Interesting interview. I do agree with Sowell on some points. However he has some biased points of view that seemed to be shared by the interviewer.
For one he attacks the "liberal establishment in NYC" for being against Charter Schools, however NYC has always had a liberal establishment and these charter schools exist within it. The existence of Charter Schools is established and the people attacking them are going after this establishment.
Secondly the argument that there is a lottery to get into these charter schools doesn't at all disprove the theory that the quality of students and parents generally putting their kids onto these wait-lists are just more equipped parents. The charter schools Sowell mentions emphasize discipline like wearing the right kind of socks/uniforms. Kids unable to abide by these rules won't last. Abiding by strict rules means active parents and disciplined kids. This elite charger school system will push way more kids out than public schools. Also there is an assumption that all black/Hispanic neighborhoods in NYC consist of poor people, not all of the parents in those neighborhoods are poor. So disproportionately the charter schools are going to have parents that want their kids to have a structured disciplined environment and the ones that survive that structure are kids with more focus and the ability to do so. There is a weeding out through this system.
Furthermore none of these kids or very few of them are "special Ed" or on IEPs. If they are they probably won't last long.
With that being said I do support Charter Schools. The reason I support them is exactly because of a point Sowell made. Every successful business or institution has to do something to attract people to their institution, without this motivating factor and goals you are not going to get great service. Competition is good. Public Schools should up their game to compete with Charter Schools. We should also make the stupid zip code=what school you go to thing disappear.
In my own school district we have charter schools and also the different schools offer different enrichments. One school is "open structure" one school offers Bi-Lingual education, another school has a focus on ag-science with a small agriculture area, etc etc. The schools are not only competing with each other but offering different experiences tailored to what parents and kids may prefer. There are Charter Schools as well.
My oldest daughter went to a charter school for her high school it was entirely college prep and focused on art and science. Many of her classmates left unable to deal with the workload, and pressure. They often went to another charter school that focused on kids with social anxiety and did a hybrid at-home and in school curriculum. So a completely different set of kids and expectations.
Which leads to my next point. Not all charter schools are good. In fact some are terrible. Some of them cater to parents that don't want to or can't get their kids to school on time or for kids who can't make attendance and they enable the behavior just as other charter schools impose discipline. It goes both ways which is why there is not much of a difference in overall performance between Charter and Public Schools.
Sowell by focusing on NYC is missing the bigger picture as nationwide the Charter School system does not mirror NYC.
Anyway. Competition is good, public schools should be competing with each other and with Charter Schools. The main culprit here is strict zip code guidelines for what school different kids went to. If you allowed for more parental choice and added different curriculum at different places you could make a system that overall gets better results and that more people are happy with. I reluctantly agree that Teachers Unions have in some cases become a barrier for improving the school system as they represent the interest of teachers in the union which is not always the same as the what the best interest or the community or children are.
Teacher quality is very important and one of the reasons why I like my school district I am in is because it's connected to a state college that was initially established as a teachers school and it is frequently producing new teachers and school employees that are passionate about their jobs and do look out for the kids interests. For whatever reason in other places I don't see that as much particularly in large metro areas.
Overall I do agree with Sowell on some of his points but I think he is overstating his claim regarding Charter Schools and also leaving out some important details.
Yes actually. Before I knew he was a famous. Libertarian, when I was a teenager. He actually influenced me a lot and led me down a lot of rabbit holes. On the other side of those rabbit holes I don't always agree with him.
Well I knew him but only as the guy who wrote that book.
I was also at the time a self-proclaimed libertarian myself.
I still think modern liberals should embrace market competition and market economics more.
So you don’t really understand his career that deeply then. He’s written more than 40 books over the last 50 years.
Interesting interview. I do agree with Sowell on some points. However he has some biased points of view that seemed to be shared by the interviewer.
For one he attacks the "liberal establishment in NYC" for being against Charter Schools, however NYC has always had a liberal establishment and these charter schools exist within it. The existence of Charter Schools is established and the people attacking them are going after this establishment.
Secondly the argument that there is a lottery to get into these charter schools doesn't at all disprove the theory that the quality of students and parents generally putting their kids onto these wait-lists are just more equipped parents. The charter schools Sowell mentions emphasize discipline like wearing the right kind of socks/uniforms. Kids unable to abide by these rules won't last. Abiding by strict rules means active parents and disciplined kids. This elite charger school system will push way more kids out than public schools. Also there is an assumption that all black/Hispanic neighborhoods in NYC consist of poor people, not all of the parents in those neighborhoods are poor. So disproportionately the charter schools are going to have parents that want their kids to have a structured disciplined environment and the ones that survive that structure are kids with more focus and the ability to do so. There is a weeding out through this system.
Furthermore none of these kids or very few of them are "special Ed" or on IEPs. If they are they probably won't last long.
With that being said I do support Charter Schools. The reason I support them is exactly because of a point Sowell made. Every successful business or institution has to do something to attract people to their institution, without this motivating factor and goals you are not going to get great service. Competition is good. Public Schools should up their game to compete with Charter Schools. We should also make the stupid zip code=what school you go to thing disappear.
In my own school district we have charter schools and also the different schools offer different enrichments. One school is "open structure" one school offers Bi-Lingual education, another school has a focus on ag-science with a small agriculture area, etc etc. The schools are not only competing with each other but offering different experiences tailored to what parents and kids may prefer. There are Charter Schools as well.
My oldest daughter went to a charter school for her high school it was entirely college prep and focused on art and science. Many of her classmates left unable to deal with the workload, and pressure. They often went to another charter school that focused on kids with social anxiety and did a hybrid at-home and in school curriculum. So a completely different set of kids and expectations.
Which leads to my next point. Not all charter schools are good. In fact some are terrible. Some of them cater to parents that don't want to or can't get their kids to school on time or for kids who can't make attendance and they enable the behavior just as other charter schools impose discipline. It goes both ways which is why there is not much of a difference in overall performance between Charter and Public Schools.
Sowell by focusing on NYC is missing the bigger picture as nationwide the Charter School system does not mirror NYC.
Anyway. Competition is good, public schools should be competing with each other and with Charter Schools. The main culprit here is strict zip code guidelines for what school different kids went to. If you allowed for more parental choice and added different curriculum at different places you could make a system that overall gets better results and that more people are happy with. I reluctantly agree that Teachers Unions have in some cases become a barrier for improving the school system as they represent the interest of teachers in the union which is not always the same as the what the best interest or the community or children are.
Teacher quality is very important and one of the reasons why I like my school district I am in is because it's connected to a state college that was initially established as a teachers school and it is frequently producing new teachers and school employees that are passionate about their jobs and do look out for the kids interests. For whatever reason in other places I don't see that as much particularly in large metro areas.
Overall I do agree with Sowell on some of his points but I think he is overstating his claim regarding Charter Schools and also leaving out some important details.
Have you ever read any of his books, Kenny?
He doesn’t have a “biased” point of view, he has a libertarian point of view.
Yes actually. Before I knew he was a famous. Libertarian, when I was a teenager. He actually influenced me a lot and led me down a lot of rabbit holes. On the other side of those rabbit holes I don't always agree with him.
He was a famous libertarian when you were a teenager.
So you’re saying you haven’t read him since you were a teenager but you think you know more than him now?
I read this book when I was 18.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Economics
Then in college, I read essays by him assigned by professors and realized it was the same guy.
I don't know his level of fame when I was 18, because I read that book on a whim I didn't know who he was at that time.
So you haven’t bothered to read any of his books in the last 20 years but want to come in the comments and dunk on him for being “biased”?