A lot of people in Washington are looking at the charter school industry as a bad idea.
But it’s also the one thing that can actually save money, especially for parents who have to pay tuition and fees to attend a school.
Here are five reasons why: 1.
Charter schools are expensive to run 1.
There’s a lot of competition in the private sector, and there’s no competition in government.
Charter school students pay about 10 percent of their tuition and can only get into public schools if they have special needs, which means they have to attend school with special needs.
That means they spend more time in a classroom than in the regular classroom, which can lead to lower grades and higher test scores.
It’s not uncommon for students to be sent to a charter school for special needs or special education, and that means they don’t have access to the same resources as students in a regular public school.
In other words, students who attend charter schools often have to wait longer to be academically ready to go to college.
But because charter schools can offer students more flexibility than traditional public schools, they often attract students who need extra help to be ready for college.
They’re also cheaper to run.
In a typical year, charters are responsible for about 70 percent of the cost of a college education, according to a 2013 study by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
That number has steadily increased over the past decade.
Charter students can go to more schools than traditional schools in a given year.
According to a recent study by The Wall Street Journal, charter schools have an advantage over traditional public school students in terms of academic achievement, including reading and math.
As a result, students in charter schools are more likely to graduate from college and have a higher degree than students in public schools.
Charter-school students often receive a higher grade for the same academic achievement.
In addition to higher grades, charter students are also less likely to have behavioral or emotional problems, according the Pew study.
In contrast, students attending traditional public or private schools can be disciplined more severely for behavior that is inconsistent with academic standards, such as smoking.
Charter kids are more motivated to learn.
The Wall St. Journal report found that charters often have a greater student achievement gap between charters and traditional public and private schools, with charters showing a higher percentage of students who complete their degree and graduating from college.
In fact, charter students who finish their degree have the highest achievement scores in the country.
Charter programs are often run more efficiently than traditional school systems.
There are no traditional teacher unions that provide financial support to charters, and charter schools must submit to annual audits by the Department of Education, which is required for every new school.
It can take a long time for charters to receive their accreditation, and most of the accreditation is contingent on whether the charter has a student body of at least 10,000 students.
The Department of Justice has also called charter schools in particular “unaccountable” because they don: • Have to compete with public schools for students and resources • Have limited choice in the classroom • Are required to meet standards for “equitable access” and other accrediting and oversight procedures.
But according to the Pew report, charaters have a better record in terms to graduation rates and student achievement: • They are more successful than students who don’t attend charters • They also have fewer discipline issues than traditional high schools.
And the fact that charter schools are often funded by taxpayers means that charachers can be more accountable to students and taxpayers.
As of July, charher schools received $1.6 billion in federal money.
That money is largely meant to help charter schools cover costs for textbooks, equipment, teacher training, and other expenses that traditional public, charter, or traditional public-school schools can’t.
According, the Department is considering whether to expand its charter-school pilot program, which currently focuses on five states.
That program is meant to give charters more opportunities to provide students with access to free or low-cost services, such and as a way to increase student retention.
The federal government has also spent millions of dollars to help make charter schools financially sustainable.
But as of July 1, charchers are still not required to be publicly funded and are not eligible for federal grants to help cover the cost for building new schools.
So if the federal government does expand the charter-teacher pilot program it might be more difficult for charter programs to get off the ground.
But with all of that said, some advocates are worried that charter schools could be a way for the federal budget to make up for a decline in federal funding.
In the meantime, the charter movement has also had an impact on the education of students.
While the federal system is supposed to be responsible for funding public schools and charter school programs, it has also become increasingly popular for states to set their own educational