Implies that FOR DETROIT's CHILDREN the schools are not better. @kzernike @CREDOatStanford @alexanderrussohttps://twitter.com/MichaelPetrilli/status/747793576680120320 …
-
-
Replying to @MichaelPetrilli @CREDOatStanford
Overall, they aren't. Good traditional, bad traditional, and now good charter, bad charter.
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @kzernike @CREDOatStanford
Yes, true. But Detroit charters have a clear edge over traditional: http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/summary.php
@alexanderrusso1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelPetrilli @CREDOatStanford
You're reaching. Look at overall proficiency.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kzernike @CREDOatStanford
Kate, no scholar would consider proficiency a mark of effectiveness. Growth is what counts.
@alexanderrusso2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @kzernike @CREDOatStanford
Statistically significant. Much better than in Ohio, where "growth" for charters was negative.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MichaelPetrilli @CREDOatStanford
and when CS grads don't get jobs, can they appeal: "I was marginally better than profoundly failing!"?
1 reply 5 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @kzernike @CREDOatStanford
Fair point. But still, your readers deserved to know about that study.
@alexanderrusso1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
we make a more nuanced point: the schools that do better - TPS or CS- are those that can be selective
-
-
Replying to @kzernike @MichaelPetrilli
Charters cherry-pick, boot poor performing Ss. TPS don't have nuclear option. We teach all Ss
@CREDOatStanford@kzernike1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MarysGotClass @MichaelPetrilli and
where's Petrilli when studies support TPS success, learning w/unionized Ts?
0 replies 1 retweet 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.