He then inserts this chart:
The conclusion he draws from it is that charter schools are more effective resource allocators (he also says that the charter school is just as effective at raising student achievement as the traditional public school, which is tantamount to a bald-faced lie). The conclusion I draw from it is that business-minded (often for-profit) charter schools are interested in cutting costs while keeping test scores high, which means quality education is likely to be sacrificed.
You know there are people thinking this stuff, it's just not often that they actually write it down or say it out loud. Not surprising that Petrilli did since he was previously vice president of an education company.
Finally, I'll leave you with the comment I left him:
The Reflective Educator: May 12th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Really disappointed that this is where business-minded policy wonks with no real experience in the classroom see the future of the profession.
Let’s further deprofessionalize the career, help people see it as a building block to something more important like becoming a professional pundit (because, after all, what kind of loser really wants to teach for their entire life), and strip people who’ve dedicated their lives to improving other people’s lives of the chance to enjoy a salary they can raise a family on and retire comfortably on.
No big surprise though. We’ve heard it all before: “5-year teachers are just as effective as 25-year teachers” – only someone who’s never actually worked in the classroom could take the implication of that “research” to mean that hard-working, reflective teachers don’t constantly make improvements over their career. “Teachers are too expensive” – we live in the richest country in the world, by far. Are we really saying that someone who’s been teaching for 25 years doesn't deserve adequate compensation to raise a family and lead a modestly comfortable lifestyle? Truly unbelievable.