Debate Desk
Do Charter Schools Cherry-Pick Students and Do Worse Than District Schools?
Charters admit by lottery when oversubscribed, and lottery studies find strong gains for urban students; results vary and bad charters should close.
The claim
Critics say charter schools skim the best students, push out difficult ones, drain money from district schools and deliver results no better than the schools they replace. They also say weak oversight lets some charters fail or close suddenly.
The answer in three points
- Charters are public schools open to all, and when more families apply than there are seats, state law requires a lottery. A lottery is the opposite of picking. Studies that compare lottery winners with losers are the best test, because the two groups were alike at the start.
- Lottery studies in cities such as Boston and New York have found large gains for charter students in math and reading, especially for low-income Black and Hispanic children. National studies find mixed results, with strong charters doing well and weak ones doing poorly.
- The solution to weak charters is the accountability that was promised in the bargain: a charter that does not perform should be closed. District schools that fail usually stay open. A system that can close failing schools of either kind serves children better.
The evidence supports a measured conclusion: good charters help children, poor ones should close, and the system works best when families can choose among schools that must earn their enrollment. The label on the door matters less than what happens inside.
The numbers
- Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes reported in 2023 that, on average, charter students gained more in reading and math than similar students in nearby district schools.
- A study by researchers at Harvard and MIT published in 2011 found large gains in math for lottery winners in Boston charter schools.
- The first charter school law was passed in Minnesota in 1991, according to the Education Commission of the States.
What they will say next
"Charters expel students." Some have been accused of harsh discipline, and states can require transparency on suspensions and expulsions. Rules should be the same as for district schools.
"Many charters failed." Some have, and when they do they close. That is the point of the model.
"Lottery studies are limited to oversubscribed schools." True, and they show what the best can do. National studies show the average, and they have been favorable in recent reports.
"Charters drain district funds." Funds follow students, and a district that loses students has lower costs. Districts can adapt, and some have partnered with charters.
Children do best in schools where families choose to be, whatever the label on the door.
"Charters serve fewer students with special needs." Some do enroll a smaller share, and the gap has narrowed in states that pushed outreach and funding rules. Public reporting of enrollment by category lets parents and officials see the pattern and press for fixes, and the same reporting should apply to district schools that select by zip code and by test.