Proponents
of Sheila Kuehl’s ‘Single Payer’ health plan for California like to
lead with the argument that ‘Everybody in, nobody out’ is a good thing.
Of course, many of the same interest groups (ie. powerful lobbying
organizations in California) are vehemently opposed to school choice,
while demanding greater and greater regulations for what it means to be
a ‘qualified’ teacher.
Fascinating, then, the new study from USC’s Rossier School of Education.
The charter schools (read that to mean, more choices for students and
parents) do more with less funds, generally have fewer layers of
administration, and have fewer ‘licensed teachers’.
But it is all about outcomes these days—for both education and health care.
So how do charter schools stack up? From page 6 of the study:
California charter schools typically have smaller per-student
allocations than non-charter schools in their districts, yet charter schools have roughly equivalent levels of productivity: They get “more bang for their buck.”
Choice and freedom, and relieving the burden of excessive regulation and union
and other lobbyist control are good for education. The taxpayer
benefits. The student benefits. Society benefits.
So
why would the nurses union, whose members are on the ‘front lines’ of
healthcare, want to strip all choice and freedom out of healthcare?
H/T to the WSJ editorial page
