The Parties With Just Two Ideas

Have the two major political parties become parties with just two big ideas on which their members can agree? For Republicans those ideas are a) cutting taxes and b) opposing a sitting Democratic president. Needless to say Democrats have a similar resistance to presidents of the opposing party. This editorial from the Washington Post may give you some inkling of what the other idea is:

THE MOST enduring — and unforgivable — civil rights offense in our country today is the consigning of so many poor, often minority children to failing schools. Among the more promising efforts to deal with this urgent issue have been public charter schools, which give poor families the choice in their children’s education that more prosperous parents take for granted. That makes all the more distressing the bid by some Democrats to blame charter schools for all the ills of public education.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a candidate to become the Democratic presidential nominee, launched a broadside against charter schools, calling for a moratorium on federal funding for all charter schools and a ban on for-profit charters (which account for a small proportion of charters). “The proliferation of charter schools has disproportionately affected communities of color,” wrote Mr. Sanders as part of his 10-point education plan this month.

Mr. Sanders is right about the outsize effects on minority communities — but those effects have been positive, not negative. Of the nearly 3.2 million public charter school students, 68 percent are students of color, with 26 percent of them African Americans. Studies indicate that students of color, students from low-income families and English-language learners enrolled in public charter schools make greater academic progress than their peers in traditional schools. Research from Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that African American students in charter schools gained an additional 59 days of learning in math and 44 days in reading per year compared with their traditional school counterparts.

Charter schools are not a replacement for traditional schools, and not all charter schools are good. Bad ones should not be tolerated. But blanket calls to curtail charter schools are wrongheaded. There is a reason that parents line up on waiting lists for coveted high-quality charter schools. Like wealthy parents who pay for private schooling or middle-class parents who move to neighborhoods for better schools, poor parents want a good education for their children. Without it, they know there will be diminished hope for upward mobility and a better future.

The politics of charter schools have always been fraught for Democrats because of the influence of teachers unions — which oppose charters for reasons having nothing to do with the welfare of children. We hope candidates keep in mind the polls that consistently show support for charters among black and Hispanic voters. It’s easy to oppose charters if you are well-off and live in a suburb with good schools. We hope we will also hear from candidates who know about the value of charters from their experiences — including as a mayor who used them to begin to turn around a failing district, as a partner in an administration that promoted charters, as a schools superintendent who made a place for charters.

George Santayana once quipped that a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts after having lost sight of his goals. It is not too much to say that Democrats’ support of public employees’ unions has become fanatical, to the actual detriment of the goals purportedly being sought.

We need to open a new can of political parties.

10 comments… add one
  • steve Link

    While a lot of people like the idea of charter schools, their success in actually improving education is still an open question I think. Most of their success seems to come from taking the better students from failing schools. I am OK with the idea that we should keep experimenting, but would like to see some convincing data at some point that they improve outcomes for the entire community.

    Hope you read Tabarrok’s paper on costs, especially education and health care. Interesting. Has some flaws. His data suggesting bloat is not an issue in higher education surprised me.

    https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/helland-tabarrok_why-are-the-prices-so-damn-high_v1.pdf

    Steve

  • I am OK with the idea that we should keep experimenting

    I agree. However, if the public schools are convinced that charter schools are bad, IMO they have a moral obligation to propose something better other than paying teachers more. The evidence that’s an effective strategy for improving schools is extremely weak. Remember that real spending on education has more than tripled over the last 25 years with only nominal improvements.

    Yeah, I read Tabarrok’s piece. The rising costs are not hard to explain. If the amount you’re willing to spend for something increases and you don’t increase the actual supply, costs will rise. The effect of federal loans is to increase the amount available to be spent on higher education.

    One last point. I’d be interested in seeing anybody’s plan for helping “the entire community” when half of all students drop out of school before graduating.

  • steve Link

    I read his longer article, not just the short piece at his blog. It is interesting that elementary and secondary costs increased in line with higher education. Elementary and secondary spending is controlled at the local level. It increased fastest in the 50s and 60s. It is hard to come up with a unitary explanation since the costs were rising at the same rate for higher and lower education. I was honestly surprised that administrative costs have held pretty steady and spending on facilities has dropped. (Note that we didnt even have Pell grants in the 50s and 60s.)

    “The national high school graduation rate has risen to a new all-time high. New figures released by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics show that 84.6 percent of the students in the class of 2016-17 earned diplomas in four years.”

    Steve

  • Note that we didnt even have Pell grants in the 50s and 60s

    There were other subsidies, e.g. NDEA loans.

    Also, check the graduation statistics in inner city schools. In Chicago the overall rate is claimed to be 78% but it’s also widely believed that the numbers are fudged. There are schools in which it is much, much lower.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    And what does the graduation rate mean when the graduate can’t read the newspaper?

  • Andy Link

    I think the Democrat’s opposition to charter schools is primarily based on fealty to public employee unions followed by a general preference for government authority.

  • steve Link

    “There were other subsidies, e.g. NDEA loans.”

    Only for math and science majors. AFAICT there were no general education loans for liberals arts grads back then.

    “There are schools in which it is much, much lower.”

    Which means that there are some which are much, much higher. Our problem is that we dont know how to successfully educate our poor underclass. Our middle class and up kids do just about as well as the kids in other countries that are at the top on test scores. We are kind of unique in that we have such a large, permanent underclass for such a wealthy country, and we have them take the tests. In China, over half of students never even make it to high school. If you have a disability you can completely forget about going to school.

    https://projectpartner.org/poverty/chinas-education-gap-a-surprising-factor-in-rural-poverty/

  • Our problem is that we dont know how to successfully educate our poor underclass.

    Yep. Universal education is a relatively new experiment—it didn’t really start until the 1970s. So far the results have not been particularly encouraging. I don’t know how big a factor the issue mentioned by GS is. I’ve had a lot of arguments with people about it.

    In China, over half of students never even make it to high school.

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are different definitions of literacy depending on one’s station in life. That’s how they report a 96% literacy rate. And don’t even get me started on the treatment of special needs kids in China. It’s not just China. It’s an issue all over Asia.

    I’ve posted on this subject before. The literary output of the entire Arab world, some 300 million people, is about the same as Spain’s and yet the countries of MENA claim a literacy rate of between 70% and 95%. It’s probably more like 20%.

  • steve Link

    “. I don’t know how big a factor the issue mentioned by GS is. I’ve had a lot of arguments with people about it.”

    I dont argue about it because I dont have any data on it. I dont really know how often it occurs, and if it is better or worse than in the past.

    Steve

  • TastyBits Link

    If you want to know how effective an all charter school system is, look into the New Orleans public school system. Other than a magnet school and a few traditional public schools, it is 90% charter schools.

    I do not keep up on it, but I know there were complaints that the charter schools would kick out the trouble makers and slower students. Then, most of the trouble makers would drop-out.

    The charter schools have almost a 100% college acceptance rate. The standardized tests, SAT, ACT, etc. are higher. The drop-out rate is 0% as are the disciplinary problems.

    The Catholic schools must compete for students, and this results in less desirable students being accepted, assuming their parents can afford the tuition.

Leave a Comment