In an odd new salvo in the food fight over whether charter schools are superior to public schools, a Stanford organization that released a high-profile study last June showing charter schools performing worse than public schools is reportedly about to release a new report showing the opposite about New York City's charter schools.
Because New York is the nation's largest school district and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's school reform policies are so drastic and controversial, this report should get a lot of attention. But there are some strange things about it.
The organization CREDO -- the Center for Research on Education Outcomes -- released its nationwide study in June 2009, showing that (according to the press release on the study) "in the aggregate, students in charter schools [are] not faring as well as students in traditional public schools." The report "found that 17 percent of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools, while 37 percent of charter schools showed gains that were worse than their traditional public school counterparts, with 46 percent of charter schools demonstrating no significant difference."
The study was especially significant because CREDO is part of the Hoover Institution, a so-called "think tank" at Stanford University that is a strong promoter of "free-market solutions" in education, including charter schools and vouchers. So when the CREDO study showed poor results for charters, that must have stung badly. .
Then in August 2009, Stanford professor and longtime charter/privatization advocate Caroline Hoxby published a memo challenging the CREDO study, claiming that a "serious statistical mistake" in CREDO's work led to an inaccurate "negative bias in its estimate of how charter schools affect achievement." CREDO hit back with an October 2009 response calling Hoxby's memo "misleading" and "riddled with serious errors."
Meanwhile, Hoxby was producing her own report, released in September 2009, claiming that students New York City's charter schools performed better on exams that students who had entered enrollment lotteries for those charter schools but had not gotten into the charters.
So against this backdrop, it's weird that a press release was issued New Year's Day announcing that CREDO has now completed a study of New York City charter schools, showing that those schools "are demonstrating significantly better results for their students in reading and in math than their traditional public school counterparts."
The press release announces that CREDO Director Macke Raymond will hold a conference call to announce the findings of the new study on Tuesday, Jan. 5 (11:30 a.m. EST). Odd things about the press release are that it was issued on New Year's Day, a highly unusual day to be doing such business as issuing announcements on education policy research; and that the link in the press release goes to CREDO's page on the charter-deflating June study and the subsequent debate with Hoxby.
It's also news to me that CREDO's PR is done by Sacramento PR/lobbying firm Larson Communications, which is devoted entirely to promoting charter schools and other "free market solutions" in education. (Larson Communications is run by Gary Larson, longtime spokesman for the California Charter Schools Association and its precursor, the California Network of Educational Charters, and the force who promoted the cause of controversial, now-failed for-profit Edison Schools Inc. in Edison's battle with the San Francisco school district in 2001.) I have to say it's interesting that Larson Communications had to do the media outreach on the June study that reflected so poorly on charter schools.
I can only find the Jan. 1 Larson Communications press release reproduced in the Education Notes Online blog out of New York and covered in charter advocate Joanne Jacobs' blog.
It's Saturday evening of a holiday weekend, meaning I can't reach Larson Communications to learn more. Because this is new media, I'm posting what I know and will provide updates as I learn more.
You have to wonder how politicized the situation is when CREDO is funded through the charter-promoting Hoover Institution and its 2009 work so badly tarnished the idol.
Comments
Thanks for all the digging. I sent out a link to the listserves and posted it on the ednotes blog.
It may be that this study is completely on the up and up and the oddity of linking to another study that shows the opposite is just an error -- and who knows about the weirdness of issuing the press release on New Year's Day. But even if so, I keep wondering about the pressure CREDO is under (this pressure would be FROM ITS FUNDERS, no small thing!) to produce a pro-charter study after so devastatingly revealing charters' lack of success in the June 2009 study, and sparring so vigorously with the relentless Dr. Hoxby! I will try to ask Ms. Raymond about this during the conference call.
Before you get too wrapped up in a conspiracy theory, understand that the original CREDO study and the Hoxby study of NY charter schools are based on different methodologies. The original CREDO study used statistical methods to create a "virtual" control group with demographic and achievement characteristics similar to the charter students. The Hoxby study uses the fact that when charter schools are oversubscribed places are awarded by lottery. This means that Hoxby compared achievement of students who were admitted to the charter schools to the achievement of students with identical characteristics (within the limits of randomization, at least). I assume the upcoming CREDO study is based on a methodology similar to the Hoxby study because it has the same population available.
The upshot is that since the two approaches are different it is not surprising that the results are different and so there is no need to go off the deep end speculating about nefarious plots.
