« The Myth of Charter Schools | Main | Two Cheers for Facebook »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Marie Lewis

Publicly funded yet privately managed – Charter School fraud is an easy concept. Charters can be succesful it depends on the “agenda” of the the managing company. Accountability has not caught up to the growth of the Charter movement. In the USA we have an Islamic Imam – Fethullah Gulen (Gulen Movement) that manages over 130 US Charter schools they have taken over $1 billion in Educational monies in the last 10 years and are growing like rapid fire.
The Gulen schools have a network of foundations and instutitions layered over the schools and much of our educational money is going to non-educational expenses such as: Turkish Olympiads, trips to Turkey for the students and local politicians, H1-b Visas of over 2,000 uncredentialed teachers from Turkey (while American teachers are handed pink slips) this money is to fuel the grand ambition of Fethullah Gulen who lives in exile (for a reason) in the Poconos, PA area with his $25 billion in wealth from inflitration in: education, media, police, poltics and military. Seems the same model works very nicely in the USA. Do your research!!!


In this and other reports of the disappointing results of charter schools I see no side-by-side comparison of costs. Am I wrong to assume that far less taxpayer money is spent on miseducation in a charter school than on miseducation in a standard public school?

It also seems to me that teacher certification and the seniority pay system are directly responsible for the poor performance. I am a physicist who has taught overseas and would love to teach in this country, but at an early age I was put off by the fact that teachers here are taken from the bottom of the educational barrel, that certification effectively denies entry to non-statist, non-unionist libertarian teachers, that a physicist or mathematician would earn the same pay as an English, history or psychology major who studiously avoided all difficult classes in college and who would earn 1/4 the scientist's pay in any fair market, and that earnings are effectively not based on merit, but on seniority.

Steve Shiffrin

Patrick, I look forward to your post. I should have said that it is
indefensible for schools to excuse student failure on the basis of
socio-economic background. I believe good teaching can prevail despite
such backgrounds and the assumption that such students are doomed to
failure is self-fulfilling.

Patrick S. O'Donnell


I'll speak to the question, more or less, of "the view that socio-economic background dooms students to failure," in a later post discussing Alan Ryan's book, Liberal Anxieties and Liberal Education (1998).


See comments here on Lemov method:

The comments to this entry are closed.