Expert schmexpert.

Admittedly, my window of political perspective is pretty limited. But even a political lightweight like myself can enjoy the old-fashioned brouhaha that is developing over charter schools.
School choice is a deeply held and ravenously defended movement in education.
Its supporters say that charter schools can fix the achievement gap, teach the unteachable, serve the under-served and, generally, save students from a post-Industrial education model that has changed little in the last century.
Critics say charters siphon much-needed state aid from traditional districts already crippled by inadequate state funding and that their lack of oversight and accountability makes them invisible to the public.
As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. But the real problem arises when the so-called experts can't separate themselves from the politics.
Take, for instance, a MN2020 report released this summer. The report documented that more than 75 percent of all charters lacked certain financial controls and that their audits contained irregularities. Inevitably, charter opponents hailed the report as definitive proof that the movement had failed. Charter supporters, meanwhile, blasted the report for its bias and pointed out that nearly all schools, charter or otherwise, have qualified audits.
Even months after its release, I can personally vouch for the fact that bitterness about the report remains on both sides.
But even more problematic is the story developing at Stanford University.
The nutshell: Brilliant economic professor authors groundbreaking study on New York charter schools. She shows, through meticulously gathered data, that charters have the potential to all but close the achievement gap. The report was released - and charter supporters proudly donned their finest feather yet.
But one problem: The report wasn't peer reviewed; and when it was (surprise, surprise) the reviewer found the study was overstated, under-quantified and, generally, untrustworthy.
Back to square one.
The charter school debate is one of the most important taking place right now in the world of education. And this kind of biased reporting only re-hinges the debate on the same old partisan frameworks.
Shame. Shame. The public needs better from its so-called experts.

A sidenote:
Minnesota was the first state in the country to legalize charter schools when it did so in 1991. Since then, regulations and guidelines for charters have evolved, but the Center for Education Reform ranks this state's charter law as the second best in the nation.