Sorry, but that's not going to fly. Spinning an already misleading comparison is dishonest, full stop. And saying you were "concerned" that an accurate analogy

Sorry, but that's not going to fly. Spinning an already misleading comparison is dishonest, full stop. And saying you were "concerned" that an accurate analogy "makes it sound like we're talking about elite private schools and urban public schools" is even more ridiculous when we are very explicitly talking about the difference between involved and uninvolved parents. Moreover, if you were truly "concerned" about being misunderstood in this fashion, there's an honest way of handling that - which is saying so in your post. After, all there's no character limit on HN. You're free to be as clear as you need to be. If you want to argue that charters are better because they can select better students AND they're free to operate in ways that have proven beneficial, then by all means do so. Indeed it would be fascinating to hear about approaches that produce clear benefit regardless of the quality of the students. But that's a much tougher case to make. Indeed, the most famous example - that of Geoffrey Canada in Harlem - reveals how even the freest, best endowed schools struggle to educate people well enough to break the cycle of poverty. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?pa...