Congress is considering expanding oversight of charter schools.  No big surprise, the standard position of Congress regarding government these days is “more, please!”

It’s not just Congress calling for more oversight.  Charter school organizations were also there testifying in support of an expanded effort by Congress.

But in the first Congressional hearing on rewriting the No Child Left Behind law, lawmakers on Wednesday heard experts, all of them charter school advocates, testify that Washington should also make sure charter schools are properly monitored for their admissions procedures, academic standards and financial stewardship.

The president of one influential charter group told the House Education and Labor Committee that the federal government had spent $2 billion since the mid-1990s to finance new charter schools but less than $2 million, about one-tenth of 1 percent, to ensure that they were held to high standards.

“It’s as if the federal government had spent billions for new highway construction, but nothing to put up guardrails along the sides of those highways,” said Greg Richmond, president of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

Charter schools have thrived thanks to the competitive advantage they gain over public schools by being less regulated. They have more room for innovation, and it shows in their results.

So what is to explain their call for more government oversight, which also risks increased regulation?  I see two possible explanations.

The argument presented in the article gives us a strong hint.  Here’s that argument again: “the federal government had spent … less than $2 million, about one-tenth of 1 percent, to ensure that they were held to high standards.”

It’s all about the money.  When government takes responsibility for ensuring the quality of a product, whether it be food, drugs or education, it also bears the cost.  So taxpayers pick up the oversight tab, which is itself a kind of marketing. Charter schools don’t want to spend time and effort (money) convincing parents that their product is of a certain quality if government will do it for them.

The other potential motivation for charter schools to desire greater federal involvement is that it simplifies the range of regulations they have to deal with.  While most charter schools operate locally or with only one or a small number of schools, the industry is growing and other charter organizations are looking to expand their operations across the country.  It would make sense for these organizations to prefer being regulated by one federal government rather than 50 state governments that might write 50 different sets of rules for them to comply with.

This kind of pressure from industry to federalize and standardize regulations is common.  And while it makes sense for them as individual business entities, the nation as a whole loses the benefits of  having competitive regulatory regimes when that happens.  Like all things, governments operate more efficiently and innovate better when they are forced to compete.

As charter school organizations seek greater congressional oversight, they should keep in mind that oversight is rarely not accompanied by increased regulation.  That regulation will necessarily threaten the very purpose of having charter schools: to bring innovation to education.

An Orwellian task force called the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group has proposed that each teacher recognize the suffering of minority students under “white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.”  FIRE reports that education students would be made to “discover their own privilege, oppression, or marginalization”; “develop a positive sense of racial/cultural identity”; and “recognize that schools are socially constructed systems that are susceptible to racism … but are also critical sites for social and cultural transformation.”

The proposal, already being implemented, looks to make race, class and gender issues the “overarching framework” of all teaching courses. Teachers that do not assimilate the appropriate leftwing attitudes would be forced into remedial “re-education” classes.  And if that didn’t succeed in wiping out all independent thought, they would be prevented from receiving degrees.

The government monopoly on education not only forces a curriculum of leftwing propaganda and brainwashing on our children, but controls all the inputs into the system, including teachers.  It selects for those most likely to conform to its distorted views of society, even going so far as to control the higher education process of those who want to become teachers.  The stranglehold that government monopoly education has on our society and culture must end.