Closer look at Pa. charter schools
Important facts were omitted in Kate Wilcox's article regarding the Center for Research on Education Outcomes' charter school study (“Pa. charter students' skills fall far short, study reveals,” July 8 and TribLIVE.com).
CREDO's research included test results from only 61,770 of the 119,000 Pennsylvania charter school students, then extrapolated to all 119,000. The study does not tell us which schools were included or excluded or the basis for selection.
The article summarizes a 95-page report and includes generalizations that, if taken as a full analysis of a situation, will lead to false conclusions or bad policy.
We must dig deeper into the research to understand exactly where the problems are and then replicate the high-performing charter schools and close those that cannot, or will not, improve.
We do not dismiss the CREDO results. But we put them in context to what is really happening in education. There is a significant difference between running data through a computer algorithm in California and working face to face with children and parents in Pittsburgh.
Buried inside the article is a statement from CREDO that says “not everything is about scores.” The fact that 119,000 parents chose charter schools and 44,000 are on waiting lists is a strong indication that parents see them as their children's best hope.
Underperforming public schools of all types exist in Pennsylvania, and it is our responsibility as educators to ensure we provide every child a high-quality seat.
The writer is executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- Incumbents’ edge?
- Charge, don’t fine
- Appalling advice
- Pass GMO label bill
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- ATI’s broken promises
- LCB: Asset to modernize