New study: Urban charter schools draw nearly a third of their students from private schools
A new study released today by the Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom examines a question that hasn’t garnered any attention in the charter school debate here in Georgia: Where do public charter schools get their students, from traditional public schools or private schools?
I hope to talk today to the economist who authored the Cato study, Richard Buddin with the RAND Corporation, but here is the essence of his surprising findings: Despite their intention to target poor and under-served students, charters schools draw nearly a third of their elementary school enrollments from students who would have attended private, not public schools. This exodus from private schools to public charter schools costs taxpayers $1.8 billion a year, according to the study.
The study found:
Charters serving primary students in highly urban districts take almost one third of their students from private schools, on average. Urban charters draw nearly one quarter of their middle school students and over 15 percent of their high school students from the private sector. Even in non-urban districts, charters pull between 7 and 11 percent of all their students from private schools.
“On average, charter schools may marginally improve the public education system, but in the process they are wreaking havoc on private education. Charter schools take a significant portion of their students from private schools, causing a drop in private enrollment, driving some schools entirely out of business, and thereby raising public costs while potentially diminishing competition and diversity in our education system overall. I call this mix of intended and unintended consequences the ‘Charter School Paradox,’” said Cato policy analyst and project supervisor Adam B. Schaeffer in an email.
In a companion analysis released with the study, Schaeffer explores how Buddin’s findings influence what Cato considers the critical element to improving education: Limiting government so the free market can work. The libertarian Cato Institute advocates for an independent system of schools competing for students.
Schaeffer writes:
1) What is the impact on overall competition and achievement if charter schools are driving private schools out of business?
• Although charter schools increase competition within the government school system, it seems likely that they decrease competition from the private sector in some areas. The private market is in turn vital for innovation and as competition for the government sector. More research needs to be conducted to determine whether or not there is a net increase in competition and achievement when considering these substantial, if unintended, consequences of charter schools for the private education market.
2) What is the true cost of expanding public charter schools when the formerly private school students are properly counted as a new expenditure?
• Based on Buddin’s numbers, the direct public cost of charter students who migrated from private schools is about $1.8 billion a year. Since the most recent data available for the analysis are from 2008, that figure is likely much higher today.
• Moreover, state governments typically spend more per charter school student than they do for students in regular schools, adding to the total cost at the state level. Local governments, however, usually spend far less or nothing at all on charter school students. The cost, in other words, is borne by state governments and the total costs or savings across both levels requires a detailed state-by-state analysis.
3) Is there any way to mitigate these negative, unintended consequences of charter school reform?
• Thankfully, yes; by enacting good private school choice reform, such as education tax credit programs. This will prevent the erosion of private educational options while driving greater competition across the board.
4) Is there any way to avoid the Charter School Paradox without private choice reform?
• Unfortunately, that seems unlikely. If the heavy burden of government school taxes continues to weigh down families struggling to pay out of pocket for private education, then charter schools will continue to cannibalize the private sector, increase public costs, and decrease options and competition. Communities must open up all educational options to families if there is to be real and sustainable improvement in education overall.
Anecdote and conjecture about the impact of charter schools now has rigorous empirical support; public charter schools are seriously damaging the private education market, adding to the taxpayer burden, and undermining private options for families and healthy competition in the education sector.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
170 comments Add your comment
CharterStarter, Too
August 29th, 2012
11:36 am
@ John -
Cherokee Charter School received a proportionate share of stimulus dollars – NOT disproportionate to what the districts earned. What’s your game here? Anyone can go out and figure the math of how it was calculated.
Secondly, tell me if district property is secured against poor negotiations with builders and bond brokers. Are you kidding me? Check out the difference in bond rates negotiated by each district for the facilities they are building and see how much these banks and builders pocket from ignorant negations that do not ensure a good investment by districts. I can show you plenty of these examples. We lose MILLIONS of dollars in tax money because no one monitors what districts are spending on things like this (or even on classified personnel) and how out of line the expenses are with industry standards. Really sir, you need to clean up your own house.
Why do you only speak of Cherokee? Do you only know about 1 school? You picked your example, and I have shown mine, Baker. We have both chosen examples to share. How about you pick another and I will, too…
Dr. Monica Henson
August 29th, 2012
11:52 am
I waited to comment on this topic until I actually read the study. I’m not an economist, but I find it seriously odd that a conservative libertarian institution would favor government subsidies for private schools on the basis that it would promote needed competition with public school districts, yet it characterizes public charter schools as damaging private schools because they compete with them and win some of their students. I’ve read it twice, plus the companion article, and I just can’t wrap my head around it.
