I’m well aware of the critics who would prefer the one-size fits all monopoly of the failed public school system.
Today’s read is from Marcus A. Winters is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an associate professor at Boston University. Here’s an excerpt:
Charter schools, critics have long maintained, exist to the detriment of traditional public schools. As the argument goes, charters—public schools, independently run (often by nonprofit organizations) and operating free of central district control but subject to government-accountability systems—siphon resources and the best students from local traditional public schools, degrading these schools for the students who remain in them. And charters harm the traditional public school system further by tossing back low-performing students.
“Both charters and vouchers drain away resources from the public schools, even as they leave the neediest, most expensive students to the public schools to educate,” Diane Ravitch writes in The New York Review of Books, in a representative formulation. The pattern persists, Ravitch and other critics say, until it creates a death spiral for vulnerable, low-performing public schools.
There’s one problem: empirical evidence points the other way.
Read more here.