In another flip-flop evolution of belief, Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has decided she’s against charter schools, since she was for them before the unions the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers endorsed her.
Most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation[.]
Of course, this isn’t true, but hey—union endorsement. The facts, though, as noted by The Wall Street Journal at the link are these [emphasis added]:
Charters don’t exclude difficult students. Like other public schools, they aren’t allowed to discriminate. Nearly every state requires a random lottery to choose students if there are more applicants than openings. The reason some charters turn away students is that they lack the resources to accommodate every desperate family trapped in a teachers-union compound.
Charters serve some of the most troubled students, including a higher percentage in poverty than all public schools, according to Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes. In urban centers in particular, charters serve mostly minority students and include more who are learning English than do public schools as a whole.
The question arises: what has Clinton against minority students, students whose parents choose charter schools over other public schools in order to get an actual education?
The answer is clear: students don’t vote, and unions do.