It really doesn't require much conspiracy-mindedness to observe that CREDO is funded by pro-charter money and that a few months ago it issued a very high-profile study that reflected poorly on charter schools nationwide -- this might be viewed as going rogue. So one does have to wonder about the basis for doing a new study that appears set up to replicate a finding favorable to charters. Anon at 10:20 even assumes that the new study replicates the Hoxby study's methodology. So why would anyone find the need to fund this new study, an apparent duplicate of a study released only a few weeks ago?
Your argument is the very essence of conspiracy theory. Replication / reanalysis is the heart of science. Again, no need to push the conspiracy pedal to the metal, particularly without seeing the results of the new study.
I work in communications and putting out the PR announcement this way is nothing unusual. It's akin to a media advisory with sufficient lead to make sure reporters are aware of the pending announcement over a holiday weekend when they might be somewhat checked out. This may seem like big news to someone like yourself who closely follows ed policy, but most editors would have to be pushed hard to cover this very wonky academic debate. Also, where you read conspiracy in the Past CREDO findings, many people would see them as evidence of rigor and fair mindedness. The truth is, several studies have found NYC charters to be higher quality than charters in some other locales and they weren't part of the previous CREDO study, so it's not shocking that the outcomes could be different in NYC than elsewhere. Why don't you exercise some patience and wait for the scheduled report release instead of engaging in fruitless speculation and conspiracy mongering.
I have many years' experience in newspapers, on the receiving end of press releases, so I can affirm that your view that that's standard practice is unique to you, Michaela. There are strategies for issuing press releases and announcements -- the well-known tactic is issuing an announcement that you are obligated to make but want to downplay late on a Friday afternoon, when it'll likely be overlooked. I would assume that issuing an announcement on New Year's Day when it's the Friday of a holiday weekend has some specific intended outcome, since that's so bizarre, but I'm not clear what it is.
If CREDO is a pro-charter organization funded by charter advocates, as is clearly the case now that I look into it, it's definitely of interest that it previously issued a study that reflected poorly on charters and that it now seems to be replicating a pro-charter study by a researcher with whom it previously disagreed.
You admit you don't understand the timing of the press release but you're sure it points to a conspiracy? How odd is that?
The fun thing about conspiracy theorists is how every fact becomes evidence for a conspiracy. An outfit that receives some funding from charter supporters publishes a study that questions charters. Later they publish a study that shows charters do better. Is the best explanation for this really that a conspiracy is at work? If CREDO really were controlled by pro-charter funding, why would it publish a study finding limited effects for charter schools? And why would it continue to stand behind those findings?
I never said anything at all pointed to a conspiracy. It's anonymous commenters who are claiming that I'm invoking conspiracy theories (this is kind of a knee-jerk mode of argument -- akin to trying to discredit the other side by accusing it of having an "agenda" -- though I'm not even sure what these posters are arguing with).
I just commented that there are strange things about the New Year's Day press release and the new study that's being announced. I agree that given that CREDO is part of the charter movement, it shows integrity for CREDO to have issued the June 2009 study that made it clear that charters nationwide are less successful than public schools.
You said, "It may be that this study is completely on the up and up and the oddity of linking to another study that shows the opposite is just an error -- and who knows about the weirdness of issuing the press release on New Year's Day. But even if so, I keep wondering about the pressure CREDO is under (this pressure would be FROM ITS FUNDERS, no small thing!) to produce a pro-charter study after so devastatingly revealing charters' lack of success in the June 2009 study, and sparring so vigorously with the relentless Dr. Hoxby!"
If CREDO is under pressure to produce pro-charter results, why did it produce a study calling charters into question in the first place? This makes sense only in the tangled world of the conspiracy-theorist.
Or maybe charters just suck
It wasn't a press release. It was a media advisory (look at the headline on your very own link). Those are two different things. They provided more detail than some media advisories, but they were quite obviously trying to drum up interest in a story to make a splash right after the holidays and they wanted to make sure it didn't get overlooked as folks returned from the holidays. If you read the advisory you linked to, it's inviting people to a conference call to discuss a report to be released on the 5th. It is therefore completely logical that the report would not yet be on their website. This is completely standard and it's your characterization of the study as "mysterious" followed by unfounded speculation that the findings were the result of pressure that caused multiple readers to describe your post as conspiratorial.
