More Charters…And Tough Love Buckeye Style?

Leo Casey has a post up at Edwize that’s worth checking out, the first part at least. It reminds me of the old Leo and makes an important point. The second part though is pretty slippery.

Even though I pointed out clearly in my post about Ohio that there are too many lousy charter schools there, that one of the leading for profits is one of the worst actors, and that the law was/is part of the problem, Leo writes of me as an example of how:

“As a general rule, the world of charter school advocacy approaches every criticism of charter schools with a “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, and we shall fight in the hills” stance. Criticism of failing Ohio charter schools, of which they are quite a few, and the suggestion that the problem is systemic, rooted in a poorly designed state law which allows virtually any not-for-profit corporation to become an unaccountable authorizer, are treated as attacks on the very idea of charter schools.”

I’ll say it again, there is a split in the charter community on the quality issue, but Leo either doesn’t get it or willfully misreads it. Either way, it’s bad for the cause he says he supports.

If you want my take on charter schooling right now, this paper is a safer bet than Leo’s characterizations. Why? Well, for instance, in terms of the teachers’ unions in Ohio, they sought a moratorium, they sued in state court claiming charters were unconstitutional, they went after the funding in the legislature and the state budget, and they didn’t lift a finger to help the pro-quality charter advocates in Ohio. Yet despite that Leo is still trying to argue that they actually are not opposed to charter schools. Seriously he is. Coming next: Leo argues that since they didn’t actually burn any charters to the ground, they don’t really oppose them…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.