Wait, you mean that improving public education is a bad thing now? I disagree. yes, higher cost to taxpayer, but taxpayer also benefits from not having to pay private school tuition, and taxpayer benefits from better educated kids overall. What? Not having private schools limits choice? They need to demonstrate they are significantly better than charter schools to charge the significantly higher tuituion, otherwise, they need to go the way of the horse buggy.
The original intent of charter schools was to put competition back in as the formula for continuous improvement. Any protected institution wallows in its own wastewater. The notion that charter schools kill private schools and increase burden is absurd. By law (tax and otherwise), all children in the United States have the right to a public education. Making an increase or decrease argument of burden due to private schoolers having a decent public school choice through charters is like saying my incompetent service, now competent, is going to be used. Smells like more liberal arguments.
I find all of this laughable. I pay taxes. My house is on a gravel road, on a private 1/2 of road, on well and septic. Until this past year all three of my children were home schooled.
So as I taxpayer, because I was paying into the system but not using the services, now I’m an added burden? Interesting concept.
Cato is heartily in favor of private school vouchers, so that’s where this guy is going with his argument.
Where I think that it’s interesting is in the idea that a robust private school sector offers a kind of competition that charter schools can’t. Charter schools are still public schools subject to many rules and regulations that don’t apply to private schools. And charter schools are not really subject to market discipline as they get the same amount of money per pupil no matter what they do.