Here's the money quote from the Reuters article:
Many charters, backed by state law, specialize in serving low-income and minority children. Some of the best-known charter networks, such as KIPP, Yes Prep, Green Dot and Success Academy, use simple application forms that ask little more than name, grade and contact information, and actively seek out disadvantaged families. Most for-profit charter school chains also keep applications brief.
But stand-alone charters, which account for more than half the total in the United States, make up their own admissions policies. Regulations are often vague, oversight is often lax - and principals can get quite creative.
Every time we try to have this discussion, you attempt to tar the very notion of charter schools with the results and practices of the worst. I try to point out that charter schools are not monolithic and that charters are only an alternative mechanism of oversight. I have expressed my belief that while charters cannot replace public schools for most students, they can serve a valuable role in prototyping educational innovations.
But because I'm not chugging JS's particular brand of Haterade (bless his heart), that somehow makes me a charter school apologist. Sure, that's rational and reasonable.
To recap the prior discussion, it's not surprising in the least that charter schools on average perform about the same as regular public schools on average. That is, some perform better, some worse, and some about the same. We should be looking at the ones (charter and otherwise) that perform better to understand what they're doing right and whether it can be incorporated into all schools.
That's an education discussion I'm interested in. So go ahead and conduct your little crusade without me please. When/if you want to participate in the grown up discussion, then I'll be interested in your thoughts.
