Charter Schools: Good or Bad?
An article in the LA Times criticizes charter schools saying that parents think they're better than other tax-funded schools. Consequently, the author writes: "Charter schools are pulling in so many onetime private school students that they are placing an ever-greater burden on taxpayers, who must fund an already strained public education system."
Moronic criticism: Believe it or not, this is supposed to be a criticism! Consider this: charter schools are simply one concrete. They're one way in which some cities have tried to improve their tax-funded school systems. The author's argument can be applied to any improvement. Basically, the author is saying: the government has taken some action to improve schools, and more parents are thus using government-funded schools. His criticism amounts to saying: do not improve government-funded schools, because people might actually want to use them!
Improving Public schools hurts private schools: Charter schools do hurt private schools. Parents think they're better than other tax-funded schools. Anything the government does to convince parents that a tax-funded school is good, will draw some kids away from private schools. This is a problem for owners of private schools; but, for a tax-payer the idea that he can recoup some value for his tax-dollars is a good thing.
The quality of Charter schools: Critics claim that charter schools are not as good as private school, and that their reputation is undeserved. They claim that charters do better mostly because they get a different mix of kids: kids whose parents are motivated enough to choose a charter over another public or private school also tend to be parents who are helping their kids' do well in school in other ways. When this criticism comes from statists: the answer is simple -- if charters are just as good, they do no harm while giving parents a choice.
Owners of private schools: When this criticism comes from owners of private schools, I'm sympathetic. An owner of a private school told me how he had to struggle through some years of lower enrollment when a charter school opened nearby. Over the years, parents realized the charter was not that great and his enrollments started to rise again. Possibly some private schools may not be able to last out, and may have to shut down. This is sad. The solution, of course, is to privatize the entire system. Short of that, one has to decide who should be sacrificed: the owner of the private school, or the kid who is forced to attend a school that's so bad that parents would rather have him in a private school.
Schools should be privately-funded. I think the criticism from private school owners is valid. Nevertheless, if schools are going to remain largely tax-funded, charter schools are one way of getting better quality.
Invalid criticism: Statists should not complain about charter-schools. It is ridiculous for someone to start with the statist assumption that schools should be tax-funded, and then complain about when parents like something done in a tax-funded school!
Moronic criticism: Believe it or not, this is supposed to be a criticism! Consider this: charter schools are simply one concrete. They're one way in which some cities have tried to improve their tax-funded school systems. The author's argument can be applied to any improvement. Basically, the author is saying: the government has taken some action to improve schools, and more parents are thus using government-funded schools. His criticism amounts to saying: do not improve government-funded schools, because people might actually want to use them!
Improving Public schools hurts private schools: Charter schools do hurt private schools. Parents think they're better than other tax-funded schools. Anything the government does to convince parents that a tax-funded school is good, will draw some kids away from private schools. This is a problem for owners of private schools; but, for a tax-payer the idea that he can recoup some value for his tax-dollars is a good thing.
The quality of Charter schools: Critics claim that charter schools are not as good as private school, and that their reputation is undeserved. They claim that charters do better mostly because they get a different mix of kids: kids whose parents are motivated enough to choose a charter over another public or private school also tend to be parents who are helping their kids' do well in school in other ways. When this criticism comes from statists: the answer is simple -- if charters are just as good, they do no harm while giving parents a choice.
Owners of private schools: When this criticism comes from owners of private schools, I'm sympathetic. An owner of a private school told me how he had to struggle through some years of lower enrollment when a charter school opened nearby. Over the years, parents realized the charter was not that great and his enrollments started to rise again. Possibly some private schools may not be able to last out, and may have to shut down. This is sad. The solution, of course, is to privatize the entire system. Short of that, one has to decide who should be sacrificed: the owner of the private school, or the kid who is forced to attend a school that's so bad that parents would rather have him in a private school.
Schools should be privately-funded. I think the criticism from private school owners is valid. Nevertheless, if schools are going to remain largely tax-funded, charter schools are one way of getting better quality.
Invalid criticism: Statists should not complain about charter-schools. It is ridiculous for someone to start with the statist assumption that schools should be tax-funded, and then complain about when parents like something done in a tax-funded school!
Comments
Post a Comment