We don't know if it was "multiple" readers, of course. But in general it's a common tactic to characterize ANY kind of "emperor has no clothes" comment with which one disagrees as a conspiracy theory. And in this case I DO think there are oddities, so that label is easy to wield. ... It's no more normal to issue a "media advisory" on Friday, Jan. 1, than to issue a press release on Friday, Jan. 1. And it's also weird to include a link to CREDO's previous study. The professional practice would be to create a page announcing the imminent unveiling of the new study, or link to a generic CREDO homepage, not link confusingly to a different study that showed the opposite result. ... I understand that the conference call is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 5, but that's weird scheduling too -- you don't schedule it for 2 days after the holiday season, and publicize it on the Friday of the holiday weekend, unless you're actively trying to keep the participation down. It's odd.
It's very strategic to schedule an announcement for immediately after the holidays because journalists are filtering back to work and don't necessarily have stories on file or planned, so they're more likely to write about whatever lands on their plate. The stories run after readers are back from their vacations as well, so it's not a "dump" day. That said, it's helpful to give a media advisory with a bit more notice for planning purposes to make sure people see it and cover it. If journalists need to confer with editors, they can do that, get approvals, and be available for the conference call. If this was a major, juicy announcement, you wouldn't need to go to those lengths, but this story is unbelievably boring from an editorial standpoint, and with several major charter studies out over the past few months, it feels played. This is one way to drum up interest in a story that would not likely generate major copy.
This part is so much ado about nothing, but Michaela, that viewpoint is from some other PR/media galaxy. I assume you're connected with Larson Communications and are trying to justify this odd professional behavior. Interesting attempt. What are you going to say about the link to the previous study that comes to the opposite conclusion?
Look at the big picture. The studies are only academics sparring over theory. The charter advocates already have won the battle of the hearts and minds of America. Who is going to fight against them now that the right and the left, represented by the white house, are on the same side? There is no battle going on except, perhaps in academia, and as one commented here, this isn't exactly front page news.
As we speak legislatures and boards throughout the nation are rushing to complete their MOUs sight unseen so that they can tell their voters they did everything they could to get the RTTT funding. It doesn't matter anymore whether charters are the right answer. We are to have them like it or not. Nothing rides on the result of these studies except, perhaps, the reputations of the authors.
When union representatives are busy trying to enlist unqualified and inexperienced charter teachers, you know that you have the union backed up against a wall. Desperation will produce concessions.
I'm not from Larson. I have nearly 20 years experience working in PR for a firm that has nothing to do with this and follow this issue because I'm interested in education policy personally and because my husband is a teacher and I have kids in the public schools (non-charter) in NYC. I have mixed views about charter schools. My sister just started her twins up in a charter in southern California and it sounds like charters there are very, very different from in NYC (as she and her upper middle class, white friends who enroll their kids in charters there are very different from the typical charter school parent here). We talked about it quite a bit over the holidays and I was looking into some of those differences and comparisons between charters in various locales when I somehow landed on your blog. But you probably don't believe any of that anyhow.
We have both kinds of charter schools here -- the ones that are designed to serve low-income, at-risk students (with lots of controversy over whether they handpick/weed out their student population), and the ones that are designed to cloister the students AWAY from low-income, at-risk students.
Caroline, are you saying it is rights for charters to serve the needs of low income students, but wrong to serve the needs of higher income students? Both groups have needs and there is growing concern about the loss of funding to meet the needs of higher achievers, ie mediocrity. Are you suggesting that charter schools, should only be for low achievers?
I know you are dead set against charters and many of your criticisms, as I understand them, are a concern, but would you accept those charters that have been shown to outperform? Considering that traditional schools have been around for over a century and charters are relatively new, shouldn't we give it a chance? Or consider the cases where waning parochial schools are given new life ( supposedly without religious instruction) as charters. These schools have been around for as long as public schools (longer) and have a proven track record on average. Why not harness their expertise and use it to the benefit of more kids?
Also, saying some charters are designed to cloister students AWAY from at risk students is not exactly fair. From that standpoint we should not have any college prep magnet schools as they do not routinely benefit those at-risk kids who are highly unlikely to be accepted to 4 year colleges. Your bias is on display and you are perfectly entitled to have it, just as i have mine. But it does devalues your argument just as you say Hoxby's bias undermines the value of her study results for some people. Are you against charters on principle ( no market forces) or are you against the current regimen for the manner in which charters are allowed to operate?
