Neal McClusky of the Cato Institute took a snipe at charter schools yesterday by implying that the problem KIPP now faces in New York City with unionization is a natural outcome of these institutions being public and not private. You see the libertarian think tank doesn't like the charter model because it is based upon being a public school even though much of the governance freedom they enjoy is much closer to those of most businesses.
I'm one of these that doesn't see that big a difference between using vouchers or charters to gain educational freedom. Yes, private schools have the ability to make some decisions that charters by law cannot, for example they can set up admission requirements. However, I think that Mr. McClusky is suffering from a static view of voucher programs.
If we were somehow able to convince politicians to expand by leaps and bounds the number of students that could attend private schools using public money then I predict the same pressures that charter schools face would transfer over to these institutions. Citizens would demand accountability for the use of their dollars and so I imagine that facilities accepting public funds would eventually have to comply with No Child Left Behind. And please don't believe for one minute that the teacher unions wouldn't be overjoyed to find a new market for their membership ranks. The eventual slow steady creep of government control into a voucher program is the reason why many libertarians say the much more preferable way to achieve school choice is through tuition tax credits or private scholarships.
Comments