1. Old study that should have be published versus buried (Why does NY Times
call a study performed a while ago new?)
2. Does not take into account that these schools are taking those that are
not doing well at their current schools and therefore tend to be farther
behind and having lower scores to begin with
3. Does not take into account those schools whose mission is not to teach to
the tests but get kids into college
4. Does not take into account the attitude change that students at these
schools may be undergoing.
Their conclusion is that that:
1. These results are not a good indicator of the success or failure of
charter schools
2. Better analysis needs to be done.
That nail may have been burying a live person <g>
Again, this is why you can't rely on a single paper to kill any idea.
Andy
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
