Here are my friend Boykin Curry’s comments on the same article:

Regarding May 2nd NY Times article that quotes studies showing charter schools in the US don't do any better than state-run schools:

 

1. Studies show that in NY State, unlike the nation at large, charter schools have significantly better outcomes than the state-run schools.  When you hear people citing national studies, make sure you point out that the results are very different for New York.

 

2. A key reason for this is that NY state funds charter schools at around 85% of the state-run schools.  In most of the country, charters only get 50-60% of the funding of their state-run counterparts.  Imagine trying to compete with someone if your budget is only half!  The fact that charters in most states manage to achieve the same outcomes with half the money is astonishing, and it means that their education output per dollar spent is far higher.  It is obvious from these results that if all charters were funded closer to parity (as they are in NY) then the outcomes would be far better than the state-run schools.

 

It was astonishing in the NY Times article that no one raised the funding point.  Rather than nit-picking about these studies, we are better off embracing them and making sure the frame is right:

 

Instead of the message being "charters are no better" the message should be "look what charters do with half the money in most states, and look what they do in NY with 85% - imagine what they could accomplish if they were all funded at parity!"