Charter Schools: Normalizing Segregation?
The debate about charter schools really boils down to one question: can "successful" charters be replicated?
If a "successful" charter is "successful" because it spends more money, or offers extensive tutoring and personalized learning, or incorporates wrap-around services, then it's replicable. If, however, the charter is "successful" because of peer effect - because it serves fewer kids in deep poverty, or fewer kids who don't speak English at home, or fewer kids with special educational needs, or fewer boys than girls - it will be impossible to scale up its "success" to include most children.
I can hardly claim to have done a comprehensive study of charter schools on this blog; I have, however, detected a pattern:
Chris Christie, like most politicians and pundits who cheer for charters, loves to drop by the "successful" ones and sing their praises. But these "successful" charters are often the ones that clearly owe their "success"
If a "successful" charter is "successful" because it spends more money, or offers extensive tutoring and personalized learning, or incorporates wrap-around services, then it's replicable. If, however, the charter is "successful" because of peer effect - because it serves fewer kids in deep poverty, or fewer kids who don't speak English at home, or fewer kids with special educational needs, or fewer boys than girls - it will be impossible to scale up its "success" to include most children.
I can hardly claim to have done a comprehensive study of charter schools on this blog; I have, however, detected a pattern:
Chris Christie, like most politicians and pundits who cheer for charters, loves to drop by the "successful" ones and sing their praises. But these "successful" charters are often the ones that clearly owe their "success"
