As Dude noted on the previous page, though-- the one real-world example that we have to work from is in higher ed. It
hasn't worked appreciably well there, either.
And one can definitely argue that the complicating factors associated with primary and secondary compulsory education are mostly missing from that picture, making it even simpler.
Unfortunately, market theory only works when the assumptions underlying it are valid. Those assumptions are
not necessarily valid here-- that is, that those who start charter schools are MOST concerned with quality as a means of competing, and that they are determined to "succeed" in terms of student-as-product, not student-as-consumer.
The latter leads to the same place that it has in higher ed. Making students (as a demographic) "happy" is a very very far cry from doing a good job educating them. Not all students enjoy the process of learning, particularly when they are well accustomed to picking up trophies just for showing up.
Higher ed has adjusted with ever-more-luxurious settings for students to 'learn' in, and watering down content to make them all FEEL smart (even in remedial coursework)... and that's the regular, NPO (public or private) side of things.
The
for-profit higher ed sector most resembles payday loan operations, quite frankly.
While I respect that your opinion and mine differ here, indigo, I have been inside of a charter organization (and one that is reasonably reputable, I might add) for the past decade, and what I've seen is that they are INNATELY corrupt or at least corruptible upon success. They ultimately view the enterprise as a business, and don't care any more about students than Microsoft cares about its customers. Oh, sure-- they want the money to keep rolling in, all right, but that's NOT the same thing. My own charter organization has figured out that slick marketing covers a world of sins, because it doesn't MATTER if you have high turnover in students. As long as there is a fresh crop of them, you're set. Once a charter learns this basic truth, the jig is up for quality instruction. THAT is a waste of resources; rather like McDonald's serving filet mignon and worrying about what food critics will say. Once a charter is a "success" the decay seems almost inevitable.
I also saw some of the first K-12 charter efforts in the state that I was a faculty member in over a decade ago. It's not really different than higher ed. It just isn't. The details and org charts may differ, but exactly the same pitfalls exist and for exactly the same reasons. Human beings
want the easy route. Even when "easy" isn't
right. They may SAY one thing, and do something quite different, even if it isn't rational-- that's where model and theory break down.
As noted; I've really, really, really tried to view charters and vouchers as "the" solution. But I don't think that they are-- or CAN be, honestly. That model is too prone to abuses for financial gain.
My own undergrad institution was a traditional teacher's college-- yes, the majors were "nice" people, and most of them earnest and passionate about teaching. They were also a group that mostly COULDN'T HANDLE the "majors" content. Even later, as a faculty member, there was a clear, bright line between our "teaching majors" and our "majors" in my department. I'd estimate about a 20 point IQ difference between the two distributions, myself. This was in a STEM domain, too.
At least we tried to turn out students who would become
competent high school science teachers. Some departmental requirements don't ask anything beyond
sophomore level material of those people.
