The New York Times article that pointed to the flaws in charter schools is generating more heat in the blogosphere. Dan has a link-fest on his post on the topic today. Check it out to read the blogosphere’s reaction.

William G. Howell, Paul E. Peterson, and Martin R. West dispute those finding in today’s Wall Street Journal. They write that charter schools take in far more minority students than public schools, and are usually only set up in areas that are rife with problems. In addition, most charter schools are just starting up and face a range of problems that plague any new start up. It is unfair to evaluate them and their students so early on.

I’m not going to get into a critique of the numbers here. Howell et al. are pros at that. Instead, I’ll respond to Wendy’s comment, which deals more with the politics of education. Why are bloggers so hot to defend charter schools? Doesn’t this study just indicate that it’s the student population, rather than the teachers, who determine the success of a school? Aren’t there lots examples of innovation happening at public school, too? Good questions.

Bloggers are hot to attack these numbers partially because of ideology. A good number of bloggers are libertarian, Friedman supporters. And bloggers just tend to like any idea that seems to challenge the status quo. Even non-libertarians, like Harry Brighouse of Crooked Timber and myself, like the idea of charter schools and even vouchers because they may hold some opportunities for urban populations who are not being served properly in city schools.

Yes, environmental factors have a huge impact on performance. Ethnicity, location, and poverty result in huge differences in test scores for a variety of reasons. First, let me just say that that is a travesty. Second, it doesn’t explain everything. Schools in poor areas that are administered well outperform other schools in the same area with the same students. Third, this kind of thinking can lead to a certain fatalism that is destructive. (I have been guilty of this sort of thinking from time to time.) Why make any changes or increase funding, if it makes no difference anyway.

And, yes, in some instances public schools do great things. Particularly, in white suburban school districts where the parents are involved, funding is not an issue, the administration is on the ball, and the population is homogeneous. There are also lots of instances where public schools could be doing a better job.

Let me throw out another question. Why are the unions, the New York Times, and others so happy to tear down charter schools. There are many examples of good charter schools. The KIPP Academy in the Bronx is doing a great job working with the toughest, urban population. There is no evidence that charter schools syphon money from public schools or detrimentally affect their performance. There is plenty of room to have two forms of schools happening side by side. The unions and the Times have their other reasons for tearing down charter schools.

Meanwhile, check out this proposal by Kerry for providing merit pay for teachers. The New Republic calls his proposal “quietly radical.”

The plan focuses almost single-mindedly (and wisely) on recruiting good teachers with a whole new pot of federal money. The catch is, most of the cash can only be used for standardized, merit-based salary increases, and only in concert with a streamlined process for firing bad teachers.

Sound interesting?

UPDATE: More links and thought on charter schools from Brayden King.