charter schools

One thing I found interesting in The Nation's article about charter schools was this: "Advocates of charter schools frequently make the argument that by providing parents with 'choice,' the educational system—public schools and charter schools alike—will be forced to improve through greater accountability. As the New York City Department of Education has insisted, charter schools 'offer an important opportunity to promote educational innovation and excellence [and] bring new leaders, resources, and ideas into public education.'" It is interesting that charter schools started out with this element of offering a choice or alternative to public school while at the same time being part of a for-profit scheme; it brings up the question of who the choice is being offered to and under what circumstances. If, like the article says, "there is evidence that many charters seek to accept only the least difficult (and therefore the least expensive) students. Even though charter schools are required by law to admit students through lotteries, in many cities, the charters under-enroll the most disadvantaged children," then who were charter schools made to benefit? And if they are "performing" at the same or a lower level than traditional schools, what bodies or institutions are in place to hold them accountable? It seems that the idea of offering an alternative to traditional schooling by commodifying education as a way of forcing accountability has actually backfired and created a system of opaque educational practices. And if this is the current state of charter schools, what makes adults continue to enroll their children in them; where does the appeal come from?