Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

This is silly, at least on the private school front. My children are at one of those always-talked-about private schools but we considered switching them to charter school recently for financial reasons. We were pretty open about it with families from school since everyone knew about our job situation at the time, and not one of the families we talked to had even heard of our lottery-pick charter schools, despite tons of press coverage and endless discussions on DCUM. I'm not saying that the charters aren't worth serious consideration, but the private school world is not even paying attention for the most part. I think the exceptions would be some of the less popular religious-based schools or the tiniest independent schools, but most of the latter are in the suburbs anyway. The notion that Sidwell, Georgetown Day, WIS, and the Cathedral schools will lose potential students to charter schools is nonsense. In fact, our children's school (again, rightly or wrongly) has people practically running each other over in an attempt to get in. There's no shortage of rich people in DC.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why the word "paradox" appears in the title.

It seemed obvious to me that increasing the caliber of public education would attract private schools families back to public schools.

It seemed obvious to me when last year DC charter enrollment increased by 8% but DCPS enrollment barely budged.

In fact, wasn't attracting private school families back part of the plan for improving public schools? If 70% of DC kids are low SES, but no school with more that 30% low SES performs well, don't we have to attract a large number of middle and high SES families back to drive the percentage from 70% down to 30% on average?

if school quality is totally dependent on pre-existing student quality, then reform is meaningless. Improvement becomes a matter of moving kids around -- that is, moving low-performing kids out and high-performing kids in.

Anonymous wrote:So, is Cato's position that charter schools should be privatized? Should all public schools be privatized and run on vouchers?

Yes, I'd like an answer to this as well. Charter schools are public schools, albeit public schools in a different model. Mr. Schaeffer, your position seems to be that when public schools become successful enough that they start attracting students from private schools, they should either be shut down or converted to private schools? Is that correct?

But education is a public function, not a private one. I'm not sure even the Cato Institute would dispute this (though I'm prepared to be surprised). So why should we be concerned about public schools taking enrollment from private?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, it's competition. Privates, charters, and publics all need to up their game if they hope to stay afloat.

Trying to drag other schools like Latin or Basis down with negativity isn't the way to do it, the way to do it is to improve those other schools.

when did "up" become a verb?

Decades ago. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/up

It's both a transitive and intransitive verb.

your link shows it as an adverb, adjective, preposition.

So, is Cato's position that charter schools should be privatized? Should all public schools be privatized and run on vouchers?

Sorry, typing on phone...understand not uunderstand

I understand the voucher part, though I would think anyone truly interested in school choice would support the 'choice' aspect of a charter
I am trying to uunderstand the unfunded charter proposal, and see how that is different from any private school

Anonymous wrote:@ the Cato poster, are you able to explain how a charter remains a charter without public funding? Isn't it a private school if it gets no government funds?




Just curious....

They want vouchers. So that the money can stay in the family, and by family I mean the private school, selective, exclusionary, self-selecting (particularly those that are religious), family.

@ the Cato poster, are you able to explain how a charter remains a charter without public funding? Isn't it a private school if it gets no government funds?




Just curious....

Anonymous wrote:Mr. Schaeffer, you have put quite a few incorrect assumptions and premises out there.

For every $9,000 per student that the charter gets from the taxpayer, DCPS would be getting $18,000 per student. And, the charter doesn't charge tuition on top of that, they only charge for extracurriculars.

The charter is delivering more than $18,000 worth of education for just $9,000.

And, with regard to privates, have you actually checked how much private schools like Sidwell Friends charge per student? Hint: It's a lot more than $6,000. A whole lot more.

Mr. is really talking about religious schools.

Mr. Schaeffer, you have put quite a few incorrect assumptions and premises out there.

For every $9,000 per student that the charter gets from the taxpayer, DCPS would be getting $18,000 per student. And, the charter doesn't charge tuition on top of that, they only charge for extracurriculars.

The charter is delivering more than $18,000 worth of education for just $9,000.

And, with regard to privates, have you actually checked how much private schools like Sidwell Friends charge per student? Hint: It's a lot more than $6,000. A whole lot more.

Adam Schaeffer, Cato Institute

I thought I'd jump in with a response to some of the discussion . . .

I hear a lot about how charter schools are “out-competing” private schools. Well, even I could beat an Olympic gold-medalist in the 100-yard dash if I started at yard 85. But I certainly wouldn’t say I “out-competed” him.

It is hardly a level playing field when parents must pay their education taxes and then pay out of pocket to send their child to a private school, or when others must do the same and then donate money to a private school.

Charter schools tax everyone in order to provide $9,000 worth of education free to the customer. In very simplified terms, a private school must provide value to their customer that is worth more than $9,000 + tuition, say $6,000, in order for a family to become a customer. So, for $6,000, a private school must provide a family with more than $15,000 worth of value in order to compete with the Charter school.

This is why the “public” option, whether in health care or in education, inevitably destroys the private sector. The private sector we do have remains in significant part because the government cannot by law provide the value of a religious education. Charters have begun to blur even this distinction, however, with Hebrew-language and other technically non-religious charters walking a gray area. But inevetiably, the religious mission or even distinctive secular pedagogical mission of a school will not survive a shift to the public sector.

Charters are often a better option than the traditional public school, and that is a good thing for the kids who transfer from those schools. But that means the private sector will lose out to the marginally improved, and still massively subsidized, government sector. That’s just a fact. And this fact has negative consequences, including a loss of educational diversity, freedom, and competition, as well as an increase in demands on public finances.

Beyond these factors, it is inevitable that some portion, perhaps most, of the students shifting from private to charter schools will end up in a less effective educational environment because marginal financial advantages, rather than academic advantages, made the difference.

This could be solved quite easily, though, by simply eliminating public funding of charter schools in its entirety. In that case, we could be sure that a charter pulling private school kids was providing more value per dollar. And we could of course allow any tax credit funds to be used at a school that does not receive direct government funding, so a tax credit program could help level the playing field with traditioanl public schools for both charters and private schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, it's competition. Privates, charters, and publics all need to up their game if they hope to stay afloat.

Trying to drag other schools like Latin or Basis down with negativity isn't the way to do it, the way to do it is to improve those other schools.

when did "up" become a verb?

Decades ago. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/up

It's both a transitive and intransitive verb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

I completely agree with this point. But can I ask, what's "FUD"?

It stands for a marketing strategy emphasizing fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Wikipedia has a nice article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me there's a serious battle afoot. The privates, parochials and public schools all have their crosshairs on charters, because they see their students (and therefore, their funding) going over to charters in ever increasing numbers. That would certainly explain the vitriol and FUD campaign of vague, nonspecific and irrelevant accusations about Latin, BASIS and the others.

I completely agree with this point. But can I ask, what's "FUD"?