Isn’t America supposed to be a free-market country, where profits are welcomed? Profit simply means a company is pleasing its customers.
Yet when it comes to charter schools, “profit” has become demonized in California. The Assembly just approved AB 406, by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, 48 to 23. It would ban for-profit charter schools in the state.
Backing the bill on California Newswire, Christopher Simmons writes, “These corporations take public taxpayer dollars and use a percentage of those dollars for corporate profits and excessive salaries for their executives with little or no transparency and accountability — taking taxpayer money away from students.”
Would he say the same when public schools build classrooms with private contractors? Are the computers, software applications or text books used in public schools made by the government — or by such for-profit companies such as Apple, Google or McGraw Hill?
All charters, including for-profit ones, still are public schools. At the end of the day, parents simply want their kids to receive a great education in a safe learning environment. If a traditional neighbor school is not living up to a parent’s demand, then that student should be given the opportunity to attend a for-profit or public charter school. If parents don’t like a particular school, they leave and the school dissolves — or, in the case of a for-profit school, goes broke and out of business. The for-profit charters provide an additional type of school from which parents and students can choose.
AB 406 really is a bill pushed by the teachers’ unions in their attack on the supposed “privatization” of public education. Simmons puts two revealing quotes right next to each other. One is from Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers, the state’s major political power: “These predatory corporate intrusions shortchange our students and undermine our public education system. AB 406 will put an end to these harmful practices.”
The second is by McCarty: “The privatization of public education must end.” According to Voter’s Edge California, McCarty’s campaign contributions mainly have come from public-employee unions, including $16,800 from the California Teachers Association.
In reality, AB 406 takes aim at the increasingly popular charters, including public virtual experiences, that bring kids into the online world that is the future for all of us – especially here in California, the birthplace and still the center of the Internet. McCarty, Simmons and the CTA are backing a 19th Century model of schooling, even as the state’s technology industry is propelling the global economy of the 21st Century.
Indeed, an April statewide voter survey by J. Wallin Opinion Research found 82.9 percent of Californians said lawmakers first should listen to students, parents and teachers before closing these for-profit online schools.
Let’s hope AB 406 fails to pass in the state Senate – as happened last year with the similar AB1084 by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla. Parents and students clearly want choice, including the innovative futures offered by for-profit charters. McCarty and other legislators should listen to them.
