A charter school is a school that receives government funding but operates independently of the established state school system in which it is located. Charter schools are an example of public asset privatization

Flexibility and accountability are two central values in the nation’s education reform debates. It is important for Charter schools to find a balance between the two.

Flexibility is how much the school can operate outside of general school regulation and the availability of finances and other support. They cater to the parents and the students over the state.

Accountability is how much the charter school is held accountable to public authorities and their guidelines, laws and rules, specifications, and requirements.

The balance between these two values greatly impacts the formation (and deformation) of charter schools in the U.S..

“As flexibility increases state laws also tend to demand more accountability, although only weakly” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 576).

For dedicated educators, the purpose can be innovation and creating a working

For investors and investment managers, at least one objective is profit.

For the unions, holding on by the ears, they rightly fear the ultimate goal may be the end of public.

Charter schools are usually allowed more flexibility and less accountability than public schools.

“Given that the movements for standards and choice often emphasize different values, the potential exists for these policy agendas to work at cross purposes. Too much accountability to public authorities may stifle the flexibility needed to respond to parent wishes. Conversely, too much flexibility means that public schools become beholden only to the parents they serve and not other relevant stakeholders, such as taxpayers without school-aged children and community members who enjoy the collective benefits of public schools” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 565).

“The largest effect on both flexibility and accountability stems not from state context (as we measure it) or from partisan pressures, but rather from revising charter school laws” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 578).

“Charters generally operate within the same accountability systems as traditional public schools even as they cater to parent interests” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 566).

“On one hand, charter schools are public schools which placates forces preferring not to see public dollars in the form of vouchers or tax expenditures, subsidize private and religious schools. On the other hand, charters do enjoy more operational flexibility than traditional public schools, which advocates emphasize will provide greater alternatives for the nation’s students” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 566).

“Almost all amendments to initial laws have expanded the number of permissible charters, facilitated conversion to charter status, increased the flexibility of charter school financing and operation, and increased fiscal support” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 567).

“As state charter school laws have evolved, they have provided different levels of flexibility and demanded accountability in various ways (Green & Mead, 2004; Miron & Nelson, 2002)” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 569).

“States serving large numbers of at-risk and minority students, many of whom struggle to learn key subjects such as reading and math (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2003), may move policymakers to try anything possible to increase these students’ chances of success. That would suggest an impulse to give charter operators maximum range to open and operate schools, while not binding them with rigid accountability provisions, which may hamper their ability to creatively address their students’ needs” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 570).

“As the percentage of white students in a state increases, fewer charter schools are likely to form. This suggests that charters may serve larger proportions of minority students” (Manna, Shober, & Witte 580).

"The dynamics of educational policy discourse in the USA are illustrated by the highly contested positions on charter schools in three arenas: media debates, national policy, and local school reform" (Ford 16).

When urban charters were compared to traditional urban public schools, the results were the same. Among income, race and ethic groups there was the same pattern. ‘In virtually all instances, the charter students did worse than their counterparts in regular public schools.’[66] But that was not the whole story. The significance was more than statistical.

"Compared to students in the matched regular public school, charter students are 5.2 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 3.2 percent more likely to be proficient in math on their state’s exams. Students in charter schools that have been in operation longer are more likely to have a proficiency advantage over their peers in the matched regular public school" (Ford 22).