If a charter school is designed to serve at-risk students that also implies that it is designed to "cloister" other students away from them. This is the kind of nonsense conspiracy theories lead to.
Caroline,
Story up at Schools Matter
Best,
Jim
Caroline berates charters for turning away low income students (which few do) while sending her own children to SOTA, a school that makes a sport of doing just that. SOTA has about one third the average number of socioeconomically disadvantaged students compared to other high schools in The City. In fact SOTA has the lowest by a mile, a full 12% below even Lowell.
I agree with much Caroline has to say , but in this respect she needs to rethink her public rational for gaming the system - that the actual racial makeup is in line with other schools. I'm quite sure it is. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
There was a time when people didn't want the magnet schools. Let's focus on a level playing field for charters instead of berating them at every turn.Isn't this exactly what the media does to the public school system, despite its successes?
Percentage of Socioeconomically disadvantaged
SOTA 20%
Balboa 57
Galileo 58
Lincoln 44
Lowell 32
Mission 58
Public charter schools may not discriminate against low-income students. That's the law.
Anonymous at 7:31,
You don't really think that "the law" has anything to do with it? Everyone is gaming the system. Look at the complete corruption that took place with health care reform and the outright purchase of votes.
School districts absolutely ignore Education Code with the nod of the CDE. That's because organizations like the CA Assoc. of School Admin. , and CA School Board Assoc. exert their influence to maintain their bureaucracies and the status quo.
Charters like traditional schools get away with skirting the "rules",find ways around them and generally make it difficult for students who don't add to their positive results.Failing students make the schools look bad, and sometimes they are. But charters may not get reauthorized after 3 years if they are failing as many districts don't want the competition and only authorized them through backroom deals or for PR purposes. Now that Program Improvement schools may close, traditionals also have to tow the line.
Don asks: "Caroline, are you saying it is right for charters to serve the needs of low income students, but wrong to serve the needs of higher income students?" The answer: I didn't make any judgment in that comment; I just stated the situation.
Don says: "...saying some charters are designed to cloister students AWAY from at risk students is not exactly fair." The fairness of my comment is irrelevant; that is the situation. Pacific Collegiate, a charter school in Santa Cruz that exists for no reason BUT to serve the privileged students whose parents wish to avoid the largely low-income Latino population of the school district, is the primary example.
6:02, I said those are two different types of charter schools. Pacific Collegiate is a prime example of the "cloister" school, while the KIPP charter schools are prime examples of the "at risk" schools.
Don, first, I do not "berate" charters for turning away low-income students. The situation is complex. Some simply avoid enrolling low-income students. Those that do enroll low-income students still require the families to jump through numerous hoops, ensuring that the school enrolls only students from engaged, motivated families committed to education. That's not inherently a bad thing, but non-specialized public schools can't do it, so then comparing those charters to public schools is unjust -- especially when the cahrter schools siphon off the engaged, motivated families committed to education.
Second, it's untrue, hostile, loaded and unfair to berate SOTA as "mak(ing) sport of ... turning away" low-income students. SOTA admits based on artistic audition or judging. It's reality that training and practice tend to improve an artist's skills, and students with more training and more practice are likely to perform well in auditions. It's also unfortunately reality that it's more difficult to acquire high-quality training and practice without resources (funds and parental time to devote to transporting and arranging).
SOTA makes a point of reaching out to middle schools serving low-income students -- this year an effort done largely by volunteers, including me. But it's a sad byproduct of society's inequities that lower-income students have a more difficult time getting that training and practice. Berating SOTA for that is akin to shutting down Berkeley High's science labs because they serve too many white students. The "mak(ing) sport of" language is dishonest and vicious.
Don, where do you get your figures for socioeconomic status?
Let me get this straight. You're claiming that PCS, which has no admission test and is legally prohibited from discriminating in admissions, is less equitable than SOTA, which has an admissions test which favors children whose parents invest in private lessons?
We are in a surreal world here.
Saying as you did - "the ones that are designed to cloister the students AWAY from low-income, at-risk students" is hardly a statement devoid of the writer's (former editorialist?) particular bias.
As far as my using the words, "make a sport of" - it's just an expression. The point is that you have your own children safely cloistered AWAY in a non charter public school that has it own system, whether fair or not, that provides a exclusive climate outside from your run of the mill HS. I don't fault you in the least for sending your kids to a school that best serves their needs. But that is exactly the point. Any school that is designed to advance academic excellence benefits by limiting its student body to those most likely to add to that excellence.
