As always, teachers are not part of your discussion Scot!  Massachusetts remains #1 in most educational measures but many teachers in some towns have been laid off, art and music departments have been marginalized, sports fees proliferate, and many districts have seen little to no raises over the last six years.  The new Massachusetts review procedures makes it easier to get rid of teachers but the fact is that most of them, not all but most of them are good to great.  No raises, no social security that they earned at other jobs, a three year probationary period, and now easier to fire veteran teachers?  Yeah...I'd like to see reform all right but you leave out the biggest parts I'm afraid.

This article does not lay out any specifics about a change in the charter school structure, or the impact desired.  So there's nothing to say about that.  As for business people talking about accountability, that's a can of worms.  The most effective education cannot be totally measured by tests.  There is yet another topic which is not on the table, the mandates around special education.  The amount of money that is spent under that heading needs good and honest review.  How much money is spent on students who will leave the school system at age 18, largely unable to live as independent adults?  How much money is spent on students who will never be able to integrate the extensive effort put in by teachers over the years?  It is understandable to be compassionate towards these individuals and their families.  And parents of these children have been tenacious and dedicated advocates for the students in question.  But we as a society need to be able to look at the cost/benefit picture, which in very many instances is not pretty.  

Any day you feel you can enlighten us on the specific benefits of the charter school model in comparison to more traditional public school models, please feel free. Most of your opinion pieces boil down to "it's easier to fire people" and "business leaders feel there should be more". Perhaps if it were easier to get rid of inconveniently poor students, the way they do at charter schools, traditional public schools might discover the magical formula for success.

the people of Mass believe that everything Patrick does s correct, after all, he got elected to a second term, he's never wrong, even when he raises taxes.

Unions

Guys,

If you have followed the charter school movement, you surely know that they offer significantly more school time for kids and, for the most part, deliver very results. That only makes sense; if kids from underprivileged backgrounds have more learning time, they are obviously going to do better.

Scot

I see Mr. Lehigh is still wearing his Charter Cheerleader outfit and waving his pompoms despite the increasing real-world evidence that he's backing a fraud.

I suggest that readers looking for truth couched in acerbic humor check out http://edshyster.com

I suggest they look at some serious research on the subject. Like, say, the Harvard-MIT study demonstrating the real educational improvements that charters impart. It's a topnotch study, with a control group comparison, and sophisticated statistical analysis. Here's a link: http://www.tbf.org/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf

Scot, any connection between the party that holds the governors office and number of charter schools?

Begolf:

Well, Republicans are clearly more open to charters. That said, the state did do a cap lift in 2010 to qualify for the Race to the Top money President Obama dangled.

Scot

What reforms?  The business groups Lehigh cites have made proposals completely divorced from what research shows actually works.  Essentially they boil down to make education cheaper, not better, by paying teachers less.  More charter schools?  No evidence whatsoever that they improve education, though they do improve the bottom lines of for-profit operators.

What the research does show is that the adoption of quite specific practices by teachers can improve learning for children, but that the effective deployment of these practices relies upon skilled and experienced personnel.  That, in turn, requires a compensation structure which fairly rewards the time and money invested by individuals in their professional development.  And that doesn't happen by making teaching cheaper.

50 years ago, we attracted a cadre of skilled educators, who due to gender inequality couldn't work anywhere else.  Now, however, educated women can pursue much more lucrative careers in business, law, and other fields demanding first-class communications skills.  Many good educators choose to work for less, but we shouldn't be surprised that tends to go where it's most rewarded, and in a market economy that's most generally measured by compensation.  If we want better education, we'd better be willing to pay for it - exactly the opposite of the goals of the business groups Lehigh cites.

Edushyster.com is the name of the website readspeak mentioned. It's worth taking a look at for some thoughtful and funny critiques of top-down and corporate driven "reform."

I think that extended day can be good for kids, but does the school need to be the provider? What about quality boys and girls clubs, like the West End House or after-school programs run at the school by strong programs like Citizen Schools or City Year? Kids need more than just more seat-time after regular school hours. They need enrichment- art, music, sports etc. I don't see how you can ask teachers who teach during the day to do more teaching plus enrichment after school. Something is going to suffer. You can't expect the same people to do both education and after-school enrichment daily.

baseball: Could you provide us a list of the for-profit charters in the state?

Well, businessmen have done such a wonderful job with the economy, why not just hand over the public school system to them. After all they have a deep undererstanding of standardized testing...er...I mean, education. Data driven drivel.

Suprised Scot? Really? You've just GOTTA know that it's time to pay back all those "teachers" who were holding signs for Liz and Borak. Time to pay for buying votes a few months ago. Am I suprised? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Traditional public schools do have extended days. We are innovative in the way we approach student learning, and fight to battle the status quo - which is devalued arts programs, quack "accountability"policies, and an ignorance of the epidemiological gaps our children face. A lift on the charter school gap is restraint on our public school's success. "The Race to the Top Coalition, which includes an array of private-sector leaders and prominent business associations, is calling for eliminating the charter cap completely in districts whose student performance puts them in the lowest 10 percent statewide." Where are the teachers in this conversation? I contend that business leaders are corporate profiteers masked as do gooders who put their profit driven self interests before that of kids and the teachers who do the difficult work everyday. They are NOT qualified to know what's best for kids or what's working. This article is a soap box for the aristocracy which is looking to push through it's tyrannical "reforms" by any means necessary - regardless of their worth. Lifting the charter school cap is bad for public schools, bad for kids, and bad for the United States of America. Lifting the cap on charter schools is good for people who wish to PROFIT from charter operator fees, testing company investments, and explicit for profit schools. Wake up!