Matters of education are often greatly debated because everyone can agree that they want the best for our nation’s kids. A new question arises: Should taxpayer dollars be used to fund charter schools? What’s the advantage for these tuition-free schools with a degree of independence from regulations of the public school system as well as teachers’ unions. Many people prefer these institutions. They currently take up less public funding and offer a wider variety of academic concentrations. Their students academically outperform those from traditional public schools. However, opposition says that charter schools work better as a small operation. Landon Dais and Mairead McArdle debate this issue at Bold TV.
Many parents say that charters are the better option for their children’s academic development. The demand for charter schools continues to grow as parents become aware of the advantages. They believe it’s wise for the federal government to make an investment into these higher-performing academies instead of throwing more money at a “broken” public school system. But charter schools face barriers to growth, such as teachers’ unions and other bureaucratic hurdles.
Opponents of tax-funded charters say that the issue with the schools is they have certain advantages over public schools that attract parents. They can “cherry-pick” their students, but public schools take the students they’re given and do their best. However, charter schools’ advantages can only work at a micro-level. Some say that they were to be expanded to the scope of public schools, regulations and bureaucracy would still be major issues. Both sides agree that regulation and bureaucracy will always be factors in matters of education because it involves the safety of children. Check out the interview to hear the in-depth discussion on how they should be funded.