NAACP calls for moratorium on charter schools

[Atreus21]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...solution-for-a-moratorium-on-charter-schools/

Leaders of the NAACP, the oldest civil rights organization in the United States, bucked intense pressure from supporters of charter schools on Saturday and ratified a resolution calling for a moratorium on the expansion of charters and for stronger oversight of these schools.

...

This was not the first time the NAACP has expressed concern about charter schools, but this resolution goes further than others approved in recent years and had generated an intense campaign by supporters of charters to try to persuade the group’s board not to ratify it.

The campaign included pro-charter columns, blog posts and editorials, including by The Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. A letter signed by 160 African Americans involved in education — many of them leaders of charter schools — accused the NAACP of making a false anti-charter argument and said that a “blanket moratorium on charter schools would limit black students’ access to some of the best schools in America and deny black parents the opportunity to make decisions about what’s best for their children.”


The battle over the resolution underscored a split among African Americans and civil rights groups about the virtues and drawbacks of charter schools and how they affect traditional public schools. Opponents say that too many charter schools promote racial segregation, are poorly run and siphon public funds from traditional public schools, which educate the neediest students. The Black Lives Matter movement, in a wide-ranging platform released earlier this year, supported a charter moratorium.

...

Supporting the NAACP was Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers:

“Charters were intended as part of—not a replacement for—the public school system. But some who promote and fund charters today have other designs, and the explosion of unaccountable charters has drained resources for children, forced the closing of neighborhood schools and destabilized districts and communities in cities like Philadelphia and Detroit. In many places—the state of Ohio being one particularly egregious example—lax oversight results in rampant fraud, waste and mismanagement. And in places from New York City to California, charters have been caught discriminating in their admissions to keep out high-needs students.

“The NAACP’s commitment to excellent and equitable education for all children, particularly children of color, is unimpeachable and well predates those who now criticize the civil rights organization. Rather than criticize, one should try to address the underlying reasons why the NAACP is calling for a pause in further charter expansion. Addressing the issues raised in its resolution—including real transparency and accountability standards for charters—is a necessary step in the fight for great public schools for all children. There is growing consensus, as seen in the Democratic Party platform and taken up by civil rights groups from the NAACP to Black Lives Matter, that we must end the expansion of for-profit and unaccountable charter schools. I look forward to continuing to work with the NAACP to improve public schools and win equity.”

Shavar Jeffries, president of the pro-charter advocacy group Democrats for Education Reform issued a scathing response, saying in part:

“W.E.B. DuBois is rolling in his grave. The NAACP, a proud organization with a historic legacy of expanding opportunity for communities of color, now itself stands in the schoolhouse door, seeking to deny life-changing educational opportunities to millions of children whose parents and families desperately seek alternatives to schools that have failed them for too long. Public charters schools throughout the country are creating new pathways to college and career that were previously unavailable. The idea that the NAACP would support a blanket moratorium that would apply across-the-board to all charters, including schools like Urban Prep that send 100% of its graduates to college, is a tragic contradiction of what the NAACP has traditionally stood for. The NAACP faces a choice: cling to policies of the past that have failed Black children for decades, or embrace the future and the innovative practices that will create hope and opportunity in places where neither is present.”

Read the full article in the link above.

NYT had a good opinion piece in opposition to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/opinion/a-misguided-attack-on-charter-schools.html

EXCERPT:

These schools, which educate only about 7 percent of the nation’s students, are far from universally perfect, and those that are failing should be shut down. But sound research has shown that, when properly managed and overseen, well-run charter schools give families a desperately needed alternative to inadequate traditional schools in poor urban neighborhoods.

This truth has been underscored in several studies by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes. Last year, for example, the center found that students enrolled in charter schools in 41 of the nation’s urban regions learned significantly more than their traditional public school counterparts.

According to the study, charter school students received the equivalent of 40 days of additional learning a year in math and 28 additional days of learning a year in reading. Moreover, educational gains for charter school students turned out to be significantly larger for black, Hispanic, low-income and special education students in both math and reading.

This performance advantage has been well documented in New York City and has been found to be particularly striking for charters in the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Newark. Such academic improvements have stimulated heavy demand for more charters among low-income black and Latino families that are often trapped in failing districts.

The Stanford study notes, however, that poorly run charters can be disastrous. In some areas, the study notes, not a single charter school outperforms the traditional school alternative — and in some places, more than half are significantly worse. The city of Detroit, where more than half of all students attend charter schools, has recently become an example of such a failure.

Where charter schools excel, however, demand for admission is high. In New York City, for example, charter schools enroll about 107,000 students, roughly 10 percent of the city’s total enrollment. But more than 44,000 students who sought admission for the current school year were turned away. In Harlem and the South Bronx, there are now four applicants for every charter school seat.

Speaking as someone in a city with hopeless traditional public schools, I am very much in favor of charters.

I'll take the failings and corruption of charters over the failings and corruption of those schools under the thumb of the teacher's unions and bureaucrats.

 

[zinfamous]

I'll take the failings and corruption of charters over the failings and corruption of those schools under the thumb of the teacher's unions and bureaucrats.

Why? they fail at a higher rate than public schools and the worst of the worst of them are nothing but Trump-like ponzi schemes. What is so bad about teacher's unions and bureaucrats that makes you willing to accept a profit-driven industry that is generally only capable of churning out mediocre meat puppets? --but that's OK as long as the self-apointed board of each "School" pockets a pile of cash while doing it.

Charter schools is one of those things that sounded great and unique in the time of a real problem--oh hey, let's let the market solve this problem! I can get behind that sort of thing, which is why I like testing and a nice colleciton of data to see if our little experiment follows theory.

well, we have that data now. And we know without any controversy that charter schools are neutral and, at worse, a negative comparison to public schools across the board. What is the value in constantly trying something that we already know doesn't really work? This is like waiting for money to start trickling down after 30+ consecutive years of direct failure for that to happen.

 

[sandorski]

Education is like HealthCare. Shoddy work has lasting effects on peoples lives.

 

[Atreus21]

What is so bad about teacher's unions and bureaucrats...

The fact that they're far more difficult to dislodge when entrenched than the administration of poorly-run charter schools.

...that makes you willing to accept a profit-driven industry that is generally only capable of churning out mediocre meat puppets?

Because first of all, there's nothing wrong with being profit-driven, and second, that calling the product of them mediocre meat puppets is plainly dishonest and makes you sound like a moron.

From the NYT link:

This truth has been underscored in several studies by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes. Last year, for example, the center found that students enrolled in charter schools in 41 of the nation’s urban regions learned significantly more than their traditional public school counterparts.

According to the study, charter school students received the equivalent of 40 days of additional learning a year in math and 28 additional days of learning a year in reading. Moreover, educational gains for charter school students turned out to be significantly larger for black, Hispanic, low-income and special education students in both math and reading.

This performance advantage has been well documented in New York City and has been found to be particularly striking for charters in the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Newark. Such academic improvements have stimulated heavy demand for more charters among low-income black and Latino families that are often trapped in failing districts.

The Stanford study notes, however, that poorly run charters can be disastrous. In some areas, the study notes, not a single charter school outperforms the traditional school alternative — and in some places, more than half are significantly worse. The city of Detroit, where more than half of all students attend charter schools, has recently become an example of such a failure.

Where charter schools excel, however, demand for admission is high. In New York City, for example, charter schools enroll about 107,000 students, roughly 10 percent of the city’s total enrollment. But more than 44,000 students who sought admission for the current school year were turned away. In Harlem and the South Bronx, there are now four applicants for every charter school seat.

--but that's OK as long as the self-appointed board of each "School" pockets a pile of cash while doing it.

Those evil bastards!

Charter schools is one of those things that sounded great and unique in the time of a real problem--oh hey, let's let the market solve this problem! I can get behind that sort of thing, which is why I like testing and a nice colleciton of data to see if our little experiment follows theory.

well, we have that data now. And we know without any controversy that charter schools are neutral and, at worse, a negative comparison to public schools across the board.

Without any controversy. Apparently someone forgot to tell Democrats for Education Reform as well as the dumb bastards at Stanford.

 

[Zaap]

Ouch. That was some ownage!

And really, what is it about Trump that brings such complete idiocy out of his rabid detractors? Equating charters with anything to do with Trump? That's just... dumb.