The assignment committee's diversity first/ achievement second members just received an embarrassing lecture on how low performers run down the scores at better schools. What a revelation! How much did they pay for that nugget?
It's Caroline's world. It's her blog after all.
I got my statistics from SFUSD website. Just look at the SARC for the particular school. The numbers are 2 years old.
" "the ones that are designed to cloister the students AWAY from low-income, at-risk students" is hardly a statement devoid of the writer's (former editorialist?) particular bias." Agreed! No, I'm not a FORMER editorialist, but this is an opinion column and yes, my words reflect my opinions.
"make a sport of" - it's just an expression." But a deliberately inflammatory and vicious one -- also inaccurate and misleading.
"The point is that you have your own children safely cloistered AWAY in a non charter public school that has it own system..."
They attend/ed (my son is a graduate) an arts school designed to give them the extra arts training they want and are qualified for. I would submit that there's no specific reason like that for students at schools like Pacific Collegiate to seek out that school EXCEPT that it happens to enroll only privileged students. And it doesn't "happen" as a byproduct of any particular admissions system -- it just, gosh, happens.
Yes, 9:42, I would say that. The supposedly open, non-specialized admissions process of this highly regarded charter school just happens for no apparent reason to exclude the poor Latinos who make up a significant population of the surrounding district and county? Just an unfortunate happenstance? Uh-huh.
Here in SFUSD, Lowell High School admits based on academic criteria -- a compilation of grades and standardized test scores, with some additional criteria aimed at extending opportunity to underrepresented communities. One result is that Lowell is overwhelmingly Asian. But its admission criteria are clear; that happens to be a byproduct of those criteria.
You can look at the demographic breakdowns of school sports teams for other examples of the byproducts of open, legitimate selection processes. (That is, I don't know of actual figures on this, but you get the drift.)
...For that matter, Don and anon, do you view the audition process for college conservatories and professional orchestras, theater companies, ballet companies and so forth as unfair by the same token? Based on that concept, all performing arts companies and sports teams should seek out a random cross-section of the population and sign them up without regard to their ability in the art or the sport.
Anon@9:52,
I assume you are not in the anti-charter camp. The point that I believe we are both trying to make, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this: Public charters should not be held to a higher standard than traditional public schools. While Caroline enjoys SOTA's standards for educating her children, she insists that charters not use similar standards. If she does not want more parents fleeing public schools (since not everyone can go to SOTA and Lowell) it would benefit her pro public school advocacy to make charters acccountable and desirable, instead of working to defeat them. That's my take. Thoughts?
(I'll be waving to you from the 40-yard line when the 49ers are required to draft me onto the team, even though I don't want to play football! Or maybe it'll be the SF Ballet and it'll be my mother playing for the 49ers -- 82-year-old white women are definitely underrepresented.)
I don't insist that charters not use the same standards, Don -- why are you constantly misinterpreting what I'm saying? I believe that their admissions standards should be honest and in the open, as SOTA's and Lowell's are. Instead, charters falsely claim that they don't exclude or handpick. What I insist on is that they be honest and stop the misrepresentation, and also the unjust and dishonest bashing of public schools that don't exclude or handpick as inferior.
Caroline, I think all public schools, charters included, should be able to use any criteria that fulfills the particular mission of the school, just as SOTA does. The purpose of schools is to educate not to diversify. Like a portofolio of stocks if it is over diversified you will never outperform. Schools are educational institutions and I think with all the equity driven concerns we tend to forget that.
Charters as an external disrupter of the traditional model can drive authentic diversity - diversity of thought, the true barometer of a free society, and provide a framework for varying and competing educational philosophies to coexist. Right now, SFUSD is obsessed with making schools fair. If it was only about fairness, there would be no excellence. Our conservatories of the arts and letters would be the laughing stock of the world. That's the direction we are going when we fail to spend on excellence and spend, without accountability for results WSF/Com Ed, T1,etc.,on failure
You only use my name when you're mad.
Are you not against charters schools of any kind? This is what I have gathered reading your volumnous writings on the subject ( quite informative for that matter). There is a glaring paradox present in your writings and personal situation - the fact that your children attend a school that absorbs only the most talented, thereby relegating the less talented to others, is exactly what you rail against in your criticism of charter exclusivity. I absolutely agree wuth you that it should only be a matter of having an honest and forthright process. But I would hope, too, that charters and traditional schools could adopt more strategies, other than deck shuffling, to meet the needs of low performers.
