Charter supporters rushed to the barricades after last week's AFT-coordinated blast in the New York Times. Yesterday, 31 policy types and number crunchers ran a full-page ad in the Times rebutting some of the claims made in Diana Jean Schemo's original article. Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency has also pointed out some potential silver linings for education reformers in the AFT report (see "No August break in charter-land" for more). According to Antonucci, "The AFT's single-minded effort to rid us of charter schools also serves to effectively undermine every argument teachers' unions have made - and are still making - for the poor performance of regular public schools." To wit, judging schools by a single standardized test is now OK; enrolling large numbers of minority students, having inexperienced teachers, high teacher turnover, poor teacher compensation, and low funding are all no excuse for poor performance. So saith the teachers' union itself. House Education and the Workforce Committee chair John Boehner (R-OH) points out in National Review Online that the real victims of the AFT-led and Times-supported attack on charter schools, if it is successful, "are likely to be our nation's most disadvantaged minority children." And Samuel Freedman, the superb pinch-hitting education columnist for the Times, points out that "it's risky to draw any conclusions too sweeping and too soon about a phenomenon that lumps together [Theodore Sizer prot??g??] Dennis Littky and Kristen Kearns Jordan." Littky himself notes that "Charter school legislation is set up to give some freedom and some choice. So that's what's being criticized - a new way of doing things."
"Report offers no clear victory for charter opponents," by Samuel G. Freedman, New York Times, August 25, 2004
"AFT report is the best news ever for education reform," by Mike Antonucci, EIA Communiqu??, August 23, 2004
"The charter difference," by John Boehner, National Review Online, August 23, 2004