We recently saw an example of this political polarization. A New York Times editorial (“Reining in Charter Schools,” May 10) stated, “The charter school movement began with the tantalizing promise that independently operated schools would outperform their traditional counterparts ...It hasn't quite worked out that way.” Immediately, the blogosphere was awash with the cheers of charter school opponents and the hoots of advocates.

Intense debate is not a bad thing. In a democratic political system, those who seek to enact governmental change are bound to face opposition. Each side has an interest in showing that the “facts” support their position.

Yet, from this political scientist’s perspective, there is also something almost irrelevant about this debate about the “facts.” No, I am not suggesting that nobody should care whether charter schools do or don’t raise student achievement and serve children and parents well. Of course, these are important questions, and they should be rigorously investigated. But these “facts” about charter schools’ performance may have little effect on the long-term outcome of the political clash over charter schools.

To see this, we need start with the very notion of politics. What is politics? Harold Lasswell, a political sociologist, once defined politics as “who gets what, when, and how.” David Easton, a political scientist, described politics as the “authoritative allocation of values.” Both of these definitions seem right. Politics, then, is a struggle over the use of government to affect who gets what and to support particular values.

What, then, are the politics of charter schools? Viewed from the material — who gets what? — perspective, charter school advocates seek to direct public funds away from an existent institution (government-operated schools) toward parents. The political dynamic, then, is a clash between an institution and the citizenry. The dissatisfied many are challenging the reining few. Critically, the many have much to gain— power over public funds and choices for schooling for their children. The few, meanwhile, as defenders of the status quo, have only to lose.

In a liberal-democratic system such as ours, a dissatisfied many tends to extract concessions from the few over the long-run. Employees won with the enactment of laws requiring workplace safety rules and pension-contributions from employers. Consumers won with the deregulation of the oligarchic airline industry. Thus, the charter school movement’s capture of public schooling funds over the past decade appears to be only the beginning of a shift in power.

Now, from the perspective of “politics” as a struggle over government support of particular “values,” here, too, charter school advocates appear to have the upper hand. They have tapped into deeply held American values by promoting charter schools as “independent” and “diverse.” They have portrayed charter schools as an expression of positive liberty, understood as the possession of the power and freedom to pursue one’s own good. In today’s “affluent society,” where citizens may choose their providers of telephone, internet, travel and other services, choice is attractive. Charter school proponents have also been able to hitch the notion of choice to equality. “The rich,” they note, “already have school choice. Why not the poor too?”

The opponents of charter schools, meanwhile, have stumbled when taking values positions. They appeal to America's sense of nostalgia by recalling the glorious tradition of government schools. Then, to the confusion of listeners, they issue pleas for more money and time to improve the schools. When anxious parents express unhappiness with the schools their children attend, charter school opponents suggest enrolling them at another government-run school. With few seats in good schools available, frequently, the practical effect of “public school choice” amounts to no choice. Worse, as an idea, “public school choice” connects little with Americans’ values and seems internally confused. It holds that parents should be free to choose the best school for their children; yet, parents’ range of choice must be limited to government-operated schools. This baffles many and appears to subordinate the best interests of the children to those of the government-run schools.

Obviously, in the short-term, political skirmishes over charter schools will continue to be protracted, nasty battles. Charter school proponents and opponents will continue to debate fiercely whether test scores show that charter schools raise kids’ test scores.

However, viewed as a political phenomenon, these debates are political epiphenomena. Even if charter schools are not clearly better than the government-provided schools, parents will want the power to choose. Like it or not, then, over time, we can expect to see elected officials concede more control over public funds for schooling to parents and to permit the opening of more charter schools. Accordingly, we all might benefit from spending less energy debating test scores. Charter schools are here to stay, so let’s ponder how best to make them work for America’s children.

Mr. Kosar is the author of Failing Grades: The Federal Politics of Education Standards (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005).  A version of this article previously ran at This Week in Education.