Is the U.S. public school system in crisis? Are teachers failing to teach their students the right information? Are students being set up to fail when they reach college and graduate school? Should we overhaul the public education system and focus on promoting charter schools — schools that are publicly funded but operate independently with more autonomy from the somewhat democratic public school system — to allow parents to obtain greater opportunities for their children? Well, the answers to those first three questions are extremely complex, but I believe the answer to that fourth question is no. However, many Republicans and some Democrats do believe in the promise that charter schools will positively impact deteriorating schools in cities and suburbs. To me, this is a false promise which will enact further inequalities and ultimately destroy any hope we have left of reforming public education for the betterment of academic offerings to all, therefore shrinking the pool of promise for the future.

On Nov. 2, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe in Virginia’s race for governor, marking a significant rightward swing from President Joe Biden’s 10.1 percent margin of victory in Virginia in 2020. One of Youngkin’s campaign focuses was the education system within the state of Virginia, which he vehemently attacked. While he attacked both the politics within the classroom and the structure of school funding in Virginia, I will be focusing on the latter of the two. On Oct. 18 at a campaign rally, Youngkin promised to offer “the most aggressive school choice program in the history of Virginia,” in which 20 charter schools would be opened across the state “on day one.” Additionally, Youngkin has proposed freezing property tax payments, which are the main source of public school funding in school districts. This means that in localities, inflation would cause tax revenues for school funding to decrease over time, risking possible budget cuts in already struggling schools. This is part of a larger argument that the taxpayer should not pay higher shares of their property tax for the education of the general population in their community, especially if they disapprove of these schools and wish to send their children elsewhere. However, I agree with critics of this charter school approach, as critics say these schools are “a drain on scarce public funds with no consistent standards,” according to ABC 8News.

The idea that underlies politicians promoting charter schools is called “school choice,” in which “public education funds … follow students to the schools or services that best fit their needs,” according to edchoice.org. This is obviously in contrast to the traditional system, in which location strictly determines which public schools students can attend and school budgets are generated from the local taxpayer and state or federal spending. To be clear, in states like New York state, these charter schools are still funded by taxpayers and local school boards. In comparison to regular public school districts, these charter schools also have disproportionately high per capita student budgets. Ideally, charter schools allow for parents to leave their local district in cases where they might disagree with the public school system ideologically for some reason, prefer independently run classrooms that might fit in more with their perspective, believe their children will have less chance of success at public schools or want to give their children the chance of getting a wealthier education without spending many thousands per year on private school education. So, where does school choice come from, and how might that teach us about its destructive effects on public schools already in need of life support?

One of the first states to implement the idea of school choice was Michigan in 1993, in order to overhaul a critiqued public K-12 education system. Former Gov. John Engler, a Republican, sponsored an education overhaul bill that got rid of the property tax supplement for public schools and sponsored the opening of charter schools. This was a change in order to end the so-called “monopoly” public schools had over local citizens. The belief among Michigan Republicans was that it was necessary to change from a monopolistic system in which students and families were inmates to more of a competitive free market system in which the students were customers that charter schools and public schools needed to attract. Therefore, education would improve both for those who chose to opt into charters and those who did not.

However, this is absolutely not the case. In fact, Richard McLellan, one of the helpers in drafting the original legislation, said that most charter schools “are pretty ordinary” as compared to public education. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) wrote on its website that “the most rigorous studies conducted to date have found that charter schools are not, on average, better or worse in student performance than the traditional public school counterparts.” A study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) in 15 states and the District of Columbia found that 17 percent of charter school chapters posted mathematical performance gains compared to public schools, 37 percent had mathematical performance that was significantly worse and 46 percent were “statistically indistinguishable” from public school performance.

There is undoubtedly an international fight over what should be taught in classrooms and whether city and urban public schools deserve to survive. But this idealistically libertarian strategy to give each parent the opportunity to send their kids to charter schools for better educations or schools that fit their own definition of what a better education is simply an act to divert politicians and people from where they should be placing their focus: the public school system. As one of the richest nations on Earth, the United States should be able to provide equity in educational opportunity, or at least much more than what already occurs. This is not an idealistic sentiment, and deciding to open up our schools to a free market system in which students are treated as customers and products rather than just students is dangerous.

To end this article, I will suggest some strategies to improve public education without going the way of school choice. The first step would be to address the overcrowding of students in city schools, depletion of resources within many urban and rural classrooms and lack of teachers in rural public schools. Increasing and prioritizing funding for classroom materials and hikes in teachers’ salaries through higher income taxes on wealthier earners or even property tax hikes in regions where there are very low property taxes could address these issues. The second step could be to generally prioritize public education more in terms of state budgets and local community budgets. A progressive tax code in which the wealthy must contribute more to school budgets, even if their children attend private schools, could assist in this effort, although this idea is currently quite unpopular.

In urban areas such as New York City, and exurbs or suburban counties like Westchester surrounding it, wealthier public school districts get much higher amounts of donation-based funding than other less wealthy districts can amass, and this is obviously due to the wealth of alumni and residents of those school districts. To address this disparity, the state could take a small percentage of donations in higher-income districts, which frankly don’t need it, and reallocate these funds into the poorest schools in the county or city. The specifics of how this policy would work are very complicated, but it would ultimately benefit the schools at risk of shutting down or losing students to charters. Finally, one of the greatest arguments against public schools is the nondemocratic operational structures at large public schools. A solution to this problem could be democratizing local school district decisions through increased community involvement.

Education has always been a contentious issue that is not likely to go away in the coming years. I encourage you to read up on arguments for and against school choice, and possibly determine the ways in which charter schools could help or harm your own school district back home. But most importantly, I hope you will research and advocate for progressive financial policies to increase funding for schools and democratize the ways in which large city school boards are run.

Sean Reichbach is a freshman double-majoring in economics and philosophy, politics and law.