Charter Schools III: Ideology & Choice

In my prior essay on charter schools, I considered the quality argument. The idea is that charter schools provide a higher quality alternative to public schools and should receive public money so that poorer families can afford to choose them. The primary problem with this argument is that it seems to make more sense to use public money to improve public schools—as opposed to siphoning money from them. I now turn to another aspect of choice, that of ideology (broadly construed).

While parents want to be able to choose a quality school for their children, some parents are also interested in having ideological alternatives to public schools. This desire forms the basis for the ideological choice argument for charter schools. While public schools are supposed to be as ideologically neutral as possible, some see public schools as ideologically problematic in two broad ways.

One way is that the public schools provide content and experiences that conflict with the ideology of some parents, most commonly with religious values. For example, public schools often teach evolution in science classes and this runs contrary to some theological views about the age of the earth and how species arise. As another example, some public schools allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity, which runs contrary to the values of some parents. As a third example, some schools teach history (such as that of slavery) in ways that run afoul of the ideology of parents. As a final example, some schools include climate change in their science courses, which might be rejected by some parents on political grounds.

A second way is that public schools fail to provide ideological content and experiences that parents want them to provide, often based on their religious views. For example, a public school might not provide Christian prayers in the classroom. As another example, a public school might not offer religious content in the science classes (such as creationism). As a final example, a public school might not offer abstinence only sex education, which can conflict with the values of some parents.

Charter schools, the argument goes, can offer parents an ideological alternative to public schools, thus giving them more choices in regards to the education of their children. Ideological charter schools can avoid offering content and experiences that parents do not want for their children while offering the content and experiences they want. For example, a private charter school could teach creationism and have facilities that conform to traditional gender identities.

It might be argued that parents already have such a choice: they can send their children to existing private schools. But, as noted in my first essay, many parents cannot afford to pay for such private schools. Since charter schools receive public money, parents who cannot afford to send their children to private ideological schools can send them to ideological charter schools, thus allowing them to exercise their right to choose. As an alternative to charter schools, some places have school voucher systems which allow students to attend private (often religious) schools using public money. The appeal of this approach is that it allows those who are less well-off to enjoy the same freedom of choice as the well off. After all, it seems unfair that the poor should be denied this freedom simply because they are poor. That said, there are some problems with ideological charter schools.

One concern about ideological charter schools is that that they would involve the funding of specific ideologies with public money. For example, public money going to a religious charter school would be a case of public funding of that religion, which is problematic in many ways in the United States. Those who favor ideological charter schools tend to do so because they are thinking of their own ideology. However, it is important to consider that allowing such charter schools opens the door to ideologies other than one’s own. For example, conservative Christian proponents of religious charter schools are no doubt thinking of public money going to Christian schools and are not considering that public money might also flow to Islamic charter schools or charter transgender training academies. Or perhaps they have already thought about how to ensure the money flows in accord with their ideology.

Another concern is that funding ideological charter schools with public money would be denying others their choice—there are many taxpayers who do not want their money going to fund ideologies they do not accept. For example, people who do not belong to a religious sect would most likely not want to involuntarily support that sect.

What might seem to be an obvious counter is that there are people who do not want their money going to public schools because of their ideological views. So, if it is accepted that public money can go to public schools, it should also be allowed to flow into ideological charter schools.

The reply to this is that public schools are controlled by the public, typically through elected officials. As such, people do have a choice in regards to the content and experiences offered by public schools. While people will not always get what they want, they do have a role in the democratic process. Public money is thus being spent in accord with what the public wants—as determined by this process. In contrast, the public does not have comparable choice when it comes to ideological charter schools—they are, by their very nature, outside of the public education system. This is not to say that there should not be such ideological schools, just that they should be in the realm of private choice rather than public funding.

To use a road analogy, imagine that Billy believes that it is offensive in the eyes of God for men and women to drive on the same roads and he does not want his children to see such blasphemy. Billy has every right to stay off the public roads and every right to start his own private road system on his property. However, he does not have the right to expect public road money to be diverted to his private road system so that he can exercise his choice.

Billy could, however, argue that as a citizen he is entitled to his share of the public road money. Since he is not using the public roads, the state should send him that share so that he might fund his private roads. He could get others to join him and pool these funds, thus creating his ideological charter roads. If confronted by the objection that the public should not fund his ideology, Billy could counter by arguing that road choice should not be a luxury that must be purchased. Rather, it is an entitlement that the state is obligated to provide.

This points to a key part of the matter about public funding for things like public roads and public education: are citizens entitled to access to the public systems or are they entitled to the monetary value of that access, which they should be free to use elsewhere? My intuition is that citizens are entitled to access to the public system rather than to a cash payout from the state. Citizens can elect to forgo such access, but this does not entitle them to a check from the state. As a citizen, I have the right to use the public roads and send any children I might have to the public schools. However, I am not entitled to public money to fund roads or schools that match my ideology just because I do not like the public system. As a citizen, I have the right to try to change the public systems—that is how democratic public systems are supposed to work. As such, while the ideological choice argument is appealing, it does not seem compelling.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

  1. In New Mexico, they are in the process of revoking a charter school permanently, because of mismanagement–who would have possibly envisioned that someone would figure out a way to make a pocket full of money?

    Most private schools (associated with religion) have “scholarship” assistance, so there are many who do not pay full price.

    The truth is you generally get what you pay for. If you see education as a babysitting service, that is what you get. Public schools are bloated bureaucracies that are, in many cases staffed by incompetent teachers, who given up, because parents, especially here, do not see the value of an education. If parents don’t care, why should their children, and then why should the teachers?

    A possible solution would be to privatize education, and lose the high costs of mediocrity, as states have done when they began privatizing prisons, garbage collections, etc. Then performance could be rewarded.

    This is an oversimplification, as the problem is complex, but as an ex-teacher I see public education has gone about as well as the war on drugs.

  2. If the argument for parents taking money out of the public education system and using it to pay for the kind of education that they want is that the parents are just spending “their share” of the education money, then it would also follow that those who do not have children should be able to take “their share” out as well. Furthermore, parents with 6 children should receive no more money than parents with only one child.

    Taxpayers are spending money on public education in order to purchase something that they value, not to purchase a present for the parents. As a tax payer, I am not interested in educating your children. I am however interested in educating future voters and taxpayers. I am also interested in assuring that their will be a supply of future doctors, nurses, lawyers, cabdrivers, etc. for me to call upon when those of my generation are no longer be able to do these things. If parents want to teach their children other things, they are free to pay for it themselves. They should not expect the rest of us to foot the bill for them to teach their kids what they want them to know.

  3. Kevin Henderson

    I would argue that ‘Billy’ should be given his money back for roads he does not use. But that’s just the beginning. We spend billions, not just now, but historically on technologies that have become what we know as computers, smart phones, medicines and medical technologies, etc.. I would not insist, but certainly support restrictions on ‘Billy’ being able to buy a car or a phone or use public water, for that matter.

    People like ‘Billy’ are shortsighted when it comes to the cohesive nature by which science and engineering are linked to every form of our lives, not just roads. And yes, no GPS for ‘Billy’, either.

  4. great resonance caused by short in the minds of the audience,boutique goyard. the Chinese government should carefully open the capital account. Liu Shuailiang starred in the second comedy film “happy twist” open water donkey roadshow.general secretary Xi Jinping a slight rebound in the market background,zapatillas converse, Therefore,soldes louboutin 2015, the British “Guardian” or referred to the opium trade in China 100 years ago. The U. more understand what kind of film and television art is

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>