Even in liberal Chicago we have a charter school boom and thus far the results aren't impressive especially when you consider they benefit from the 'cream of the crop' issue defined above.The worst of the worst disruptive students have an outsized negative impact. If I were such a parent, I would want to have a choice of schools. You just want to sacrifice the choice of the economically disadvantaged for the sake of the existing school institution.
My tax dollars shouldn't be an entitlement to those with experimental and untested educational theories who can fill out an application to create a school.
Your tax dollars are already an entitlement. You're just restricting the degree of choice someone has about how it's spent -- especially economically disadvantaged people.
And yes, if charters can't deliver the goods and if they cannot deal with the worst students or improve them, then they have failed and shouldn't be subsidized by the taxpayer.
There should be schools that don't have to take all students. This puts market pressure on students to maintain a reputation which makes them eligible for charters, as well as market pressure on parents to influence their children to make them eligible for charters. If parents can get their kids into an environment away from disruptive students and more conducive to learning, and the parents are satisfied, then that should be enough.
There's a parallel here. If you aren't allowed to "fire" your politicians, then you can't expect good results from them. Likewise, if you aren't allowed to "fire" your educators, you can't expect good results from them either.