 

[Jaskalas]

I imagine there's already a lot of work being put into this, but education needs to be taken online for the teens that can handle it. The advantages are enormous. A traditional school might make sense for pre teens as younger children may need more supervision and assistance learning... HOW to learn... but once the basics are through there is nothing that can compare.

These days a brick and mortar is just holding back intelligence.

 

[K1052]

Charters are a huge mixed bag. Around here they were found to be only marginally more effective than traditional schools. I look at the people running some of the crap charters while making lots of money and the teacher's union squeezing the city for every dime and have trouble seeing a virtuous side to most of this.

 

[gorobei]

john oliver has covered it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I

at best it is a mixed bag on results, with some troubling issues on administration rules/oversight.
we will need more data, specifically per dollar per student as well as some sort of check for making sure the pool of students isnt being cherry picked.

 

[fskimospy]

The fact that they're far more difficult to dislodge when entrenched than the administration of poorly-run charter schools.

Because first of all, there's nothing wrong with being profit-driven, and second, that calling the product of them mediocre meat puppets is plainly dishonest and makes you sound like a moron.

From the NYT link:

Those evil bastards!

Without any controversy. Apparently someone forgot to tell Democrats for Education Reform as well as the dumb bastards at Stanford.

I think the gains from charter schools are significantly overblown as you see some fairly extreme selection effects for their student bodies. Even in cases where charters take 'everyone' if you spend any time looking you will see them working very hard to ensure that 'everyone' includes as few high-need students as possible.

That being said, I think charters are definitely a net positive for our education system as a whole. There are plenty of cases where they have delivered real and lasting gains to students and they also force public schools to be more responsive to their constituents. There are lots of aspects of the ed reform movement that are dumb like the focus on testing, but charters are a good thing.

 

[zinfamous]

The fact that they're far more difficult to dislodge when entrenched than the administration of poorly-run charter schools.



Because first of all, there's nothing wrong with being profit-driven, and second, that calling the product of them mediocre meat puppets is plainly dishonest and makes you sound like a moron.

From the NYT link:















Those evil bastards!



Without any controversy. Apparently someone forgot to tell Democrats for Education Reform as well as the dumb bastards at Stanford.

so, basically a neutral effect across the system, if anything--as I already stated--with the only difference being that the revenue is funneled to a small board of trustees that absorb the cash, dissolve the failed schools, and move to another district to set up another profitable failure.

In some areas it works, in some it doesn't, and in others it is a disaster. That's what I'm saying. I don't see any reason to keep trying a system that clearly doesn't change anything when the real is issue is what students are getting out of it. It's resoundingly clear now that the only motivation to keep trying charter schools is that a few number of people profit off of them. It doesn't really have anything to do with education. If you recall from the parts of my post you didn't read--I didn't have a problem with profiting here, but I have a problem if that is the only thing to be gained. Charters change nothing except the profit model. There is no reason to supporr this if it doesn't address the actual problem, which is education.

 

[zinfamous]

Ouch. That was some ownage!

And really, what is it about Trump that brings such complete idiocy out of his rabid detractors? Equating charters with anything to do with Trump? That's just... dumb.

So, he posted an article that supported what I said and somehow owned me? Good call, I guess....

It's equatable to Trump's model of "hire teams of contractors, stiff them on the bill, and claim your shitty tasteless product is the greatest thing ever" business practice. So, yeah, I can see why this sort of thing is attractive to contemporary conservatives that would support that sort of thing.

I'm all for upsetting the system and going for a different model if it is proven effective. That has not been proven yet with charter schools as many models of these schools have shown to be terrible for their students. I like the idea of having all of these models around, however, and it shows that if real attention was put into reforming the system, beyond simply repeating the mantra "charter good, profit gooder!" then we might actually get somewhere towards improving the situation.

The argument that Charter stools are great and all should be charter schools depend on accepting some notion that public schools are a failure, which is completely untrue. Some are bad, some are great. It goes both ways. Some state and local unions are great for their system, and others aren't. This doesn't--yet--appear to be a one solution to fix all problems issue.

 

[bshole]

I imagine there's already a lot of work being put into this, but education needs to be taken online for the teens that can handle it. The advantages are enormous. A traditional school might make sense for pre teens as younger children may need more supervision and assistance learning... HOW to learn... but once the basics are through there is nothing that can compare.

