Alternative is no solution

I'm too tired to rebut the nonsense in this response to the USA Today editorial (charter schools DO do better; there's LOTS of evidence that competition leads to improvement of public schools (not to mention simple common sense); I don't believe for an instant that charter school teacher turnover is 50% annually; etc.), but it's important to know what arguments our opponents are using against us.  There is some truth in the final paragraph:

It is understandable for superintendents to expand charter schools that are high-performers, as long as they do not expand the low-performers as well (what has happened so far). Nevertheless, a few effective charters do not make an effective inner city school system. We need to look beyond charter schools to further improve our schools.

Charter schools are NOT a magic bullet -- but they're a very important part of the many changes that need to happen, so let's expand the high performers like wildfire (and shut down the underperformers), which is what we should be doing with ALL schools!

 

---------------------

Alternative is no solution

By Lawrence Mishel and Martin Carnoy

USA Today editorial, 10/3/05

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-10-03-oppose_x.htm

For big-city school superintendents, embracing effective charter schools in their districts makes sense. It gives parents and students more options. However, charter schools are unlikely to solve the most important problems facing public education. (Related: Our view)

We have enough experience with charter students to know that on average, they don't do better than similar students in the public schools. This is true whether they are low-income minority students or white suburban students. So there are well-known examples of very effective charter schools, but there are also poorly performing charters that are not well-publicized.