The 4 mandated turnaround models of RTTT, all involving removing the principal, are not pedagocally sound interventions. IMHO, these as strategically designed to fail, leavng the window wide open for charters. This is a ploy and dishonest. Not me.
Don at 11:02,
I agree about equitable standards. I differ in that I do not think public schools should ever be exclusive.
Replacing a principal is not a pedagogical change, it is an organizational change.
This is a good way to put it -- just what I was saying: "If it was only about fairness, there would be no excellence. Our conservatories of the arts and letters would be the laughing stock of the world."
I disagree that it's a glaring paradox: "...a school that absorbs only the most talented, thereby relegating the less talented to others, is exactly what you rail against in your criticism of charter exclusivity." When I rail against it in regard to charters, it's because they do it covertly and lie about it, and then proclaim themselves superior to the schools that "relegat(e) the less talented to others," and get showered with private funding for doing so, to the detriment of the public schools to which they proclaim themselves superior.
I do recognize the complexities of having ANY kind of school that siphons off the top performers in any area. Yes, there's an impact on other schools when SOTA takes the top artists and Lowell takes the academic stars...
...so that is an issue that involves balancing meeting those students' needs with the impact on other schools. But again, with charter schools it's the constant dishonesty, the fact that the impact and the dishonesty harm public schools, and the fact that charters receive vast amounts of private funding based largely on the dishonesty.
Would I support charters in any form? I wasn't very familiar with them in their early, innocent days, before the right got ahold of them as a tool to promote privatization and destroy public education. So I have to use my imagination to decide what I would think without that rather significant factor involved. I'd probably support them -- I can see the benefits of that early vision. I'm pretty convinced that the whole charter area will crash and burn eventually -- it's just built too much on a fake foundation. It'll take a while with all the massive resources artificially propping them up, though. It's too bad for that early vision when that happens.
I agree that dishonesty is the issue. But as I see it dishonesty is not exclusive to charters and rampant in traditional school bureaucracy. I also believe that most charters are not dishonest or corporate driven, even if the larger operators are running the campaign. Just because you're a milk producer doesn't mean you agree with putting RSBT in your product.
Is charter accountability a contradiction in terms with a market approach? I don't know, but rather than go for the nuclear option to defeat the barbarian hordes of charter enthusiasts, creating a level playing field is more likely to show results . Who is going to apply for the charter if they can't hide behind lies, those that do lie?
Re:RTTT turnaround models - they are tired and pointless. They're there to fail and leave the door open to charters, the last man standing when the smoke has cleared. Craven tactics aside, I still believe average independent charter can be a positive force for pedagogical diversity.
Regarding the charter dishonesty, it's a large-scale, sweeping dishonesty in a manner that I don't see in school bureaucracies -- an entire, and growing, institution built on a great big lie. (The lie being that they do what public schools do -- educate all of the children -- but do it better and do it with less money. I guess it's a three-part lie.) The ones that don't explicitly lie themselves still benefit from the false image that the charter industry has created.
Lady, if you don't think there is a lot of baloney throwing in public school bureaucracies you haven't been around very much.
As I said, there is undoubtedly a lot of baloney thrown around in public school bureaucracies. But the difference between that and the charter industry is that the charter industry is entirely built on a whopping lie.
The fact is that charter schools have expanded opportunities and improved educational outcomes for a lot of students, particularly poor students and minority students. If you are going to wring your hands over what you perceive to be some kind of original sin by charter proponents that's your choice, but that seems like a dumb reason to be against something as socially constructive as charter schools.
Caroline, I sympathize with your predicament. If I may - you have been fighting for honesty for the sake of our children, fighting the good fight as they say. But you suffer from battle fatigue. You see the enemy lurking in every shadow. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Though wont to indulge in optimism, I do not think Charters are all plotting to destroy public education when the hour hand hits the 12. Most are independent of large corporate interests,though I admit those interest do run the PR campaign. I don't have any figures on charter franchises,but my general sense is that they are primarily small independent "shops",not giant centrally operated ones. The EMOs are growing stronger,though. I defer to your extensive knowledge in this area. But Even if a preponderance of charters ARE run by scoundrels, that just reinforces the need to regulate them.
Charters are under pressure to perform for reauthorization at the SBE. continued
Pages