Diane Ravitch is right!

You never thought I'd say that.  Did you?  Well, in a blog republished on the Washington Post's  "The Answer Sheet," Ravitch cites three charter schools, highly touted by President Obama, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Florida Governor Jeb Bush, that may not be all that they claim.

I won't go through the names of the schools or her argument here.  You can read it for yourself.  Her point is that these schools boast statistics such as 100% acceptance into college while their students perform poorly on state tests.

She has a good point.  For example, 100% acceptance into college is a great measure.  It shows determination on the part of the students as well as confidence that they can go to college.  Given the demographics of the schools Ravitch uses as examples, it's likely that a large number of these students are the first in their family to go to college.  However, Ravitch points out that these students may not be ready for college and they are unlikely to succeed.  So, why tout these schools when there are other high performing traditional public schools?

Charter school leaders can't brush off Ravitch on this one.  Sure, these are only three examples.  It may be that this isn't the fault of charter schools.  It may be that these political leaders simply chose the wrong examples to use in their speeches.  It may be that there are other schools in the same cities which would have been better examples.  Denver boasts other schools besides the one mentioned by Ravitch that have had good success.

In addition, it does seem that sending 100% of students to college is a good thing, even if the students are not college ready according to tests.  Why?

First, assuming that the schools have prepared the students mentally for college, the students may have the initiative to improve while in college.  They may have to work harder and take remedial courses, but they may have the perseverance and determination to work through the difficulties.  An interesting research project would be to see where these students are in four years compared to their peers. 

Second, even if these students do not finish college, they will be exposed to college and have that as a goal.  They may return later.  They also may be able to pass on to their children what it takes to go to college.  Students who do not go to college may not have these opportunties.

So, even though I believe that Ravitch's points may be overstated.  She is still right.  Politicians and charter school leaders must be careful in how they promote charter schools.  Ravitch is also right that there are no "silver bullets."  Many charter schools know the frustration of not making the progress that they'd like to.  Some charter schools know the disappointment of being closed.

Ravitch is right that charter schools are not a silver bullet.  However, that is a reason to make charter schools be honest about their results and to cause all of us to think about the real role of charter schools.  It's not a reason to oppose all charter schools or to ignore those that are truly successful.  There are many charter schools that are not corporate charter schools.  There are corporate charter schools that are succeeding.  All of us have to be honest and ensure that we are all seeking the good of students, not our own interests whether they be teacher unions, charter school management companies, or politicians.