/www.amazon.com/School-Choice-Hoax-Americas-Schools/dp/0275986950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248115949&sr=8-1

Were the idea to be implemented, we’d learn something. As is, we get the same kind of “black box” variability in charters as in non-charters, with more opportunity for corruption and segregation.

To the criteria of “originality of model, viability of replication, potential for new findings” I’d add: means of determining instructional accomplishment, transparent indicators of instructional status, and plan and time schedule for reporting results.

Been enjoying your posts re: charter schools. As I understand it, you’re very much in favor of charters, would like to see more of them, and would like to see more federal involvement in getting states to lift their charter lids, etc. I have also visited your website and so I figure you get a lot of your money from charters and that your positions are driven to some extent by your belief in charters as a vital concept in reform regardless of any individual charter school might perform. Am I right about this?

I’m all with you there. However…

I’m not really thrilled with what I’ve seen from the charter world to date. Yes, there have been some successes. But there have been some successes in public, private, and parochial schools, too. In a system as large as ours, there are always going to be some successes. This in no way diminishes the success of charters but it does put into perspective what charter school legislation has accomplished — not a lot other than the idea of charter schools becoming part of the mainstream of education reform.

What I would like to see are more TRULY REVOLUTIONARY schools. I would like to see schools that use TRULY REVOLUTIONARY curriculum and TRULY REVOLUTIONARY teaching methods. This might even mean foregoing state standards and state tests because it is obvious to me that the best schools I’ve visited are merely held back by the traditional assumptions contained in these two approaches to reform.

The problem is that I don’t see really interesting teaching and learning ANYWHERE — even in the most successful schools in our country. I see it only in schools set up as “labs” or “research” schools. And in these cases, I truly believe we have a chance of finding out some interesting things about teaching and learning — as long as academics keep themselves grounded in reality. (A tough one, I know.)

So what I’d like to see is this: New legislation, not for charter schools, but for “research” and “lab” schools. I believe states should get directly into the business of education innovation, just as you suggest. And the sooner, the better.

To merely charter more schools as has been done in the past will likely produce the same results. However, if states put up money for lab schools based on criteria like — originality of model, viability of replication, potential for new findings, etc., wouldn’t we be serving the cause that charters were supposed to serve in the beginning? Wouldn’t this be “a new theory of action” that one commenter remarked about yesterday?

Where would you and your company stand on an issue like this?