These days a brick and mortar is just holding back intelligence.

Where do they learn interpersonal skills then? Wouldn't it be hard to be a well-adjusted person if your childhood is spent in a basement doing online courses with no interaction with people of your own age?

 

[piasabird]

There could easily be developed a national home school network using the Internet to replace public schools. Why send your children to a brain washing facility?

 

[piasabird]

I also think that getting rid of the Media and cable and TV brainwashing is a good idea also.

 

[IronWing]

There could easily be developed a national home school network using the Internet to replace public schools. Why send your children to a brain washing facility?

Home school can work well where 1) parents are motivated to teach their children well and have the time to do so and 2) the parents aren't morons. That second criterion is usually the point of failure.

 

[IronWing]

I also think that getting rid of the Media and cable and TV brainwashing is a good idea also.

No argument from me concerning getting rid of TV. It's a mind killer no matter what is on it.

I must not watch TV.
TV is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my TV.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when TV has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the TV has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

- Bene Gesserit Litany against TV

 

[glenn1]

so, basically a neutral effect across the system, if anything--as I already stated--with the only difference being that the revenue is funneled to a small board of trustees that absorb the cash, dissolve the failed schools, and move to another district to set up another profitable failure.

In some areas it works, in some it doesn't, and in others it is a disaster. That's what I'm saying. I don't see any reason to keep trying a system that clearly doesn't change anything when the real is issue is what students are getting out of it. It's resoundingly clear now that the only motivation to keep trying charter schools is that a few number of people profit off of them. It doesn't really have anything to do with education. If you recall from the parts of my post you didn't read--I didn't have a problem with profiting here, but I have a problem if that is the only thing to be gained. Charters change nothing except the profit model. There is no reason to supporr this if it doesn't address the actual problem, which is education.

I think actual parents prefer the possibility of failure in a charter school over the certainty of it in public schools in many districts. If you want your urban ghetto kids to remain stupid and uneducated in underfunded schools then by all means carry on with your crappy public schools.

 

[Zaap]

So, he posted an article that supported what I said and somehow owned me? Good call, I guess....

Lie. It didn't support what you said. The quoted study showed the charters do better than their public counterparts -in particular minority and low income students (you know, kind of the subject of this thread since it's about the NAACP's boneheaded moratorium, not just Charter's in general) not your horesehit about them only churning out mediocre students.

It's equatable to Trump's...

Look, from now on, the moment you find yourself trying to make something about Trump, that has nothing to do with Trump, rather than double down on STUPID, take a deep breath... hell, several of them.

Then repeat to yourself "Not everything has to do with my Trump obsession. Not everything has to do with my Trump obsession. Not everything... " Say it 10 or 15 times until it sinks in.

There aren't enough idiotic threads for you to spew your Trump nonsense in? Charter schools have *NOTHING* do you with your Trump obsession- nor will they have anything to do with the next person you and your ilk get programmed to hate to the point of insanity the next election cycle.

The argument that Charter stools are great and all should be charter schools.

The argument isn't "all should be charter schools" again, stop making things up.

Charters are a decent alternative for people stuck in areas with an absolutely failing school system. The irony of the NAACP's position, is it's in direct contrast to the realities of many minority communities where the charters are a GODSEND to people who would otherwise be trapped in horrible public schools.

The NAACP's position is just idiotic. It's motivated by being paid shills of the Teacher's Unions and the Democrat stranglehold on education.

The WSJ pretty much summed it up (and you can read similar in the NYT and Washington Post and other papers as well):

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-naacps-charter-school-test-1476398786

Charters are proliferating because minority parents are voting with their feet. About two-thirds of black voters in Louisiana, New Jersey and Tennessee support charters and vouchers, according to a 2015 survey by the Black Alliance for Educational Options. An Education Next poll last month found that blacks backed charters by nearly two-to-one. Two thirds of blacks also favored tax-credit scholarship programs such as Florida’s, which the NAACP has sued to block. Meantime, only 8% of blacks gave their local schools an A grade. Twice as many Republicans did.

