No, they aren't, because they expel problem students, into the public system. Even if admissions are lottery-based, expulsions are not.
Imagine two groceries. One that has to, by law, serve every kind of customer, and one that is allowed to throw out shoplifters, drunks, people high-out-of-their-minds-on-meth, etc.
Which one of these will provide better groceries for lower prices?
Experimentally: No. Betsy Devos's implementation was tested in Detroit, and failed miserably at teaching children. Expanding it without major, major changes is irresponsible and immoral. Step 1 is a system that doesn't defund public schools in the process.
Certainly. [1] gives a good overview, on how Devos pushed for more and more charter schools, without any requirement for credentials. [2] is some focus on the history of charter schools in Michigan, Devos's home state. [3] is a local news story (tracked down from some articles that reference it), going into a lawsuit about the poor performance of schools in the Detroit area, following the siphoning of funds to charter schools. The state didn't even attempt to argue that the schools were well-run, and instead argued that "there is no fundamental right to literacy".
Maybe I could see charter schools as a reasonable option in some cases. With Betsy Devos at the helm, they should be fought at every turn.
I wanted to circle back and say thanks for providing the links.
The wapo article was garbage (really, 3 sentences?) , but I found the michigan advance ariccle informative. I still don't agree with your conclusions, but now know there is a questionable track record in Detroit. I think the connection between Devos and charters and her influences is overstated, as they existed in numerous states long before she held any federal positions.
Thank you for the feedback. For the Washington Post article, it looks like they are silently paywalling the majority of the article. Opening it in incognito mode gave me the full article (several pages, not just a few sentences).
Imagine two groceries. One that has to, by law, serve every kind of customer, and one that is allowed to throw out shoplifters, drunks, people high-out-of-their-minds-on-meth, etc.
Which one of these will provide better groceries for lower prices?