Skip to main content

If you expect to have journalistic credibility on public education . . .

. . . how to you put this in an editorial on charter schools:
these non-traditional public schools, funded with state taxpayer’s dollars, have had an uneven record of success. Some have failed miserably and deserved the intervention of the state Department of Education to close them down.
. . . while writing this, two paragraphs later:
the public school establishment in general has much to fear about a growing trend of new charter schools, due to their record of greater studentachievement with less resources in terms of building capital and teacher pay. 
So which is it, News Journal?  Did you count the students in the schools that failed, or does their failure somehow take them off the books, leaving on the students at the schools that have so far succeeded?

Or, unbelievably, has the entire editorial board missed the prolonged and nuanced discussion on blogs around the state that have challenged this precise assertion, that charter schools inherently do better with less resources than public schools.

May in the Gannett era of outsourcing, Voices for Delaware Education was subcontracted to write this editorial.

Don't misunderstand me:  I am a charter school parent, and an advocate for educational choice.  But I also deal in data rather than platitudes, and on that level this superficiality on the part of the State's supposed newspaper of record--especially in counterpoint to some of the excellent reporting Nichole Dobo has done--is not just disappointing, it's depressing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
http://www.dscc.com/CWT/EXTERNAL/WCPAGES/WCNEWS/NEWSARTICLEDISPLAY.ASPX?ArticleID=296&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

good news!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...