As far as student outcomes, the evidence, at this point, is mostly anecdotal - charter schools have been around for too short a time to track academic achievement in a meaningful way. However, about a dozen schools have had their charters renewed which suggests that they have met the performance goals set for them. Given these findings, charter supporters conclude that charter schools are producing remarkable results with comparatively few resources. Yet, some researchers are far more cautious, and at least one research organization has sounded the warning bells. Commenting on this, a senior RAND scientist noted that charter school operators may be visionaries with commendable ideas, but they may not have the business, management, and legal expertise to operate what amounts to a small business.
Advocates promote charter schools as a way to expand choice and competition in public education.
Charters are viewed as a vehicle for revitalizing public education, encouraging creativity and innovation, increasing the range of options available to parents and students, providing new and expanded teaching opportunities, and directly involving parents and the community in the operation of their schools. Supporters also argue that charters are held responsible for results. If they are fiscally mismanaged, fail to attract students, or do not meet student accountability standards, their charters can be revoked. Opponents claim that charter schools will draw resources away from schools that have been operating successfully as part of the regular public school system. They maintain that regulations are not the most serious obstacles to effectiveness, and when they do hinder school reform, they should be waived for the whole school system.