> To limit a good education to "It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write." is condescending. It would be condescending if anyone had actual

> To limit a good education to "It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write." is condescending. It would be condescending if anyone had actually said that. Saying "one part of the education is easy to measure" is not the same as saying "no other part of the education matters". The question is not whether these schools "work". The question is whether they are better for the students than the alternative. Measuring the ability of students to read and write is one useful way of assessing that. If it is dramatically worse or better that would be a helpful indicator (although still not the "whole story").