Charter schools' progress lags - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - November 23, 2004 These "studies" that show charter schools as being deficient almost never discuss one of the most important aspects of charter schools: their lack of monopoly status. This means that parents can pull their students out of the school if the school does not meet their standards. In essences, these reports are always based on a false premise: that measuring charter schools can and should be done using a bureaucratic measurement.
Do not assume that this statement means that charter schools should not be compared against public schools on standardized criteria. They should. But their mere existence after 10 years of life is going to demonstrate their success or failure. What does that mean to current students? Well, what does a currently disasterous public school mean to its current students? Why are charter schools held under a microscope that public schools are not?
Charter schools tend to be most inviting to parents who are not satisfied with their student's current progress. The more obvious the problem, the more likely the parent will consider charter schools. It would seem to me that the poorest and the best students are going to get that treatment. It is harder to be the best so the poorer students will tend to pull averages, which I understand is the statisticians least favorite analytic tool. I want to know how many students are poor versus average versus great: what is the median performance -- forget the mean.
At least the Washington Times did us the favor of balancing the story with other points of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment