There are two major troubles with such anecdotal evidence.

1.) I was listening to an NPR interview with a foreign correspondent who captured this one perfectly.

He is often asked how he thinks the war in Iraq is going.

His response: "If you watch CNN, you probably have a better idea than I do."

There is the trouble of wider perspective.

2.) Studies often have trouble with isolating competing factors to focus on the variable that is being studied. In everyday life, this is impossible.

I say this because accuracy is more important than the spirit of bipartisanship we often try to engender through such concessions.

Note the lack of concession that resources are positively connected with classroom performance despite the studies that have been referenced.

Can these studies explain everything, why some districts spend and still do poorly? Not always, though one a posted does give at least one big reason.

...but to ignore the body of research and rely instead on our dead reckoning is, I think, a recipe for failure.

I believe your original plea for careful study was absolutely right, I merely point out that much careful study has already been conducted. The results are in, so what are we going to do about it?

There is evidence that competition is positively related to performance. Though the reasons for that are in dispute.

Link
That sounds familiar....

Hard to believe this could be “disputed” since private, competitive produced goods and services are ALWAYS superior to the same produced in a non competitive environment.

And as you are so strong on funding being the major issue it can be pointed out that competitive industries do far more with their resources than the latter.

Ted I think you are in for a long wait.

I got this e-mail from my State Senator Jane Nelson today.



If you can't get vouchers passed in a conservative state legislature, like Texas, what makes you think it will ever be done in Massachusetts? Chalk up another one for Ted in the loss column.

We've been through this before. Nothing's changed. Nothing changed means vouchers ain't gonna happen.

You are correct Bof and I am curious why you have the smiley face after it? As a teacher I don’t expect you to be for it and you Union spend millions trying (successfully) to beat it. But is this best for the kids? Seems ok with you that we have some of the worst schools in the world and even you admit it is not just ‘teacher pay” that is the problem.

Hey I am ok> I moved out of a town in MA with a crappy school to a town with great schools.

The people who suffer are the poor slobs who vote for hypocrites like Teddy K who say they are “for” good education and vote with the Unions – as expected since they give him lots of $$$$ to do so.


Since the Democrats lost the White House, Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, a longtime voucher foe, has been the public education industry’s Number One defender. When asked why President George W. Bush has achieved so little of his school choice agenda, administration official Nina Rees bluntly responded, “Two words: Ted Kennedy.”

Kennedy never found a public school good enough for his own kids, so why was he there in the front row, signaling support for the teachers’ union lawyers trying to force Cleveland kids back into their dismal neighborhood schools?
Into their dismal neighborhood schools?
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_what_the_voucher.html

At least thew high court upheld Zelman in OH so there is some hope.

"How big a victory Zelman was for the school choice movement became clear the next day, when the Washington Post, a pillar of the liberal establishment, editorialized in favor of vouchers. “The failure of many public school systems around the country to offer any semblance of an education to millions of children is not a matter of serious dispute,” the Post wrote. “Wealthy and middle-class people have an out: private schools or a move to a jurisdiction with better public schools. The poor often have no option.” The Post understood, too, that vouchers could push public schools to do a better job for all children. “In fact our quarrel with the Cleveland program would be that the vouchers are too small,” the paper noted. “Imagine how much competition might be generated, and with what respect poor parents might be treated, if they were given an $8,000 voucher for each child, and public schools really had to prove they were worth what society now spends on them.”

The Post’s endorsement of vouchers signaled that, after Zelman, the foundations of the public education monopoly had started to crack. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it wasn’t the end of the war over school choice, or even the beginning of the end, but it did seem to mark the end of the beginning. "

So laugh on – we all pay in the end. And imo we will win some day and end the education monopoly by giving parents a choice

There cannot be enough vouchers to empty all failing schools. Until there are the argument that they are a solution is moot.

Too many children left behind.

Right. And there never will be enough vouchers because the teachers Unions have bought people like Teddy K.

And too many children are and will be left behind.

Are you advocating that the government fund millions on vouchers for all students in failing schools to find other education?

I am in favor of school choice and NCLB which has a provision for exactly that – but imo by the time the kids get its too late.

In short I am in favor of vouchers and school choice no matter who pays. Typically it would be the state.


Will never happen in any liberal state or states where Union owns the legislators.

Do you have any empirical evidenced to support this. "ALWAYS" is a blanket statement. Like "never" it is rarely accurate.



The question, Ted is whether we put public resources into public schools or private. I think we should improve public education with public dollars. If you want your kid in a private school, you can always pay for it out of your own pocket.



I just told you that the Texas legislature defeated vouchers in the session that ended May, 28. Texas is certainly a conservative state. Teachers's unions are so weak here that we don't even have collective barganing rights. So, get off this liberal/union kick. It's not even happening in conservative states with little union power.

I know, Ted, you seldom let facts get in the way of a good tirade.

Well I can ask you to refute it with an example of just ONE. No one ever can – and yes I am aware that blanket statements are usually wrong (teacher). Sorry.


I am not surprised you line up perfectly with your Union – expected nothing less. The grim reality is we have put lots of “put public resources into public” over the past few decades with depressingly poor results. Its time for alternatives to be explored or millions more of our kids are doomed to menial work (at best).

I did send my boy (one of them) to a private school before I moved to another town (8 years ago)arly – and since I have 3 boys I moved. When I asked my state rep (a Democrat) why some schools are poor and others better her comment was that in MA that is just the way it is and people just take their kids out and put them in private schools – unlike her old state of MN where people demand better.




Liberal Union “kick” – is ita coincidence that liberal like Teddy K oppose vouchers – by the way many states, including MA hhave “charter schools” which are having an impact and imo will lead us to better education.

"Lenin once said that he would rather have everyone in Russia die of hunger than allow free trade in grain.

That pretty much sums up the thinking of Sens. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R., Pa.). They and other liberal school-choice opponents are now lining up to filibuster a bill that would give some 2,000 low- and middle-income students in the District of Columbia $7,500 vouchers to attend the private or parochial school of their choice. Their thinking seems to be that it is better to lock children into the worst public schools than to give them a choice.
Of courses, Senate liberals have no problem supporting the 11 other federal voucher programs--the GI Bill, Pell grants, food stamps, day-care vouchers and so forth. And among senators who have or have had school-age children, 46% chose private schools, according to a Heritage Foundation study. But when it comes to school choice the liberal view is, in the words of the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne's, "Sorry, our principles require your kids to stay right where they are."
If Sen. Kennedy doesn't filibuster the bill (or fails in his attempt), the Senate will soon vote on the $13 million appropriation. A similar bill passed the House two weeks ago by a single vote.

Or as Keith Geiger, president of the National Education Association, put it in a 1990 debate about the Milwaukee school choice program: Why should some children be allowed to "escape" from the very bad public schools they are attending? Interesting word, escape. It reveals the liberal mindset--that they must keep education under lock and key, no matter how bad it may be.

Now, 13 years after Milwaukee began the first choice program, vouchers are helping low-income children in Milwaukee, Cleveland and Florida (special-education students), and with private funds in Arizona, Texas and elsewhere. Vouchers have been held constitutional by the Supreme Court and proved practical to operate. They are improving the reading and mathematics abilities of thousands of young students. School choice programs are successful, and here to stay.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/p...t/?id=110004057

Fine Ted. Kick Senator Edward Kennedy again. He had nothing to do with the defeat of vouchers in the last session of the Republican dominated Texas Legislature. You also support NCLB, which Senator Kennedy supported.

It just might be Ted, that vouchers aren't going anywhere because public opinion doesn't support them.

Here's a poll conducted ovcer several years.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_vou3.htm

BTW: Ted, this is off topic, but sice you bring Senator Kennedy's name in at irrelevant times, I think you should indulge me here. Can you tell us what "Duke" Ellington's real first and middle names were? This is a bonus question of sorts.

Fine Ted. Kick Senator Edward Kennedy again. He had nothing to do with the defeat of vouchers in the last session of the Republican dominated Texas Legislature. You also support NCLB, which Senator Kennedy supported.

It just might be Ted, that vouchers aren't going anywhere because public opinion doesn't support them.


Kennedy is on the Education sub committee and gets lots of money from your Unions and never disappoints them. He signed on to NCLB as the lesser of 2 evils in my opinion.

