This comment does a great job at addressing many of the points brought up in the article. I'd like to add one more. There are certain base assumptions that we

This comment does a great job at addressing many of the points brought up in the article. I'd like to add one more. There are certain base assumptions that we all make that need to be addressed - for example, the article compares the pass rates of charter schools to public schools in Chicago. Specific language is used - lower pass rates are "worse", which, then, implies that higher pass rates are "better". This is one of those scenarios where base assumptions need to be challenged. Simply passing means nothing. For example, 19% of high school graduates can't read [1]. So while you can pass uneducated people through an education system, that does not make it "better". Charter schools pass less students, but maybe that's because they don't pass students who can't read. Instead of looking at pass rates, maybe we should address other metrics - do public schools or charter schools graduate less people who can't read? Essentially, when reading metrics, think critically about whether or not the metric is a "vanity metric" (such as pass rates) or if it actually means something (like literacy rates of graduates). --- Notes [1]: http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-...