In charter schools policy debates like the ones this week in the state House Education Committee, a fundamental distinction between charter public schools and district-run schools often gets lost: Every child in every charter school is there only because parents made a conscientious decision to send him or her there.  

Policymakers should never lose sight of this when they consider imposing artificial limitations on the number and type of charter schools. Such restrictions are really limitations on parental rights to make choices about their children's education. The issue boils down to who should choose: parents or politicians.  

When this essential characteristic of charters is kept it mind, many of the alleged concerns about their expansion appear either trivial or motivated by some other agenda (like protecting the conventional public school monopoly).

For example, some anti-school choice politicians are making a fuss about charters hiring for-profit education management companies, demonizing the firms and seeking to ban the practice. But when one recalls that not a single dollar is paid to a charter school management firm unless a large number of parents have actively chosen their school, the proper response should be, “What's wrong with providing parents with what they want?”  

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

Similarly, the argument that only “quality” charter schools should be allowed also ignores the fundamental distinction. Parents who choose a charter school are indicating that they’re satisfied with the educational experience it gives their kids (or, at least, that it’s the best of their available options). Many factors unique to each family’s situation go into this choice, and the notion that the state can somehow do a better job of making the decision for each child is ridiculous.  

Since parents ultimately determine how many and what types of charter schools will exist, opponents of charter expansion are really opposing the right of parents to choose what’s in their children's best interest. They are implicitly asserting that only politicians, bureaucrats and special interests should make decisions about each child’s education.

Related Articles:

A Response to the New York Times About Charter Schools in Michigan

'Reckless Expansion' of Charter Schools? Not Quite

Another Charter School Critic Misses the Mark

Charter Schools Are Not to Blame for Pension Woes

Cherry-Picking Michigan Charter Data Leads to Wrong Conclusions

One In Four Michigan School District Teachers Chronically Absent

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:


There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites