Which brings us to charter schools:
Now, wouldn't the simplest explanation for the higher scores be that the charters are serving far fewer kids who are difficult to educate? Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest to us that the difference in the students would account for the difference in the scores?
If you're a corporate "reformer"... no:
Really? You're going to look at us with a straight face and tell us that a longer school day - and we don't even know what the charters do with that school day - accounts for the difference? And not the fact that you have half the number of English language learners?
Folks, I've said this a thousand times here: charters may indeed have a place. I am not against charters per se; I started at a charter.
But this is beyond absurd. We can't have a rational conversation about this stuff unless and until people are willing to start facing the truth. The research that makes a case for lengthening the school day is weak, at best. But we know without question that student characteristics influence test scores more than any other factor. Why can't these charter cheerleaders admit the obvious?
ADDING: I need an editor: "principle," not "principal." Well, guess what's on my mind this time of year?