The researching begins...

  An article I found in NPR tells me how the charter schools are (or were, this was in 2008) known for having a religious touch to them. It does state that it's open to all students and religion is really not incorporated in the teaching. It also states how a particular school (The Classical Academy) was pretty taken back when they found out students were drinking because the uniforms hide the diversity of students attitudes and interests. It goes on to say because of the high values the school has they are able to overcome things like the drinking. What I'm more interested in, is that this charter school ranked in the top 10 schools in Colorado based on students test scores.

  I think this source was really just trying to push charter school's as a good thing and tell the public that they aren't really based on religion. I think they brought up the incident with drinking to show the charter school is stronger then a public school based on its values to overcome these things like a family would, rather then how we think a school would. This does raise more questions to me though of how are kids able to express themselves as individuals when they all wear uniforms? Do they act out more to show they are different than their peers? Do they value the idea of being individuals? Does this teach them that being like everyone else is the normal, and how will this affect them when they have to deal with people who are 'different'? Do the uniforms do any good in not judging a child based on their parents social class? Do they provide less distractions? Perhaps they help kids interact with kids they normally wouldn't in a public setting based on some preconceived notions of the kinds of people they are, and allow kids to really judge someone based on their character instead.

  Another article I read in PBS opened my eyes to some new aspects I hadn't really though about before. This article states charter schools do receive some public funding but the schools are run by private groups. It states less than 5% of students are enrolled in charter schools. It states critics fight that school funds are already limited and charter schools take these funds, making it harder for public schools to keep teachers. A Stanford university study in 2009 found 17% of charter schools had a better education, 46% provided comparable education and 37% provided worse education then public schools. It states some charters emphasize on "character education" like perseverance, respect, self-confidence, curiosity, self-control, grit and discipline rather then things that can be measured by tests.

  I understand testing kids isn't always the best way to measure how a teacher is doing their job, but I also understand that EVERY job has some type of measurement to ensure the employee is doing their job efficiently. 'Fair' or not.  While I agree that these characteristics are important for people to learn, isn't this putting more stress on our teachers? What happened to teaching them the alphabet and basic math skills? This article lead me to feel that charter schools are perhaps putting even more responsibility on teachers to raise our kids then they already had. Although I haven't read much about the funding yet, I can't fully say I agree with being able to employ teachers. My kids have gone to both types of schools and I have found with both charter schools they have attended, the teachers were much more willing to try different teaching approaches with my kids then the ones in the public schools. My own conclusion? The teachers in the public schools have a guaranteed job, regardless of my kid understanding what is being taught or not. They were also much more tenured and gave me the impression that they teach one way, and their way is always the right way.

  I am excited to further my research on this topic and if anyone has any personal insight on one school or the other, feel free to share it!