I have had both good and bad teachers in the public schools.  The bad ones gave off the air of I-really-don't-want-to-be-here all too often.  Those classes had high skip rates, bored kids, etc.. The slightest involvement in your child's life can alert you to whether a school is doing well.  

And frankly, the non profit/for profit argument is easy to look at.

In a for profit environment, the reputation of the school is going to matter most. It affects the pocketbook. A better selection and real motivation to provide a better product through competition gives a strong incentive to have the best educators for the money, and monitor them appropriately.   Bottom line says teachers who suck are fired.

What you're describing sounds like the problems found in gov't schools that many are avoiding by attending charters. Attaching these problems to charters is simple talking points being repeated. You've done nothing to help the sincerity of my questions, if that was even your objective.

Having schools that are not required to increase/profit/keep up but just suck hind titty can be studied in Detroit. It would seem wise to avoid anything that would support/promote/allow for that type of situation and lack of good outcomes for students.

It's interesting when a lack of concern for real learning for real students is apparent in connection to gov't schools.

Anyone who knows anything about managing successfully knows that these (and additional ones) are key to successfully maintain and/or expand.

For-profit myth:

The other is to attract students through strong marketing to cover up an mediocre to weak product. And this is where we run into issues because it allows for charters that market themselves well to cut expenses in ways that produces a weaker education in order to increase profit. And that is a problem when you're talking about a taxpayer-funded operation.

Myth BUSTED.

But most who have watched the show -- or have seen the "Best Schools" designation on the districts' websites -- probably don't know this: The districts did not make the cut because of test scores or graduation rates but instead because they paid a marketing firm $25,000.

The shows, arranged by Sussman Sikes & Associates, were paid programming. Think ShamWow for the classroom.

Yup, Dearborn was involved in that scam.  Matter of fact, it's still on their Districts website.  And I'll tell you this, I raised all sorts of hell about that with the School Board prior to me dumping my house while it still had any worth.  It was an insult to my intelligence to have my tax dollars for the schools and little darlings educations go to a propaganda machine to purposefully lie to the public about their disastrous and deplorable, publicly funded, non-English using Madrassas.

Bottom line.  Competition always raises the bar.  Folks vote with their pocketbooks and their feet.

If marketing gimmicks really worked, all of our roads would be traffic jams in a sea of Chevy Volt's.

OABTW, here's another axe I have to grind with goonionized public education and their liberal agendas...

http://www.fedupusa.org/2011/06/you-know-the-government-has-taken-over-every-part-of-our-lives-when/