Pride and Joy
August 29th, 2012
1:27 pm
*** A CALM LOGICAL LOOK AT THE MONEY***
I would like us to take a calm, logical look at the money.
Let’s start with the GA parents who choose to send their child to private school:
Q. Do those parents pay local property taxes that go to the local public schools?
A. Yes.
Q. Do those parents woh pay local property taxes and send their kid to private school get any use of the public school they are paying for?
A. No.
Q. Now, when those parents who pay for local property taxes and chose to send their children to a private school instead take their kid out of a private school and put them into a charter school, are they still paying local property taxes?
A. Yes.
Q. So if the former private school parents now send their children to charter schools, are they getting to use the tax dollars they continue to pay into?
A. Yes.
Q. Are their children costing the State anymore than any other kid in public schools?
A. No.
A. Are their children costing the State any less than other children attending public schools?
A. Yes. Because for those years the children were in prvate school, the child did not use any of the tax money but their parents were stilling paying into the public schools that others used.
Q. So does it benefit the public school system when parents choose to send their parents to private schools?
A. Yes, because they get the tax money without having to educate the child.
Q. Do children who attend or did private schools pay more for their public school education?
A. Yes, because their parents have an average or above average income and they pay more in local property taxes.
Q. Do poor kids benefit from kids who attend private schools, even if those kids later attend charter schools?
A. Yes, because the poor children come from poor parents who don’t pay property taxes or pay very little property taxes. Yet, those children attend the schools that the private school crowd pay for. The get more than they pay for.
Q. Do children who attend private schools or who used to attend private schools and now attend a charter school — do they cost more to educate than any other child?
A. No.
Q. Do they cost any less?
A. Yes, because they paid in tax dollars they didn’t use.
Adam Schaeffer
August 29th, 2012
1:38 pm
Dr. Henson,
We currently have massive subsidies for education in general. That is the state of things. Almost all of that subsidy comes in the form of direct government spending. Charter schools only exacerbate this, by shifting even more students into public schools, with direct government spending on and control over education.
What I, and others propose is to allow taxpayers to keep a small portion of the income they earned that would otherwise be sent to the state as taxes. They can claim this credit only if they use it to help educate a child outside the government education system. And the amount is far less than would otherwise have been spent in the public school.
In other words, this credit allows taxpayers to reclaim responsibility for educating a child, and the state is relieved of the financial burden for doing so. Education tax credits therefore reduce the overall subsidy of education, and allow taxpayers to direct their education funds to what they think works and what comports with their values and conscience.
Tax credits given to the taxpayers who earned the money in the first place are not a “government subsidy” for private schools. All the people who donate to and pay tuition at these schools are paying taxes to support public education. A credit simply allows a taxpayer to retain their money and spend it on education directly, without compulsion.
As for charter competition, or traditional public schools for that matter, it is hardly a level playing field when parents must pay their education taxes and then pay out of pocket to send their child to a private school, or when others must do the same and then donate money to a private school.
Charter schools tax everyone in order to provide $9,000 worth of education free to the customer. In very simplified terms, a private school must provide value to their customer that is worth more than $9,000 + tuition, say $6,000, in order for a family to become a customer. So, for $6,000, a private school must provide a family with more than $15,000 worth of value in order to compete with the Charter school.
This is why the “public” option, whether in health care or in education, inevitably destroys the private sector. The private sector we do have remains in significant part because the government cannot by law provide the value of a religious education. Charters have begun to blur even this distinction, however, with Hebrew-language and other technically non-religious charters walking a gray area. But inevetiably, the religious mission or even distinctive secular pedagogical mission of a school will not survive a shift to the public sector.
Charters are often a better option than the traditional public school, and that is a good thing for the kids who transfer from those schools. But that means the private sector will lose out to the marginally improved, and still massively subsidized, government sector. That’s just a fact. And this fact has negative consequences, including a loss of educational diversity, freedom, and competition, as well as an increase in demands on public finances. Beyond these factors, it is inevitable that some portion, perhaps most, of the students shifting from private to charter schools will end up in a less effective educational environment because marginal financial advantages, rather than academic advantages, made the difference.
