One of the most common arguments I hear against expanding charter school goes something like this: “charter schools were meant to be laboratories of innovation, but now they’re taking over public schools.”
My response generally goes something like this: “if something is working for poor and minority students, why wouldn’t you want to expand it?”
My response aside, it’s worth considering why this argument against charter schools is so sticky.
Status Quo Bias: People react negatively to major changes; this seems especially true for public schooling.
Union Support: If you view teachers unions as a major positive force in society, you might be ok with charters serving 10% of students (as a method for increasing innovation), but you might be worried that significantly increasing charter schools would take too big of a toll on union membership.
Inequity: If you believe that charters skim for the highest performing students, you might be worried that increasing charter market share would also increase inequitable practices (of course, if charters hit 100% market share, it would be impossible for them to skim).
Anything else I’m missing?
My guess is that, for your average person, status quo bias is the main rationale.
For people more familiar with education, union membership and inequity are also major reasons.
Moving forward, I may try to proactively raise this issue in my speeches and writings, as it is an argument that generally arises very early in discussion.