These views aren’t surprising since student learning at charters far exceeds that at traditional public schools. Black and Hispanic students who attend charters in New York City scored nearly three quarters higher than their counterparts at district-run schools, according to a recent analysis by Families for Excellent Schools.

A study last year by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that low-income black students attending urban charters gained 59 days in math and 44 days in reading over counterparts in traditional school. Advancement among black students at charters in Boston was off the charts: 200 days in math and 100 days in reading.

So what explains the NAACP’s hostility to charters? Money and ideology. The nation’s two largest teachers unions contributed nearly $400,000 to the outfit between 2011 and 2015, and other labor unions are also financiers. But don’t underestimate the degree to which the venerable outfit is now dominated by gentry progressives who are well-to-do themselves and are more attached to the Democratic Party than they are to poor black families.

So you dismiss results like that among minorities as "a neutral effect" (laughable) but you're worried about some charter school board somehow making a buck, but the NAACP being paid shills of the teachers unions is just fine. WTF is the NAACP doing taking teacher's union money, and what parent should put up for one second the NAACP trying to dictate their choices for their children's education? (Especially in light of the fact that you and they are flat out WRONG about the results.)


And let's pretend there's no fraud and waste in the public system... please. One great example, watch the documentary "The Cartel". It's an absolutely stunning expose of the total culture of corruption in the New Jersey public school system, with administrators enriching themselves and their cronies. I've little doubt other states have a similar cartel.

The charter system isn't perfect and it's not the answer to everything, but they are a clear benefit to those in the WORST public school districts. It probably IS a wash in wealthier districts (if you already have great public schools, why do you need MORE choice?) but that just shows the NAACP's wrongheaded position, since the minorities they're supposed to be representing aren't generally that constituency.

 

[WackyDan]

Wife substitute taught at a local charter school and loved the environment. That same company (NHA) opened another charter close to us and our daughter won the lottery and is currently in kindergarten there. We attended several meetings prior to the start of school where we were in and auditorium with other parents and school principle, etc. My wife remarked how diverse the parents were. Far more diverse than the elementary, middle, and high schools near our house and considering the local high school is a victim of forced busing, that should say something. Any parent who entered their child in the lottery to go to a charter school has the best interest of their child in mind and is going to be an involved parent and that is why I'm glad our daughter is in a charter school. So the NAACP is fucking wrong if they are implying black students are being kept out of charters. What they should think is that inner city students perhaps have a higher percentage of parents who give a flying fuck about their child's education.

Let me rephrase that... I'm glad out daughter is in a GOOD charter school run by a reputable charter operator. Now, NHA has had some issues in their past, but relatively minor compared to other charter operators. If anything, from what I have researched non-profit charters tend to be the least reliable, least quality, ponzi type charters out there in contrast to the for profit operators.

Now, I do have my issues with charters, and even NHA even though my daughter attends an NHA Charter School.

- Charters typically do not have busing. You take your kid to school and back each day. Charters partner with various early morning day care and after school care/activity providers if you need to be to work early and/or pick up the kids later than end of school day. This is where the charters make part of their profit. Charters still get paid roughly the same average per student that the local school district pays per year per student. Why is it an issue for me? That is a big expense and probably a big profit center... Yet we pay them the same amount per student.

- Charters play a game with their real estate holdings and leasing. They often set up shell organizations that build the school or lease the school space, then sublet/lease that same building/real estate back to the charter operator at a far higher multiple per square foot $$$RENT then would normally be charged in that market. Why do they do this? To obfuscate to the state and federal government's exactly how much profit per school they are making. To me that is the biggest issue.

- Charters typically don't have a lot of sports related activities. Yes, they have PE, but you typically don't have the range of football, soccer, lacrosse, etc that your typical middle schools and high schools have... That is also a cost savings for them, but depending on your mindset, it may not be important to you to have those programs available for your kids.

Those first two issues above, if dealt with transparently would piss people off. More importantly, in the case of a good charter school, it would show that you can get the same if better results in education by paying potentially significantly less per student than a public school. Think about that.

Some of the things I like about the local charters here.

- Students wear uniforms. It actually isn't very strict, but basically the same color pants and a couple choices of school colors, etc. Some of you probably think that is silly, but in my line of work I've done business with both public and private schools and it does change things for the better.