This could be solved quite easily, though, by simply eliminating public funding of charter schools in its entirety. In that case, we could be sure that a charter pulling private school kids was providing more value per dollar. And we could of course allow any tax credit funds to be used at a school that does not receive direct government funding, so a tax credit program could help level the playing field with traditioanl public schools for both charters and private schools.
I hear a lot about how charter schools are “out-competing” private schools. Well, even I could beat an Olympic gold-medalist in the 100-yard dash if I started at yard 85. But I certainly wouldn’t say I “out-competed” him.
Best,
Adam
Maureen Downey
August 29th, 2012
2:02 pm
@Dr. Henson, I sent your comments to Cato, and Adam Schaeffer plans to respond here on the blog.
Maureen
Dr. Monica Henson
August 29th, 2012
2:13 pm
Mr. Schaeffer, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I do have a question: if the government awards a tax credit to a family that can only be spent on education K12 outside of a public district or charter school, then how does that funding not sonstitute an indirect government subsidy of private education? The government is foregoing the tax revenue, but the taxpayer cannot spend it on anything other than private school tuition. Although the state is not writing a check payable to a private school, it looks to my non-economist eye as though the government is providing a financial benefit to a private school. Please help me to understand this.
Dr. Monica Henson
August 29th, 2012
2:13 pm
“constitute”
John Konop
August 29th, 2012
4:53 pm
The difference between us is your agenda bleeds over facts and logic. I have actually supported charter schools if done right.What I do support is plug and play facts and numbers to make a point.
The reason I brought up Cherokee charter because it an example of how not to a charter school on a fiscal bassis. You have the God given right in America to support crony capitalism. But any rational tax payer without an agenda would not support millions of dollars of tax payers for a land for a private group. You can spin away, but it is what it is.
CharterStarter, Too
August 29th, 2012
5:42 pm
@ John – I don’t need to spin it. We can agree to disagree on that point. I would say, however, that districts lease and rent space too, and in those cases, private entities benefit. as for charters, unfortunately, we have a lot of public school education facilities out there that are being unutilized or underutilized (for professional development, offices, storage, bus parking and the like) that aren’t being shared with charters (despite the law). This forces the charters to look for ways to find a building, and this becomes a financial problem. New entities have a hard time getting lenders to loan funds, just like any small business. Of course there are CDFIs available, but even that costs money up front, and without a revenue stream, it gets tough. Management companies have a track record, so sometimes charters working with the EMOs will lean on them for assistance with buildings. This could, of course, be prevented if unused buildings were consistently made available to charters and/or if lenders would loan to charters. I really do understand your concern, although, for reasons I expressed earlier, I am not sure the risk that high.
Although we have a few schools with EMOs in their buildings, we do have schools operating with management organizations that don’t own the land or property. We have an even larger proportion of charters who don’t work with management companies at all where this is a non-issue (although they usually have to lease space from someone).
You seemed to jump from the for-profit issue over to SPED, transportation, etc., so perhaps I just don’t understand your main issues (other than the Cherokee facility). I really am open to discussion on your concerns. I prefer not to downward spiral into insults if possible though. It’s really too important of an issue for our state to let heated heads get in the way of rational discourse.
John Konop
August 29th, 2012
6:13 pm
If you do not understand my point than it is clear you not a fiscal conservative bottom line. And you support crony capitalism.
3schoolkids
August 29th, 2012
6:52 pm
Charter Starter, Too and John Konop: You both bring up good points and I have enjoyed reading your posts.
The issue speaks to the heart of the matter which is that every child should be able to get what they need to succeed in the public school system. Unfortunately, the reality is that you will always have parents, taxpayers and those in power (or hoping to be) examining and questioning whether that is happening and finding instances where it is not. Not every Charter is a Pataula Academy (academically successful when looking at test scores) and not every local Public school is a Baker County.
I cannot currently support an alternate authorizing entity for Charter schools in Georgia. Show me actual data that might change my mind. How much do current state approved Charters charge for bus service and food services? Will they stop charging for this now that the state is giving them funding? What is the actual amount spent per charter student when you add in grants received? Can you give a comparison by state Charter school of the enrollment number approved by the state in the charter and actual enrollment on the first day of school? If the number is different, why? How many state Charter schools have preKs associated with them? How much tuition do they charge? Does attendance at the prek guarantee a feed into the Kindergarten, bypassing the lottery?
Is there a document somewhere showing the revenue and assets of each state Charter? For the schools that are already performing academically and have large asset accrual, why should they earn an increase in funding from the state?
There is also a discipline issue that bothers me, but it is not exclusive to Charters. I am very much opposed to corporal punishment in our schools and am mortified that Georgia has not enacted legislation to change this. Many of our county school districts have policies against corporal punishment. Should a Charter be allowed to exercise corporal punishment in a school district that has a policy against it? Should a Charter be allowed to have a policy allowing corporal punishment if it is not outlined in their State Charter Petition? Even in the presence of “equal opportunity enrollment” if you make it in the lottery, is corporal punishment one way the Charter schools can exercise some control over student demographics?
The problem is that no Charter is really a Public school (free education for all) if it is not open to anyone who wishes to enroll. A yes to this referendum will create two separate and unequal school systems. And are we really naive enough to think that an appointed commission will be exempt from the same type of politics that negatively impact our school boards?
Dr. Monica Henson
August 29th, 2012
9:18 pm
3schoolkids, I’d like the opportunity to answer some of your questions. They are very good questions to ask, I might add. I’m going to skip the first paragraph’s questions and a couple of others as I don’t know the answers to those. I’ll answer what I can.
“Is there a document somewhere showing the revenue and assets of each state Charter?” Yes–the annual operating budget of any public school is public record. All charter schools must submit a proposed budget and forecast it out for 5 years. They must also submit “contingency” budgets that show what adjustments will be made if actual enrollment is lower than forecasted. You can see proposed budgets in every charter’s application, and you can request to see their operating budgets once they are open and operating. The petitions or contracts of Georgia charter schools are available on the GaDOE website at http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Charter-Schools/Pages/Approved-Charter-Schools.aspx.
“Should a Charter be allowed to exercise corporal punishment in a school district that has a policy against it? Should a Charter be allowed to have a policy allowing corporal punishment if it is not outlined in their State Charter Petition? Even in the presence of “equal opportunity enrollment” if you make it in the lottery, is corporal punishment one way the Charter schools can exercise some control over student demographics?”
A charter school might be located geographically in a particular school district yet not be subject to the control of the local board of education if the school is chartered by the State Board of Education. In that case, the charter school’s discipline policy is not subject to the local BOE’s, and it could be possible that the district does not use corporal punishment while the charter does, or vice versa. Charter schools are required to outline their code of conduct (discipline policy) in their applications. I think the third question is asking whether a charter school might use corporal punishment (or lack thereof) as a way to try to screen out some students. I have never heard of this happening. I can certainly see how a family that practices corporal punishment might avoid enrolling their kids in a charter school that does not practice it.
Charter schools really are open enrollment, as long as you live within the residence boundaries if there are any. For example, a school chartered by Atlanta Public Schools would not be open to students who reside outside the City of Atlanta, but at my state-chartered special school (Provost Academy Georgia), students can enroll as long as they are a Georgia resident.
A charter school commission would be appointed by several elected government officials, so there is certainly accountability to the voters. The boards of directors who govern each individual charter school do not make decisions with an eye toward re-election like district board of education members usually do. This makes it far less likely that the charter school board will award jobs to local residents in order to please extended families of voters and solidify political support, which happens all the time in small rural school districts (and not just in Georgia). Public schools should not be operated as jobs programs for those with family or political connections to BOE members. Every charter school board’s by-laws must be approved by the authorizer and contain provisions on how board members are added, as well as how and for what reasons they can be removed.
ELMom
August 30th, 2012
11:19 am
“Despite their intention to target poor and under-served students” Even if charters pull from private schools perhaps they are pulling families who live in a school zone where they would be under-served so instead of sacrificing their child they and other family members made sacrifices to send their child to private schools. Sending their child to a charter school was a lifting of a financial burden. I have seen grandparents make financial sacrifices for their grandchildren who were trapped in a failing system and their parents could not offer an alternative. Often children in low income areas with under-performing schools drift in and out of private schools from year to year.
Adam Schaeffer
August 30th, 2012
11:49 am
Dr. Henson,
My pleasure, and thanks for your feedback and pushback on this . . . the topic can get complicated. On this, though, I think we can simplify it by focusing on the fact that K-12 education is heavily subsidized, and required by state constitutions to be subsidized.
