Charters (Buicks) are Good Because They are Charters (Cars): DUH!
Does this sentence make sense? Just because I call it an car (charter school), it has high reliability and quality in build. Are all cars (charter schools) awesome because I call them automobiles (charters)!? Or is car (charter schools) awesome because it hangs out with other cars in the same sentences (charter schools)?
I am paying attention to which automobiles are actually desirable this month because I need to replace my Chevrolet Volt. Consumer Reports came out this week with their list of 10 Top Picks of 2015. For the first time in many years, American automakers had three entries on the Consumer Reports top ten list. This news makes me happy as the grandson of two American autoworkers, I of course want to buy an American automobile. A big surprise on the list was the Buick Regal. There is no question that some cars (charter schools) perform better than others. Is that really under debate? Because a Buick made the list does that mean that all Buicks (charter schools) outperform all Hondas (traditional schools)? Because a Buick (KIPP school) made the list and beat the BMW for the first time in many years, does that mean that all Buicks (KIPP schools) are good or bad? I had my eye on the list. Now I am definitely not besmirching the reputation of Buicks. My parents have had two Buicks over the last decade and a half and have collectively put nearly a million miles on those two cars. So let’s take this logic a little farther. Whats fantastic about ALL Buicks (charter schools) is that they have done a few things. First, they have solved the effects of poverty. Second, we no longer have to worry about school finance because, well, charters— of course it never mattered anyways according to a particular group of politicians (although there is this Top Ten List: Why “choice” demonstrates that money matters). Buicks (charters) have also solved the issue of school discipline. You get my point, I could keep going. 
Scot Lehigh, a columnist at the Boston Globe, sought to weigh in to this debate recently in his column entitled Foreshadowing the charter school debate(Thanks to Karen from Houston for the heads up on piece).
His argument went like this: 1) The BAEO folks in the panel were better debaters. 2) The unions didn’t directly address the success of charters. 3) They hadn’t read that the two studies ahead of time that I thought were interesting. 4) The unions are obstructionist.
1) So what about BAEO. See this The Teat: BAEO, Choice, $, and Strings Attached?
2) My research and writing on charters and achievement at Cloaking Inequity spans a few years. Check it out here.
3) See below
4) Obstructionist? See EdWeek Series Beyond Rhetoric: Should Teachers Unions Reform?
Lehigh first mentions a “Harvard study.” The study is not actually a “Harvard” study, its a study paid for by the Boston Charters (Buicks) are Good Because They are Charters (Cars): DUH! | Cloaking Inequity:
