>Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools
Because public schools are infrastructure.
I pay for roads on the other side of town, even if I will never use them. I pay for kids that I will never meet to get a safe education, regardless of their behavior/economics/orientation/aptitude.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate on who they can take. That's directly against the mission of public schooling.
Charter schools are not offered consistently everywhere, so it steals money from already under-resourced rural public schools. Rural kids may not have any nearby, alternative offerings.
There has to be a baseline education with a consistent budget. A non-discriminatory offering where all kids are welcomed. A place where no one can be denied an education.
Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.
I haven’t thought through the phrasing of “infrastructure” and what it implies. But I am not debating the existence of funding for education - so even if you are not using schools because you don’t have children, there would be funding. I’m just saying parents should have choice over where that money goes for their children. If $20K is spent per student per year, a parent should get to select whatever provider they want or use the same money for homeschooling or for parent-led shared groups or whatever else.
As for private schools being allowed to discriminate on who they can take - I think that can be solved separately. You could pass regulations to require accepting students or simply fund students by need (for example parents of special needs children or children scoring poorly can get vastly more funding to spend as they choose).
> Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.
I see this sentiment a lot from those against parental choice, but I don’t understand it. Why must I fund it on my own? If tax money is collected from me and only made available to the public school system, then I am deprived of my money and then not given the option to just “fund it on my own” unless I am rich and have enough leftover money still. That is really unjust. There is a certain amount of money that would be spent on a child per year anyways - and I think parents should be able to attend any alternative and use that equivalent funding elsewhere. Why would the public option get to keep it when they are relieved of the cost of educating a child that is attending some other option?
Because public schools are infrastructure.
I pay for roads on the other side of town, even if I will never use them. I pay for kids that I will never meet to get a safe education, regardless of their behavior/economics/orientation/aptitude.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate on who they can take. That's directly against the mission of public schooling.
Charter schools are not offered consistently everywhere, so it steals money from already under-resourced rural public schools. Rural kids may not have any nearby, alternative offerings.
There has to be a baseline education with a consistent budget. A non-discriminatory offering where all kids are welcomed. A place where no one can be denied an education.
Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.