And be assured there are lots of us out here that have just about had it with the abysmal education system in this country. Weather its vouchers, charter schools, or NCLB school funding cuts to bad schools, the people of this country WILL get their kids a better education system – count on it

And they even have charter schools in TX. - lots of them

http://www.charterstexas.org/ct_schools/listed_city.php

With 212 operating charter schools, Texas ranks behind only Arizona with 419 and California with 358. During the 2001-2002 school year, more than 50,000 students were enrolled in state-approved charter schools.
The first Texas charter schools opened their doors in 1996. The state currently allows up to 215 open-enrollment charter schools, plus an unlimited number of university-sponsored and locally approved charters. For the 1999-2000 school year, which provides the latest statistics available, 214 charters were granted and 146 schools were open for the entire year.
2. Students who remain in charter schools for consecutive years have strong academic gains. TAAS passing rates have improved for children enrolled in charter schools in each of the years charter schools have been in operation in Texas:
• Passing rates for students remaining in open enrollment charter schools for two consecutive years increased 6.9 percentage points in reading from 1999 to 2000 and 9.1 percentage points in math.
• Passing rates for students who remained in charter schools serving primarily at-risk students for two years improved at a greater rate: 11.7 percentage points in reading from 1999 to 2000 and 6.9 percentage points in math.
3. Performance of students enrolled in charter schools improved at a rate greater than that of traditional public school students. A recent Texas Public Policy Foundation study compared the performance of students in charter schools and traditional public schools using the Texas Learning Index (TLI), which is derived from raw TAAS scores and controls for variations across years and grades. For the years 1999 and 2000:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba403/

Ted, I’m not surprised that your sources come up with such a glowing report on charter schools. They are organizations for charter schools. It’s not unusual to put the best foot forward.

The Dallas Morning News had a different take.

One case involved the Jesse Jackson Academy in Houston.

Let’s do the fun stuff first, Ted. Sorry, but this isn’t the Jesse Jackson you seem to put only a step or two behind Edward Kennedy on your derision scale. I know, it's a major disappointment, but you'll get over it.



Cheating and lack of regulation seem to be a problem.



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...rs.38e3799.html

I’ve used up my six paragraphs, but the article goes on to talk about regulating charter schools using the analogy of “cat-herding.”

BTW: You didn’t tackle my bonus question. “Duke” Ellington’s real name was Edward Kennedy Ellington. I thought you would appreciate that tidbit. Ah, one of my favorite Senators and favorite musician/composers share a name.

So are you implying that they all cheat? Come on please. Obviously cheating is a problem in the regular schools as well.

Charter schools offer choice in area where the public schools have failed after decades. And if the charter schools are like in MA they start off with a significant disadvantage – they have no – paid for by the taxpayer building(s)!




Difference is “Duke” was not a killer to the best of my knowledge. Does you Union have a wall with the names of Senators they have bought and paid for? If they did Teddy boy would be right at the top.

I wasn't implying anything. Those words were from The Dallas Morning News.



Just FYI, Ted. I'm retired so, I no longer have a union period and as I've already mentioned, because of Texas law, I didn't have much of one when I was working. Since Edward Kennedy never ran for offfice in Texas, I don't remember his name being on the marquee. We did support Ann Richards, though.

Bof I think you and I agree that education in the US is a disaster and we need to do something about it. I think we also agree that just spending more money, as has been done in the past, is not the answer either. So lets hope we, as a country can come up with strategies that work, because not doing so is costing us a great deal.

Personally I thing some level of “privatization” like charter schools is a positive step. Needless to say state and federal monitoring of them is as important as in any industry – perhaps more so.

Teddy K is my cross to bear here in MA. He votes Union every time and against nearly anything that would give parents a “choice” in education. Not one of his, or any other Kennedy family children have ever set foot in a public school.

Nice try Ted. but we agree only on the proposition that education needs impovement. While we can't solve the problems by "throwing money" at them, we can't solve them without adequate funding. Privitization is fine as long as private dollas pay for it.

I would gladly take Edward Kennedy, if Massachsetts would take the Bush library and Bush would agree to forever stay out of Texas.

Don't mean to intrude (not particularly interested in this discussion) but I've said it before and I'll say it again: prove it. You've made this assertion in numerous places and never been able to demonstrate that privately produced goods and services are ALWAYS superior. Not once. In fact, to the best of my knowledge nobody on this forum has. If you want to believe that the private sector is generally better, so be it. The proof is easy to find. To repeatedly assert that it is ALWAYS better demands more than philosophizing, and it should be EASY to prove if it's true... so put your money where your mouth is please.

