Such studies suggest that charters are better.
Anyone who says that charters are all part of the problem is part of the problem.
That, he said, undercuts the assertions by some that charters are outperforming regular schools.
This fact cannot be squared with the suggestion that charters are not sufficiently accountable.
To the Editor: Natalie Hopkinson claims that "charters consistently perform worse than the traditional schools, yet they are rarely closed".
(Their report from the prior year found that charters in public school buildings got $300 less per student).
How could she insure that charters, as they expanded, enrolled a representative share of Newark's neediest children?
Ms. Anderson, the superintendent, denied that charters had gotten extra attention, noting that she had visited all 75 district schools.
Here we go again: a new study reaches the conclusion that charters are no better than public schools.
Dr. Paige contended that charters were not monolithic and said the results should be analyzed in greater detail.
He notes that charters are criticized for having fewer children with learning challenges, but "none of the actual data supports this".
