Conservatives routinely (and correctly) chide liberals for misunderstanding the law of unintended consequences. One positive policy will lead to unanticipated negatives outcomes. For instance, it made sense to focus welfare on single mothers, since they’re the neediest. But that accidentally created an economic incentive for people not to get married.
Here’s a conservative social policy with an unintended consequence. For years, conservatives, and more recently liberals, have proposed charter schools to shake up and improve the public schools. The Wall Street Journal reports that one consequence is that Catholic, or parochial, schools are suffering.
It’s not the only reason parochial schools are struggling. The church’s financial crises (in part stemming from child abuse lawsuits) and decline of the Catholic populations in certain areas are key factors too. But the Journal piece about the schools in Scranton, Pennsyvania would indicate that one reason for Catholic school success in the past had been a the lack of confidence in public schools. So question for conservative supporters of charter schools: if the result of this policy is better public schools but decimated parochial schools, would that be a net plus?
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 11, 2008 at 11:45 am
If there were any evidence that public schools were improving that might be a possibility.
posted July 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm
As the conservatives would say, let the market prevail. If parochial schools are failing, they need to either change or close.
Isn’t that right, Charles?
posted July 16, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Parochial schools were almost always the only alternative to failing public schools. But they now cost money (at one time Catholics were free, but non-Catholics had to pay), so if a charter school, which is free opens, up as an alternative, parents who really don’t want to pay for what they preceive as a better education, would choose the charter school. One less kid for the parochial school.