You know, Ted I asked the same question Ultimatejoe asked several days ago and you just blew by it.



When you talk about private vs. public, the American auto industry comes to mind. Private, but not a success story of late.

Now that two of us are asking you to prove that privitization is ALWAYS better, maybe you'll try to answer our questions - prove your point.

Don't mean to intrude (not particularly interested in this discussion) but I've said it before and I'll say it again: prove it. You've made this assertion in numerous places and never been able to demonstrate that privately produced goods and services are ALWAYS superior. Not once. In fact, to the best of my knowledge nobody on this forum has.


And I have answered but not one of you liberals ever replies. The simple fact that you cannot name a more efficient, non private supplied good or service tell us something doesn’t it?? One may exist but you folks can’t come up with it.

So let’s do this – I say that in nearly all cases the private “market” produces superior goods and/or serviceas.

And I have no expectation that education would not be the same – in fact as you know all of our colleges are “private” and doing just fine.

This does not mean that I feel we don’t need regulation or that “private” means perfect but clearly private companies do a better job at lower cost than “public” enterprises.


And as Amlord has pointed out catholic schools do better with less. Same for mast charter schools even with the significant financial disadvantage thet start with.

No Ted, all of our colleges are not private. My alma mater, what is now the University of North Texas, is a state college. The University of Texas system is state. Texas Tech is a state school and the community college systems are generally run by counties. We do have some fine private univesities - Rice probably having the best reputation. I like TCU in Fort Worth, but some critics call it "Frog High." The mascot is the vanishing horned toad.

Other state colleges include East Texas State, Tarelton State and others. My life might be in danger if we have Aggies on the board and I don't mention Texas A&M.

Other states are similar.

Is that really how you mean this sentence? We have an abundance of government owned and run schools that perform exceptionally well.

Education does not fit perfectly well into the market system because the consumer also is the main producer (the student). I do believe that we need to look at a variety of models for education.

Just for an example btw, TVA has had a long run at being a successful government run program. I happen to believe that the government runs a military better than the private sector, and prisons, and I believe that the profit model is a bad system for health care. Just in case you needed a liberal to come up with an example. For blanket generalization tit for tat, conservatives almost always assert that socialized health care is a failure in other countries like Canada and the UK, but the people of those countries tend to defend their healthcare systems and the statistics show that the systems are more cost efficient and have produced better health results for their societies.

You are correct Bof. I should have said “most” of our colleges and universities are private.

Does not change my point.




I disagree and the “student” is not imo the “producer” but the “product” and the school provides the “service” of teaching the student. Certainly we can see that the “product” (educated student) is often quite poor and imo would be better served by a private system. Again “private” catholic schools produce better results with less $ per pupil and do many “charter” schools which have to supply their own facilities!


As far as TVA – what are you comparing it too that tells you they are as good or better, that is private? And health care could be a subject for another thread. I have relatives and friends in Canada and they don’t like the health care system. I have posted numerous articles from Canadian sources about their cost and delivery problems – including people waiting months or years for service. – You can have that crap.

And the “cost” comparison is in my opinion an illusion> We hear that Medicare has lower “administrative” costs and yet we know that the reason for that is that fact that they push much of this down onto doctors, the states and providers. They wait for “forms” that others fill out – to the point that most doctors have staff that does little else.

I believe we need to cover everyone but a “single payer” system will lead to reduced care IMO.

Ted my point was that without the active involvement of the student (however that is acheived) the education level is only going to reach a certain level. So the student's participation in education is key.

My experience with TVA is that electric prices have been lower than the other regions in the country I have lived in and the service has been as reliable. No rolling blackouts no regional blackout a la the New Yokr Midwest regions.

And believe it or not Ted I did not expect you to agree with any of my post.

Ted my point was that without the active involvement of the student (however that is acheived) the education level is only going to reach a certain level. So the student's participation in education is key.


I agree but remember that getting “the active involvement of the student” is part of the educational process and I expect a private school to do this as well or better than a public school and have better management to boot.



I am not familiar with TVA but don’t they have a lot of nuclear capacity and don’t they produce nuclear fuel as well? Without competition it is impossible to say if they are better. The e4lectric power industry needs capital investment right now.

