Haymarket, you're a teachers uninon proponent, bought, sold, and retired on it. I don't believe anything anyone can communicate to you would change your position, especially considering that gates foundation in particular, believes you're part of the problem (and the solution, but that's too much nuance for you).. I'll respond once to illustrate how trivial your opposition is:
What does this really say? A great teacher is a good thing?
Actually, it's relevant for three reasons.
1. The OP titlte is about how "bad teachers" are a red herring. The admission that good teachers teach well, arguably demonstrates the opposite, that bad teachers are indeed a problem.
2. Admitting there are good teachers, opens the door logically for:
a. identifying the qualities that result in good teaching
b. Training teachers on these qualities that result in better teaching
c. gasp, evaluating that teachers are using that training
So some of the best may indeed be charter schools. And some of the worst are too. The fact that it is a charter school or government school or military school or religious school is NOt the defining characteristic which makes it good or not.
Remeber this:->Haymarket "the designation of Charter to a school is not a defining characterisitic for what makes it good or not"
First, they did not imply it was. Notice that they focus on finding out WHY they perform well, distilling this to what is practical to both train and it's applicability to the wider education system. Which of course, is exactly the opposite of what you claim (that it's being charter that makes the difference). Most scientists are not that dumb, they don't believe that just because test groupA did better, that it's because they are called "test groupA" that they did better. Dur, it simply points them in the right direction to do a deeper dive on groupA, and find out why.
And then you go on to write->
For good reason because of spotty results [of charter schools]. The jury is still out. .
Now, remember what you wrote above.
1. Being a charter school is not a defining characteristic with regards to what makes a school good or not.
2. The jury is out on whether or not being a charter school is good or not
That's a contradiction. Why would you be waiting on that jury verdict, when you already stated you know the verdict? Ouch. You want the jury to be out, just like Sangha showing that averages don't show they better. What subject did you teach? I want to relate this in terms you may understand.
I find it interesting that in a nation founded on capitalist principles where there is a price tag attached to everything and the slogan “you get what you pay for” suddenly goes out the window when it comes to education. If Gates truly believes this and can prove it is true, he should inform the rest of the wealthy class in America who has no problem paying four, five and six times the per pupil funding for the local public school. Obviously they indeed feel strongly that there is a result for money. Second, perhaps the amount of money it would take to close that achievement gap has not yet been put into action?
Hahaha. So you disagree based on what??!? I know money is the most important driver for the unions you so dearly love, and for liberals in general to get more of via taxation. It's just funny to see you spell it out this way.
Excuse me but I just read four areas of improvement they achieved in smaller schools.
They. Claimed. There. Were. Some. Improvements.
Nothing significant in the broader analaysis though. Also, recall that it's a combination of pros and cons. Some things may improve, but some things may get worse (cost, for example). Pointing out an improvement isolated means nothing in that context. I may evaluate Ford sedans vs Toyota Sedans and discover that Ford has more leg-room. Does that in your mind, mean that Fords are better cars as a general statement?
But the reality is that to compare the two systems is comparing apples and cinder blocks in may ways.
Luckily not all progressives with regards to education, consider analyzing schools to be apples to cinder blocks. I don't think they believe its' Costco either, or any quote from De Niro.
Gates foundation has approached this more scientifically than you imply. They have been quite vocal about describing what does not work, as well. I see no evidence they are so dumb as to compare surface level characteristics and to draw conclusions from them without finding root cause. Of course, education reform is what you oppose, and making IT into the bogeyman, is the agenda...right?