The tax credit to help families choose outside the government-run education system is just a part of the overall subsidy for education in general. You either let all of your tax money go to government education providers, or you can keep a portion of your tax liability to spend on education directly. Since the government already spends government funds directly on public education, there is no reason or sense in having a tax credit for spending by individuals on government education (although this can be done, and is done in Pennsylvania).
So a tax credit isn’t a subsidy of private education per se . . . it’s just a mechanism to ensure that education in general is subsidized, without favoring government options exclusively.
In addition, since the amount lost to the government in credits is less than they spend already on government education, this actually lightens the overall revenue burden on taxpayers generally.
Think of it this way . . . imagine that state governments decided that every child has a right to a cell phone. State and local govts tax everyone, and each county manufactures a smartphone that is free to each child. Some parents don’t like the smartphone, or the phone doesn’t work a lot of the time, so they buy a smartphone from a private provider.
But not everyone can afford that, and sometimes its just not worth paying to get a better phone. Still, a lot of families and kids really want one of the private-produced phones, and they are actually about half the price or less to buy than it costs for the govt to produce their phone.
So the state decides to let taxpayers, who are already paying for the govt smartphones with their taxes, to buy one of those cheaper, better, privately produced phones with their own money, and then claim a tax credit for a portion of the total cost . . . a max of $150, and the average private phone costs $300. Taxpayers without kids can donate money to a non-profit that helps poor kids buy a phone and they claim a credit too. The government would have had to give that kid a govt phone that costs them $600. So the govt saves $450 by letting a taxpayer keep some of the money they spent on buying a phone for a kid.
Would you call that phone credit a subsidy for privately produced smartphones? I’d call it a reduction in the subsidy of a government-produced product, a product they are terrible at producing and have little reason to produce in any case.
And why should we let people keep some of their money to spend on something the govt otherwise would be on the hook for?
3schoolkids
August 30th, 2012
11:05 pm
Dr. Monica Henson: Thank you for your response. I wish Provost Academy well this year as I believe your school model is needed in our state and it is truly a “State Special Charter” school. I have researched charter petitions in the past using the DOE link, however I wish the link also provided budget info, annual audit info and qbe reporting by school as well. Not making this information easily accessible is what leads to the perception of lack of transparency.
I believe you skirted the corporal punishment issue. Or maybe you didn’t realize my point. A policy of corporal punishment in a school will easily dissuade a parent/student in a demographic that is fearful of authority from applying. Adding that policy to the already required volunteer hours and having to provide transportation, or pay a fee for it, would definitely impact enrollment. It will be interesting to see if the state providing transportation funds will have any impact on enrollment from students in lower SES groups. Also, the corporal punishment question could impact a school’s financial status. As the state is absolved from liability, a lawsuit from an abuse accusation could be devastating to a school.
Your assertions that the Charter Commission and these school’s governing boards will be free from cronyism is optimistic. There are already schools in smaller rural counties with family and political connections forming Charters, are these only “jobs programs” if their schools fail?
3schoolkids
August 30th, 2012
11:10 pm
In light of this study and the questions and responses with Maureen, Adam Schaeffer and Dr. Henson, I’m wondering why the government cannot see fit to provide tax credits to parents who are homeschooling their children? No, I don’t expect an answer to that.
Lance
August 31st, 2012
12:09 am
The Charter School amendment is toast. No return to segregation…the whites vs blacks, the smart vs stupid, rich vs poor.
Adam Schaeffer
August 31st, 2012
9:21 am
3schoolkids . . . I think including homeschool and hybrid, nontraditional options in reform is hugely important . . . New Hampshire recently passed a tax credit program that was based on model legislation I developed and provided advice on, and it includes homeschoolers. We need much more innovation in education generally, and we won’t get there by locking people into traditional brick-and-mortar approaches that have changed little in 200 years. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/great-leadership-thoughtful-policy-huge-victory-for-educational-freedom/
CharterStarter, Too
August 31st, 2012
9:22 am
@3SchoolKids – I really appreciate all of your commentary and questions. Let me try to address all of the ones you posed to me:
CHARGING FOR TRANSPORTATION AND FOOD SERVICE. To my knowledge, we do not have any charters who charge for transportation. Like the traditional school districts who have lunch costs for parents (some are free, some reduced related to eligibility), charters may charge for lunch. If they are part of the federal free and reduced lunch program, they receive a subsidy.
ENROLLMENT vs. ACTUAL. Charters submit their charters sometimes a year in advance and therefore, could not have completed enrollment. They make projections based on various types of data (area demographics, interest expressed by parents, etc.) Generally they do enrollment in the early Spring after approval of their charters and adjust their numbers provided to the state accordingly. Most then have to do a “butts in seat” count for their local school districts, or for state charters, they come out and do a head count the first day of school. And of course, their numbers, like traditional schools, are adjusted after the October FTE count.
PRE-K. We have a number of charters who have preschools. Some are Georgia pre-K programs and some are independent preschools that charge. In answer to your question, no, those with pre-K programs that charge may not provide priority enrollment for those babies moving up to Kindergarten. That, by the way, was an excellent question.
REVENUE/ASSETS. I wish the state would publish the audits, too. You can request them though, from the Charter Schools Division as an open records request. You would find their revenue, assets and expenses in the audits. As far as large assets…we really don’t have any of these in the charter sector. Schools stay afloat. They may have a very, very, very modest balance at the end of the year (saved for emergencies), but most scrape by. You asked about QBE funding. The allotment sheets actually are posted on the state website. If you go to the bottom of the home page and click on Financial Reports, you can select either charter site allotments or system allotments. Please note that locally approved charter allotment sheets will be under the charter sites and state charters, as LEAs can be found under the system allotments (even though they aren’t systems.)
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. You ask a question I have never considered. Technically speaking, BOTH charters AND districts could exercise corporal punishment. The difference would be that with a traditional school, parents would not have a choice about this policy, but with charters, if the charter had a policy allowing it, parents could choose not to attend. I have never, ever heard of a charter allowing corporal punishment.
I am not sure how having a charter authorizing agency would create a separate school systems as you say. We currently have 180 VERY different school districts – this number has changed through the course of our state’s history with combining school districts and separating them. What is the difference? I will agree, somewhat, with unequal though, as our state charter students will only earn .62 on the dollar compared to traditional school students.
I hope I answered your questions thoroughly.
Dr. Monica Henson
August 31st, 2012
3:25 pm
3schoolkids, I honestly wasn’t trying to skirt your corporal punishment question at all. You do make a really good point that I think is important to emphasize: “A policy of corporal punishment in a school will easily dissuade a parent/student in a demographic that is fearful of authority from applying. Adding that policy to the already required volunteer hours and having to provide transportation, or pay a fee for it, would definitely impact enrollment.”
Charter schools cannot enforce the “requirement” of volunteer hours, by the way–the only a student can be removed legally from any public school, charter or district, is via due process, commonly known as the expulsion procedure. It is absolutely illegal for a charter school to withdraw a student because of the parents’ action or lack thereof.
Now, let’s get to your point that charter school policies and procedures might discourage some families from applying to enroll their kids. As everyone who reads this blog knows, I am a supporter of quality charter schools. I have seen instances of charter schools that use things that looked to me like they were trying to screen out low-income families. Locating the school in an area not served by public transportation is one way to accomplish that if the school doesn’t provide transportation–only those families able to drive their kids to the school will apply. Starting the elementary school day later than normal without before-school care available is another way–the only families who will apply are those with a stay-at-home parent or a parent with the ability to control his/her work hours, or with the means to hire a driver, or access to a carpool with a family able to accommodate the late start time. Declining to serve breakfast and lunch is another way to screen out families who depend on the School Lunch program for their kids to get sufficient nutrition.
I have not studied the situation in Georgia sufficiently to know if these practices occur here. I have seen them up close for myself in Massachusetts and in North Carolina, where I have lived and worked. Last summer, a parent who owned a restaurant where I was having lunch in the northwest metro Atlanta area told me that his kids attend a charter school, and he chose it in order to provide them a racially segregated learning environment. I won’t ever patronize that establishment ever again.
Unfortunately, there are a few charter schools that apparently are designed to circumvent the demographic realities of their communities. It makes me angry to see this, because it’s not why charter schools are supposed to be created and it fuels the anti-charter rhetoric. Authorizers should make every effort to identify these practices when approving applications and bar them, in my opinion.