(Guest post by Greg Forster)
Mike Petrilli argues that tenure reform is better than choice.
Trouble is, he openly admits that the only reason DC got tenure reform is because of the proliferation of charter schools: “Score one for competitive effects!” says Mike.
He also cites tenure reform in Florida and Rhode Island. Both of which have – guess what? – school choice programs.
Mike asks, why bother with choice? Why not go directly for tenure reform?
Uh, maybe because the only possible way to create sufficient pressure for something as “radioactive” (Mike’s word) as tenure reform is the “competitive effects” created by choice? As your own examples show?
Sorry, Mike, your argument has failed.