In the past I have hired away employees from Boston Gas, Boston Electric and the Postal Service, I heard stories of the gross inefficiency at all three places. One woman left Boston Gas because she had so little to do and told me her managers did nearly nothing all day.

As competition was introduced into gas and electric here we have seen prices drop - by 20% just for the "power" - Boston Electric still has monopoly on delivery. I met a Boston Electric manager at a post grad course at Darden (marketing) and he told me they had sent him so that the company had sent him there so that they could start the process of understanding “customer” needs. As it turns out they had always considered the “customer” to be the rate setting authority and even called them them the “rate payer”. That was their "customer" - not the users of the power!

The USPS is worse.

Yes, and as pointed out in those 'other threads' that has been proven utter horse-hockey. The Canadian health care system is FAR cheaper (nobody, not even the far right in the US would argue otherwise) and just as if not more effective: last time we had that debate I posted survival raths from cancer, heart surgury, post-operative infections, as well as a host of other examples, ALL of which have better survival rates in Canada than INSURED patients in the US, thats not even taking into account the uninsured who cannot be treated. That was one of the many threads you cut-and-ran from, as I recall. This whole 'massive waiting list' is nothing but an outright lie on the far right. waiting lists exist for ELECTIVE proceeures in Canada, and yes these tend to be longer than the waiting lists in the US. For non-elective? My father needed an MRI not two weeks ago, do you know how long he was forced to wait for one after the foctor told him he needed it?

18 hours. Not weeks, not months, not even days.



Yeah, thats just completely wrong. When comparing overall prices of US vs ANY FIRST WORLD NATION with socialise health care, as a percentage of GDP, all costs including local, are included. Nice try at wiggling away from undisputable evidence proving you wrong.



HOWEVER, that is partially an aside. The issue is when has a socialised system provided better products than the market system? Well health care is one perfect example (Canada isn't even the best, Scandinavia and France are even better), others have pointed out plenty of state funded educational centres in the US and around the world. Ever hear of MY alma-mater, Oxford? It's not too bad wouldn't you agree?

Then there are dozens of other examples: take technology, at the end of the cold war the USSR had a technological lead on the US in half a dozen fields, some they STILL do. (far fewer instances than ones where the US had the technological lead mind you, but you asked for examples...) I could easily list the technological items adopted by the US military which originated from government controlled development in other countries. (UAV's, CACR helicopters, Stealth Submarines, etc) Heck, I could also refer to those technological items defleoped by non-market methodology inside the US (like nukes or the internet). Then there are all the industries which ran MUCH bettwe under socialized control than privately, like the Royal mail in the UK for example.


There are dozens of examples, and the worst thing is that many people just assume that anything good the US has MUST have been developed in the US, when often thats just wrong. The combination single-vaccene used on children to immunise against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type B? Developed in Cuba (now used around the world). Pacemakers? Canadian. The point is, there are literally DOZENS of examples where socialised systems have led in innovation.


Now it IS fair to say that the market is more condusive to innovation, and the majority of modern inventions WERE invented under the markets system. But that, Ted, is not even close to what you claimed. You in your inimitable way, made up the wild assertion that "private, competitive produced goods and services are ALWAYS superior to the same produced in a non competitive environment". Which is, not suprisingly considering its originator, entirely made-up.

This may be misleading Ted. According to infoplease, there were more private institutions in 2003, but the public institutions educate more students by about a 4:1 ratio.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908742.html

The student information is confirmed by the U. S. Census Bureau.

According to the Bureau of Census, The 2007 Statistical Abstract, for the year 2004, there are 4216 degree granting institutions in the United States. There were 12,900,00 students attending public institutions while only 4,290,000 students attended private colleges. That means 3/4s of college students are being educated in public colleges and universities. Even if you claim that private colleges are the racehorses, the public colleges seem to be the pack mules that get the work done.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/edu...and_enrollment/

Click the above link and then click the fourth item #269. It will open as a Microsoft Excel file.

No, if one were to make an assumption, it would have to be that cost/student would decrease in the larger district, as it would have more students to spread the administrative costs over. Why do you think you see mergers so often, and divestitures so seldom? Because the bigger you are, the lower the ratio of your administrative expenses.

The "economies of scale" argument... but it almost never applies in public schooling. Checking the statistics it seems that for whatever reason, educating more students is more expensive no matter where you are.

