That is addressed in the book(this counter argument was my first reaction as well). Charter schools get kids from lottery(demand FAR outstrips supply) well they did research and tracked kids who were in lottery and did not get in. Their outcomes were far worse than those who got in.

My own conclusion from reading it is that few things really make difference: 1. Charters have strict discipline, violence etc is not tolerated in any form. Public school in bad areas are chaos 2. Schools can easily fire teachers who do not perform well. In public school system you need to rape or murder someone to get fired. 3. Shitty charter schools lose their charter and go out of business

>My own conclusion from reading it is that few things really make difference: 1. Charters have strict discipline, violence etc is not tolerated in any form. Public school in bad areas are chaos 2. Schools can easily fire teachers who do not perform well. In public school system you need to rape or murder someone to get fired. 3. Shitty charter schools lose their charter and go out of business

Basically all the same reasons that rent-a-cop type security places never have problems with hot headed jerks the way municipal police departments do.

I have a hypothesis that most of the students causing problems at today's public schools are the result of problems at home; be that a lack of resources, parents whom society hasn't given the time to be parents, or a lack of knowledge about how to be a good parent.

Better social safety nets and support for everyone should be an real investment in the future for everyone.

My SO has taught in some rough schools and home issues are part of the picture.

It also seems like especially disruptive kids need to be moved into classes with increasingly smaller numbers of students. That way teachers can more fairly provide for the needs of everyone.

Of course this would all be more expensive. So as a society we'd have to agree such solutions are worth investing in at a scale that will make a significant difference.