Reblogged: Charter Schools: Good or Bad?

[Practice Good Theory Blog]

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!

Original: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PracticeGoodTheory/~3/mH6ogf4_7PY/charter-schools.html

[CrowEpistemologist]

Sooooo... you think that moving all of our private schools to pseudo-public schools with heavy government control is a good thing? Are you insane?

The shift will cost taxpayers more money, aka raise our taxes. We're now going to be paying for people's chosen private school just like we've been paying for their public school for years. How is this a good thing?

This smacks of short-sighted compromise to me. Trading away some short-term gains (which I don't understand to be clear) in exchange for wiping out the last vestige of non-government-controlled schools in the USA.

[FeatherFall]

Crow, I think a second attempt at interpreting the OP is in order, because you've completely missed the point.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Crow, I think a second attempt at interpreting the OP is in order, because you've completely missed the point.

Well, it's not very clearly written I must say.

But no, I think I did in fact get the gist of it correct. The author is saying that sacrificing private schools is okay since we're going to have publicly funded schools no matter what and charters are just a tweak within the system, presumably for the better (I don't share the undying optimism though). As such, he's saying that given that creating a fully privatized system is politically impossible, it's okay to sacrifice the last vestige of non-government control over schools.

By the way, the "statist" he's talking about is a think-tank known as the Cato Institute...

[FeatherFall]

I believe in you, Crow! Don't throw in the towel so quickly, champ. The OP gave bold headings for each of his points to make this easy for us.

The article that inspired this piece mostly concerned a study by the RAND Corporation. The Cato points (Scheaffer's) were reflected in the OP's paragraphs three and five (bold headings two and four) - the OP agreed with Cato. OP used forms of the word, "statist," in paragraphs four and seven. The point that the OP criticizes in paragraph seven four comes from the USNews.com article to which he linked. The paragraph seven criticisms were directed at LA Unified school board member Steve Zimmer (he was quoted near the end of the article). Neither should be understood as criticisms of Cato.

Here is a premise to check while giving it a second go: Did the OP really try to say that privatizing the school system was impossible?

Here's another (check this one twice): The expansion of charter schools will come at the cost of destroying the last vestiges of non-government control over private schools. On check one, consider the possibility that many private schools will survive. On check two, remember that private schools are not the only non-state education alternative; I'm thinking about home schooling, but maybe you can come up with something on your own. You'll tackle this one yet.

Edited September 7, 2012 by FeatherFall

[CrowEpistemologist]

He didn't say, "impossible" but he stipulated it would not happen.

I'm not sure how private schools are going to survive against companies that are government subsidized. The article, if I recall, talks about how private schools simply converting themselves to charter so they can get the extra money. It's like letting the devil in your house. The other interesting thing here is that many more fancy charters ask for "donations" which are a tax write-off. So basically a parent can compare $15k per year to a private school to $8k (after the "charter subsidy" kicks in) and then writing off the $8k meaning the real cost is more like $5k. That's a 2/3 discount. That's impossible to compete against. Understand that charter schools are private schools too in terms of the way they are owned--they are just more heavily regulated (which makes sense since taxpayers pay for them).

Home schooling is not a significant part of the education mix here in the USA and I don't expect it to be. It's wildly inefficient.

No, if allowed to continue I'm pretty sure the concepts of "private school" and "charter school" will be the same in about 10 or so years... The net-net will be that public funding for children's education will have expanded to the remaining 20% of the population and the private school industry will have moved itself to a more deeply regulated status where they are partially funded by the government.

It will basically be the end of private schools. All in exchange for a model that... tell me again why it's better? Recall that "privatized" does not mean "private" and it can actually make things a lot worse from the standpoint of freedom... (Maybe that's a different topic).

[softwareNerd]

I'm not sure how private schools are going to survive against companies that are government subsidized.

It sounds like you accept the idea that the quality in charter schools is equal to the quality in private schools?

A question: would you also like to see various reductions in quality within government-run schools, so that still more parents are motivated to put their kids in private schools? In other words, are you saying you'd like to see the quality gap between government-funded and private-funded schools become as wide as possible?

[CrowEpistemologist]

It sounds like you accept the idea that the quality in charter schools is equal to the quality in private schools?

A question: would you also like to see various reductions in quality within government-run schools, so that still more parents are motivated to put their kids in private schools? In other words, are you saying you'd like to see the quality gap between government-funded and private-funded schools become as wide as possible?

Well, I think I read that they are the same since private schools are converting themselves to charters in order to get the free money from the state.

As for quality, I'm not sure how this enters into this....

Per the article, certainly tax credits for private school is a much cleaner way to do this, and will send the entire problem going the other direction--toward that of more purely private schools and less public funding / lower taxes.

[softwareNerd]

..., certainly tax credits for private school is a much cleaner way to do this,...

Private schools with zero government financing is the cleanest solution, and politically the least acceptable. The next step down would be a tax-credit: politically difficult to get through (because it does not "help the poor"), but fairly clean. The next step down is vouchers: politically tough to get through in most areas of the country, even though advocates have been trying for years, but a wee bit easier (politically) than a tax-credit because it can be given to the poorest. In fact, in some areas vouchers are only given to kids from "failing districts". Then, the next step down (easier politically, less "clean") is charter schools. Then, one step below that: schools of choice. Then, one step below that: changes in staffing contracts like collective bargaining, and all sorts of other changes within the school system that imitate things that private schools do.