If both a charter and a public neighborhood school exist in the same district, it requires more money and more resources/manpower in the aggregate to staff both schools. I can't take a principal and divide him in half - I'm going to have to hire two principals for what are essentially the same group of kids.
I think you're the one who is a little confused. The student population isn't changing, funding is tied to enrollment, and charters manage their own expenditures. Creating a charter doesn't increase a municipality's total expenditure on education. It creates savings which are oftentimes redirected elsewhere in the budget.
I know your resopnse is gouing to be "GET RID OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LOL"
How sure are you?
IF charter schools could keep their relative costs down while educating the same kids I do - i.e., NOT sending kisd back to the neighborhood public school
The Independent budget office of New York found that charters are retaining students at a higher rate than traditional public schools.
The results—consistent across both simple cross- tabulations and a more sophisticated regression analysis— can be summarized as follows. First, on average, students in charter schools leave their schools at a lower rate than students at nearby traditional public schools.
http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/2014attritioncharterpublic.pdf
...shows that this is by no means an open-and-shut debate on either side.
It's odd that you say that considering how you have entrenched yourself in arguing that charters are a sub-par alternative. RAND CREDO and Mathmatica all conclude that existing charters perform equally as well as their traditional public school counterparts.
You can spout about how charter schools should have oversight and the same rules as everyone else and blah blah blah...
Well they do. That's pretty much a requirement for a public option. And on a side note, how can you demand that I be more accepting of your beliefs when you reduce my argument down to "blah blah blah"?
but that doesn't change the fact that I'm an ESL educator in a city with 42% ELLs and the charter school down my street enrolls... zero.
That's anecdotal. But in regards to the topic, CREDO found that ELL students were trending upwards in charters...
English language learners (ELLs) continue to be a much discussed student group in education. There have long been charter schools with missions specifically targeted to non-native English speakers. New charter schools have a larger proportion of ELL stude nts than schools in t he 2009 report , suggesting that this is an increasing phenomenon .
... and that ELL students performed at higher rates than their traditional public school counterparts.
In 2009, ELLs in charter schools had better learning gains in reading than ELL students at TPS. The advantage was equivalent to about 36 additional days of learning. This advantage is larger in 2013 at 43 additional days of learning for charter students, regardless of whether they attend continuing or new charter schools. In math, ELL charter students in the 2009 report had about 22 add itional days of learning compared to their ELL counterparts at TPS. ELL students receive a significant benefit in math from charter attendance in 2013 as well – about 36 additional days of learning. ELL charter students in 2013 have larger math learning gains at new schools than at continuing schools
The bottom line is that RAND, and CREDO and Mathmatica (two studies you introduced in this argument) all found that in the aggregate charters are performing on par with traditional public schools in terms of test scores. That, in the aggregate, they are graduating more students and sending students to college at higher rates than their traditional public school counter parts. That their students earnings are slightly higher in adulthood. And that they are doing all this at a lower cost without selecting for the best students.