An analysis of charter schools – government-funded independent schools that offer a special theme or are required to meet a particular performance indicator (Davies & Guppy, 2006) – as an alternative to traditional public education reveals that charter schools should not be supported for several reasons. First, in terms of academic achievement, there is little evidence that charter school students fare better than public school students (Murphy, 2003). Second, as new education providers, advocates argue that charter schools bring innovative and fresh thinking to school practices (Davies & Guppy, 2006), but research has found there is weak evidence to support this claim . Finally, advocates of charter schools and the marketization of education argue that because charter schools must comply with their school charter to remain operational, they are more accountable and therefore provide a higher quality education than public schools. due to clearer accountability and sanctions (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006) as charter schools must comply with their school charter to remain operational (Davies & Guppy, 2006). Furthermore, they argue that because charter schools' revenue depends on student enrollment, (Davies & Guppy, 2006), they are motivated to increase school quality in order to compete with other charter schools for student enrollment (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006). . However, research has found that this claim of increased accountability and quality is supported by little evidence (Murphy, 2003). This article will venture to explain each of the above reasons in more detail. Increasing academic achievement is a selling point for charter schools. Supporters argue that charter schools offer sch...... middle of paper ...... which perform better in public schools than charter schools. As for innovation, Murphy's studies have shown overall that charter schools are no more innovative than public schools, let alone drivers of innovative school practices as its proponents claim. An analysis of charter school practices by Lubienski found that the nature of charter schools can actually inhibit innovation. Finally, accountability, clear sanctions, and market forces as drivers of increased quality in charter schools are poorly supported, as evidenced by the case of Crescendo Schools in Los Angeles. Based on the lack of available evidence to support claims of improved student achievement, innovative teaching, and high-quality instruction with clearer accountability and consequences, charter schools should not be supported as an alternative to traditional public education..