[msglenn]

As we fight to improve the quality of education in urban areas, it is critical that we pay attention to the results we're getting. That is the point, after all.

That said, this article fails to mention one of the most salient arguments in favor of charter schools: If education is the primary path for upward social mobility, then every parent should have some choice in where their child goes to school. And that choice should not be wholly dependent on current socioeconomic status.

Some schools may not do better according to traditional measurements, but creating a system where schools more transparently market their strengths and weaknesses to parents doesn't just give them more decision making power, over time it also creates a more informed parent class. Eventually leading to even better schools.

[jseliger]

That said, this article fails to mention one of the most salient arguments in favor of charter schools: If education is the primary path for upward social mobility, then every parent should have some choice in where their child goes to school

Actually, I think the most important thing about charter schools is the failure feedback loop: bad ones can fail, which most large, urban school districts can't. No matter how bad a district or school might be, most parents have no cost-effective choice.

Charters at least solve that problem. I don't think they're a panacea or that all charters are automatically better than public schools, but at least they can fail.

[mbetter]

> If education is the primary path for upward social mobility, then every parent should have some choice in where their child goes to school.

I don't see how this follows.

[msglenn]

Access to quality education is not a right in this country, but attendance is required for a variety of reasons. Most of them related to creating and maintaining a functioning society. The more lofty goals of compulsory public education are about giving every child the skills to have a chance at a decent life.

So, if the government is going to force people to send their children to school, but isn't going to MANDATE a minimum quality level, they should at least give people a choice in deciding what's best for their kids. Because as it is now, the government is forcing people to send their kids to schools we all know are terrible.

[scarecrowbob]

I generally agree with your point.

However, I live in a small Texas town and my wife's business deals with two private school. If these schools are typical, it is entirely possible for parents to put their children into a worse-by-design school that teaches young-earth creationism and inculcates habits and an anti-social orientation and which breeds awkward, dysfunctional people.

On one hand, the state and local governing bodies do mandate a level of quality that can be avoided by parochial schools and on the other hand it is entirely possible for people to actively choose standards poorer than the public ones.