For your question...many cannot afford it. For the other, some charter schools are formed for profit and they suck...many have lower ratings than the public schools. I noticed you didn't address the pay thing.
Cannot afford it? The money that the gov pays the school for that student goes with the student whichever school they are at. If the charter school sucks then logically the parents will stop choosing to send their children there and the school will be closed. I did not address the pay because you did not provide a link and I could not find a quote with her claiming the teachers get paid too much....so if it was said I don't know the context in which it was said.
Dear m2c please accept that this is said with the upmost respect.. may I please offer an alternative perspective? I think my concern, and perhaps that of the original poster is that when one has a minister who is perhaps biased against the public school sector* then this can have an adverse affect on those public schools, especially where more favourable things are offered to the private schools.. I think that is the concern we have here when our Prime Minister Teresa May said she was going to bring back grammar schools.. the concern is that it brings with it a divisive system.. where some, who have privilege and money are advantaged and those who do not have money are disadvantaged... in other words it counts against poorer people.. rich parents pay got prep schools that train kids to pass the exam for grammar school, where they gain further advantage when it comes to getting into the top universities.. poorer people have little or no chance of gaining entry into grammar as the state schools do not train them or have the rexources to prepare them for grammar.. so they never get into the top unis etc..
The counter argument is that while we wouldn't necessarily remove the right for parents to send their child to a private school.. ALL state schools should be GOOD and cater to all levels and help remove social and environmental disadvantage.. rich kids and poor kids should be able to compete equally in terms of academic achievement and stand the same chance of getting into top unis... if you take money and resources out of state education and funnel it into grammar then you are further disadvantaging those who cannot afford prep schools etc..
Well that's the gist of the argument I think. in a nutshell.. btw public schools here means something entirely different.. here public school is the very TOP tier.. it's for the mega mega rich.. we then have private schools.. such as prep schools where parents pay fees.. and grammar schools.. and then at the bottom we have state schools where most kids end up...
Charter schools here are public schools. Devos believes that parents should have the choice of which school their child should go to. Yes ideally all schools would be good schools and there would be no failing schools. But the fact is that we have schools that do not make the grade and it has been this way for decades. And most of these failing schools are in poor communities. Why should these children be locked into failing schools with no hope? Why should only rich people have that option? What kind of a chance does that give those children?
my2cents 