[ohCompGk]

I'm not an educator or union member nor am I familiar with any charter schools so I can't speak with authority on any of them. I can appreciate, form the outside, the apparent selfishness of teachers unions.

According to the article 13-67% of charter schools are for failed students rather than failed schools so they are an option for both teachers and parents as an optional method. I don't think the government should be involved with optional methods. I think they should provide vouchers for those that don't want to partake in traditional public schools. I would consider this the best method to stimulate competition for teachers/unions.

One thing I am curious about that this article doesn't cover is how the graduates of charter schools fare after graduation compared to "regular students". Is it worth the trouble of dangling a carrot in from of a donkey when in the end he will still turn out a donkey?

[ohCompGk]

...front of a donkey... eshh.

[moog]

In my state, the charter schools for the "regular" students don't perform any better than the public schools (who actually do pretty good) nor do they have any real innovative ideas. The reading and math approaches they use are ones either used by public schools or discarded long ago by private and public schools. They are, however, a tool of the education liberals in my state with their political agenda against public education. I do strongly support some of the career-oriented charter schools for those of high-school age, though.

Since vouchers are another tool of the above-mentioned liberals, I do not support them. On a private basis, though, they are probably okay.