When your house is my resource

"Supporters argue that charter schools improve public education by creating competition with traditional public schools, but opponents say they drain resources from traditional public schools."

Does that sentence belong in an AP story about a study saying charter schools aren't serving students as well as public schools?

I understand the motivation. You want to add context. You're afraid the rubes just don't get it.

But it's such a trivial observation, is it worth it? And the rubes know more than we give them credit for.

And besides, "opponents argue they drain resources"? How does that work? If the kid isn't there, aren't they *saving* resources? All that argument boils down to is "we want a monopoly."