The key to this is not administrative expenses anyway. It's classroom expenses. Those have been linked by study to student performance.

In this thread, numerous posts and links have proven via a number of sources that nationwide that private schools out perform public schools, and nearly always with less money.

I believe wholeheartedly that this happens because of an expectation set when the parents send a check to the school on day 1.

If I pay $10K for my child to be in the 8th grade, often times 2x what the Public University costs, I expect that the school outperform public schools in some way. If there isn't a difference in performance (in some form or another), why would I pay the money? Most private school attendees can get religion from church for far less money. If the school doesn't perform, they go out of business.

Secondly, I believe that the people in the situations where they pay for something automatically take a more vested interest. If someone gives you a car and you wreck it, generally it's less traumatic than if you had to save up to buy it. I believe this true with Parochial schools and their students. It also says something about the parents that enroll their kids in the private school in the first place. They obviously have a vested interest in the student's education.

You cannot say that about all parents of kids in public schools. I have close friends that are teachers, to include one in my family.

Let me get this straight. I didn't go to private school but for a couple years of my life. I actually don't believe in sending your kids to Private school as a generalization, as it puts them often in a "bubble" of American life and experiences are missed. However- the Private school microcosm often times shows that our schools don't have to have better funding to turn out better students.

Kids can learn without state of the art computers. Kids can have a great attitude and work hard in schools with old buildings. Parents and teachers have to be held accountable Turnea. What you're advocating, and no offense, but I think what is often a characteristic of your generation, is that it's never the fault of the people, but rather society and the system.

Statistics prove that Private schools beat Public schools nationwide (don't post another obscure article... just read the data in this thread) on standardized tests. Ok. Something else you'll note if you've ever been to one is that often times they don't have expensive computer labs, big gymnasiums, etc either. They DO have kids that know they have to toe the mark. They do have teachers who know their parents and there is direct interaction with the families. I believe wholeheartedly that my couple of years in private school taught me that kids need diverse interaction, but also that you don't need a graphic arts lab to be creative.

Come off of it aevans176. By your own profile you are 28-years-old . By his profile, Turnea is 21.

I would say, from my understanding of generation - the time needed to produce offsprings - that you and Turnea are of the same generation.



Well, maybe not especially if that data came from organizations that promote private education.

Texas has had charter schools for 12 years.

Texas Education Agency data for 2004 indicate that charter schools weren’t doing as well as public schools when measured by the state testing instrument.

Texas Education Agency Comparison of Public and Charter Schools, 2004

Public schools in blue; charter schools in green.

Well, maybe not especially if that data came from organizations that promote private education.

Texas has had charter schools for 12 years.

Texas Education Agency data for 2004 indicate that charter schools weren’t doing as well as public schools when measured by the state testing instrument.


Well so you believe the Texas Education Agency (whoever they are and whatever axe they grind – and I can guess) but the other data is NG – ya ok I got it.

Just for clarification, the Texas Education Agency is the governing body for education in the State of Texas.

Here is their official webpage.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/

The equivalent in Massachusetts is the Massachusetts Department Education.

http://www.doe.mass.edu/

State agencies have a bit more gravitas than support organizations.

Yes I know and how exactly do you imaging they are impartial? Who does the “rating”.

In MA we have the MA dept. education making decisions on the approval of charter schools. Needless to say if you want to start a charter school where a public school is a total disaster you have a chance – any other place – your chances are slim. I know this from experience

As far as standardized tests go, TEA holds public schools and charter schools to the same standards. Some charter schools did quite well, but the trend in the link I provided indicates that, on the whole, they did worse.

As I said BoF “worse” is relative. Are they “worse” than the bad schools they replaced? Or just worse then average. In MA charter schools are only allowed when they replace schools that are utter disasters.

Is it similar in TX?

No. Charter schools in Texas were in addition to, not a replacement for public schools. When schools in Texas under perform, TEA essentially runs the school until the problems are corrected. It does not close them and replace them with charter schools.

Charter schools were established in 1995, George W. Bush's first year as Governor of Texas.

The porpose of charter schools:



http://www.tea.state.tx.us/charter/

Apparently, they haven't fulfilled their mission very well.

Do you have any information from the Massachusetts Department of Education on how they've done in your backyard?