our own rules here”: Democratic communities, corporate logics, and “no excuses” practices in a Charter school management organization. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 49(2), 176-200.