Thursday, February 15, 2007
Are City Schools Killing Competition?
Officials at the State Department of Education might soon find themselves in the thick of a dispute between the Pittsburgh Public Schools and the independent, public charter schools that seek approval to operate within the school district’s boundaries. The core of the issue is the belief on the part of charter school officials that have been denied approval that the Pittsburgh Public Schools don’t want competition.
Of course, there are six charters located in the Pittsburgh school district (according to the Department of Education’s list) and there is a formal appeal process in place in the Education Department (the Charter Appeals Board, which has heard four appeals for schools related to the Pittsburgh Public Schools going back to 1999). But look at the rationale for the Pittsburgh School Board denying a charter to the latest applicant: “a lack of community support, incomplete curriculum and failure to offer anything the district doesn't already provide city students”.
That last reason is outlandish—so what if the charter does not provide anything not currently offered by the school district? That’s the same rationale used by Pittsburgh taxicab companies to keep competitors out of the market and that the Port Authority does to keep its monopoly hold on mass transit. And it is probably the same argument that used to be made by natural gas suppliers, electric companies, and airlines. Competition has tremendously remade those industries, and education is not exception.
Maybe the City schools are just hoping that the appeals process drains some applicants of resources or they get discouraged and go away. But if the Pittsburgh Schools have the ultimate confidence in their product, then denials ought to be made only on issues related to health and safety of the location, not on the product itself.
After all, why would any parent send a child to a charter school if the alternative City school is doing such a good job?
Of course, there are six charters located in the Pittsburgh school district (according to the Department of Education’s list) and there is a formal appeal process in place in the Education Department (the Charter Appeals Board, which has heard four appeals for schools related to the Pittsburgh Public Schools going back to 1999). But look at the rationale for the Pittsburgh School Board denying a charter to the latest applicant: “a lack of community support, incomplete curriculum and failure to offer anything the district doesn't already provide city students”.
That last reason is outlandish—so what if the charter does not provide anything not currently offered by the school district? That’s the same rationale used by Pittsburgh taxicab companies to keep competitors out of the market and that the Port Authority does to keep its monopoly hold on mass transit. And it is probably the same argument that used to be made by natural gas suppliers, electric companies, and airlines. Competition has tremendously remade those industries, and education is not exception.
Maybe the City schools are just hoping that the appeals process drains some applicants of resources or they get discouraged and go away. But if the Pittsburgh Schools have the ultimate confidence in their product, then denials ought to be made only on issues related to health and safety of the location, not on the product itself.
After all, why would any parent send a child to a charter school if the alternative City school is doing such a good job?
Comments:
<< Home
To go along with the theme of your post, consider the many other things that the public schools are doing to tilt the competitive odds in their favor. One of the big reasons behind the "Pittsburgh Promise" is, in my own opinion, to kill off the private and charter school competition. That's probably the reason why the teacher's union was the first -- and so far, the only -- donor to this so-underfunded-it's-not-really-viable college scholarship program.
Post a Comment
<< Home