- First year teachers (fresh from college) typically start at lower pay than the local school system, but experienced teachers make more than they would in the public school system and that is due to merit. They get retirement (at least with NHA), etc.

- Teachers tend to get retained longer. Our local school system has a habit of discharging young teachers the year right before they would get tenure. So every 3 or 4 years these teachers have to reapply to get a new teaching post else ware and start working toward tenure all over again. Now, I don't agree with tenure, but I also don't agree with this practice of letting them go to avoid the higher cost of tenure. This is not an issue in Charter schools.

- Our charters have citizen boards typically made up of student's parents.

- So far, I think charters are more strict with behavioral policies towards students. Still very much politically correct, but it seems like they have less tolerance for trouble kids and get the parents involved early in any needed adjustments. I get that from my wife's experience subbing there, but also due to her volunteering at the school a day or two a week.

- Parent involvement. The amount of parents volunteering an hour or so here or there to be in the school during the day is amazing. That probably is another cost savings, but still, they WANT to be there.


Anyway... I'm keeping a close eye on my daughter's charter school because I did the research and because I want the best for her.

 

[Zstream]

So, he posted an article that supported what I said and somehow owned me? Good call, I guess....

It's equatable to Trump's model of "hire teams of contractors, stiff them on the bill, and claim your shitty tasteless product is the greatest thing ever" business practice. So, yeah, I can see why this sort of thing is attractive to contemporary conservatives that would support that sort of thing.

I'm all for upsetting the system and going for a different model if it is proven effective. That has not been proven yet with charter schools as many models of these schools have shown to be terrible for their students. I like the idea of having all of these models around, however, and it shows that if real attention was put into reforming the system, beyond simply repeating the mantra "charter good, profit gooder!" then we might actually get somewhere towards improving the situation.

The argument that Charter stools are great and all should be charter schools depend on accepting some notion that public schools are a failure, which is completely untrue. Some are bad, some are great. It goes both ways. Some state and local unions are great for their system, and others aren't. This doesn't--yet--appear to be a one solution to fix all problems issue.

Blah blah blah, I'm a typical liberal and got my calling card from Vox or some other stupid shit site.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[piasabird]

I like some TV programs, I just decided that Cable TV is too expensive. I felt that Cable TV was not providing a good return on my investment. More and more I find myself watching KPOP videos and watching Korean Dramas over the Internet. When American TV has a program that is kind of interesting I watch it. For instance, I am trying out a few shows now like Designated Survivor and some kind of cop show that was kind of interesting and agents of SHIELD. I dont like any shows about survivor or zombies or vampires. Yuck, Yuck, Yuck!

 

[JEDI]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...solution-for-a-moratorium-on-charter-schools/



Read the full article in the link above.

NYT had a good opinion piece in opposition to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/opinion/a-misguided-attack-on-charter-schools.html



Speaking as someone in a city with hopeless traditional public schools, I am very much in favor of charters.

I'll take the failings and corruption of charters over the failings and corruption of those schools under the thumb of the teacher's unions and bureaucrats.

this is the way govt subsidized charters work in my city:
kids are accepted from a lottery system.

BUT those kids that mis-behave/act out/trouble kids are kicked out back to the public school system.
in time, all you have in chartered schools are behaved kids while the public school system is left with the losers.

vicious cycle of the public schools getting worse, which leads to more charter schools

 

[JEDI]

john oliver has covered it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I

at best it is a mixed bag on results, with some troubling issues on administration rules/oversight.
we will need more data, specifically per dollar per student as well as some sort of check for making sure the pool of students isnt being cherry picked.

it is sorta being cherry picked but not from the acceptance process.
(it's a lottery.)

kids w/behavior problems (ie: broken homes) are kicked out for being disruptive in school.
these kids go back to the public school system

 

[fskimospy]

it is sorta being cherry picked but not from the acceptance process.

kids w/behavior problems (ie: broken homes) are kicked out for being disruptive in school.
these kids go back to the public school system

They actually do both where they actively recruit 'good' students to apply for acceptance but yes then they kick out emotionally disturbed students at high rates too.

Like I said earlier I'm a charter supporter but I think the claims of gains are overstated due to this selection effect.