Drinking Charter Kool-Aid?: Here is Evidence
So you might have had a chance to hear what charter proponents (lobbyist, talking heads etc) think about Hillary Clinton’s recent comments (See A WOW from @HillaryClinton on Charter Schools) on charters schools (i.e. Dear Hillary, Here’s where you’re wrong on charter schools: Column and Clinton’s Charter School Exaggeration). The Hillary campaign recently responded to these critics (See Yes, Hillary Clinton supports charter schools. She also supports equity and inclusion)
Hillary’s comments were about asking hard questions of a movement she has and will continue to support. That’s real leadership — it is how we make our public schools stronger and it is how we ensure they live up to the potential of every child.
Diane Ravitch then weighed in (See Hillary Aide Insists that Hillary DOES Support Charters, if They Are Equitable and Accountable),
Why should we eliminate public schools and replace them with privately managed, unaccountable charter schools? No high-performing nation in the world has charter schools.
When reading the popular media responses to Clinton’s original statement, my impression was that proponents were largely dealing with talking points rather than research and data deep dives.
In fact, the US has so drunk the Kool-Aid on charters, that the Broad Foundation recently has floated the non-brilliant plan to turn every school in Los Angeles into a charter school (and kept a straight face).
Considering this context, I contacted prominent researchers from across the nation who have published peer reviewed research on school choice to crowd source a charter research reading list.
I simply asked them to recommend a few peer reviewed papers that the public could consider in the debate surround charters success, access Drinking Charter Kool-Aid?: Here is Evidence | Cloaking Inequity:
