So in the worst examples out there, between 0.6% and 5% of kids were getting expelled. And those were the worst charters.
And we're talking about places where FIFTY PERCENT of the kids in the public schools aren't graduating.
If you think that expelling 1-3% of the students makes that huge a difference, then maybe those knuckleheads should have gone to other schools.
I don't know about your claim that they can expel for not meeting academic standards. Cite for that? I assure you that our charter never, ever did that. The only kids who got "encouraged to transfer" were ones who just didn't want to be with the program in any way - and that was maybe 1-2 kids a year.
I'm definitely not a fan of eliminating public schools. I think the only real long-term solution is to keep experimenting with charter schools, and to over time incorporate the most positive aspects of the successful charters back into regular public schools. But as long as charters aren't there, public schools don't have any incentive nor momentum to change a thing. And if you don't think they're failing inner-city communities now, you blind.
First, it's not the worst of the worst.
Second, kids in charter schools have parents who were at least proactive enough to get their kids in the lottery. Parents who value education, more often than not, have kids who at least put forth effort in school.
I have nothing against charter schools, I just don't see them as a solution to anything, nor do I think charter schools are somehow superior to public schools. Put the same student population in either a charter or public school and you'd get the same results.
Last edited: