That said, this study should have put to rest the notion that engaged parents are the primary explanation of charter success. Should have, but just when you think you’ve silenced the critics, even on one narrow point of argument, there is instant recourse to a fallback position. Superintendent Carole Johnson herself suggests the new revetment the anti-charter movement will retreat to, namely the peer group effect, the notion that the positive collegiality of students of engaged parents tips the balance for charters.

Pretty weak beer, and it doesn’t explain why poor charter schools DON’T do well. But it won’t take much for those who believe, with some foundation, that it is having an argument of any description, not the quality of the argument that matters. For evidence, I offer the often repeated and long-discredited canards about charters still seen in the press and heard from the mouths of true (dis)believers.

I expect this result will bring the hysteria down a few decibles. It isn’t a slam dunk, though, because too many people are unwilling to think. For example, some scientists, never mind the uninformed populace, still offer up the hockey stick as exhibit ‘A’ for anthropocentric global warming, despite it’s subsequent, thorough invalidation.

Why? Because they’ve staked out a position, one that fits their political loyalties, but primarily because they’ve made up their minds. They are little Custers, unwilling to reverse a Custer Decision- the willfully stupid.

This study may be no more than another disproval of an educational hocky stick. I’m afraid it will do little to turn the tide. To paraphrase Clinton, ‘it’s the politics, stupid’. Or perhaps more accurately, ‘it’s the stupid, stupid’.

How long will we have to wait until people put children ahead of politics? Or pig-headedness?