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. Critics, including the hugely influential teachers' unions, are also bothered by the fact that a new charter school takes money right out of the pockets of the conventional public school. In most states, money simply follows the student, thus if a large number of children choose charter education over conventional public schools, a district stands to lose quite a bit of money.