In some people's minds there is a 'charter school movement' that is at odds with school districts and is driven by economic theories about competition and 'market forces'. I don't put much stock in competition as a tool for improving schools. It might be useful in some instances, but I don't personally know of any cases in which competition has been a catalyst for much improvement. And I don't have much use for 'movements'. They are not, as we have seen, of much use in education.
This is why the conversation about approving or denying a particular charter application ought to have exactly one dimension: Is there a reason to think that the charter school in question will improve student achievement? If a charter school increases students' access to a better education, then it should be approved. Whatever distractions might be brought introduced to the conversation, whether they be matters of convenience, pride, annoyance, greed or embarrassment, all ought to be put aside in favor of academic achievement.
We are not acting out parts in a Clancy novel, and we ought to quit playing at political intrigue when it comes to our children's futures.
It's time for a change. While they are still children.
