Arguments for Charter Schools
Options for students: One education style will never fit every student. Some respond better to smaller class sizes. Others excel in the big environment of traditional schools. If a student finds she doesn't get along with a particular group of students, she can switch schools. Specialization may benefit some students. Schools having a regional monopoly is archaic.
Build competition: Having to be better than the next guy is good in every business. The same is true for education. When traditional schools lose population and therefore funding to charters, they have to respond by improving. Find out what the public wants and deliver it. A school filled with students who must go there has less incentive to deliver a great product.
Be modern: Technology is changing education. Wireless global communication requires forward-thinking educators and new equipment. Purchasing and implementing new devices is expensive and time-consuming for an entire school district. Plus, schools are still learning how to do it right. A small charter school can do so at a lower cost and with new methods. Other schools can observe what they do and learn from it. Once successful, large traditional schools can use their techniques.
Cater to a niche: Normal public schools must be everything to everyone. Charters can focus on one education style, one type of student or one goal. Equipment, methods and staff can be specialized to hit the desired target. The resulting education will not be average, general or watered-down. It will be exactly what some of the district's students need.
Empower teachers: The charter school environment encourages teachers to do new things. All the clay is still wet and the classroom can be molded in the teacher's image. Management is not pressing the educators to do things the way they've always been done. Teachers need not move an entire board of directors to make changes.