Semantics. My point is that they tried something that had never been done before, but needed to be done because cultural and economic effects were subverting st

Semantics. My point is that they tried something that had never been done before, but needed to be done because cultural and economic effects were subverting students' constitutionally-guaranteed rights to a basic education. And just because socioeconomics/class warfare undid the effects thereof, that doesn't mean these latest approaches should be deemed DOA. Instead they should be debated, hypothesized, and rigorously evaluated... something that is much harder than lobbing cherry-picked data and anecdotes at one another (not what I think we are doing in this exchange, but how I would characterize the intersection of ed reform, parental advocacy, and privilege). > And when people try to fix this by starting better-run charter and/or magnet schools, these efforts are basically sabotaged by the public education establishment as seen in this very article. Another opinion... though I respect it. I don't really think there is a difference based on my 12 years of working with and being in proximity to education reform efforts across the U.S. Nonetheless, we can trade sources all day proving[0] or disproving whether or not charters (I can't speak to magnets) are better run or more academically effective or being sabotaged by the establishment. Either way, any conclusion is as anecdotal as this very article, since both systems operate in a distributed manner, and are designed to produce data that protects their political self-interests rather than improving the quality of public education in their respective locales. [0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/charter-schools-research-and-report.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/charter-schools-rese...