Detroit union leader demands charter schools be held accountable, and argues that if a school has consistently poor scores, "it shouldn't remain open." Isn't that the same argument that education reformers make about traditional public schools? That if they don't succeed, they should be turned over, or closed, or drastically altered through some other means? And isn't there visible frustration on the part of many teachers when those things are suggested?
If we're trying to determine what should happen to a floundering school, should it make a difference whether or not the school is a charter school or a traditional public school?
Doug Ross, at the end of the article, makes that point. Students need good schools and it doesn't matter who governs them. I do take issue with the solution he proposes in the last sentence. While moving students from low performing schools to high performing schools will help some students, it won't solve all education's problems. There are examples from around the country that demonstrate that.