Charting a better course

Charter schools raise educational standards for vulnerable children

See article

Readers' comments


Critical Thought

"Charters enroll more poor, black and Latino pupils, and more pupils who at first do less well at standardised tests, than their traditional counterparts."

That is just patently false and completely absurd! UCLA, UIC, and other institutions have produce plenty of research to show otherwise. Many of the parents, teachers, and principals I have spoken with use the term "charter school dump". In cities like Chicago (the Renaissance of charter school "reform"), charters do not have to follow the Student Code of Conduct, which means they can (and do) kick out the students who do not "perform" well or have behavioral issues. Chicago's charters serve significantly fewer poor students than the neighborhood schools who take and keep any child who walks through their door. Despite what the corporate reformers would like you to believe, poverty does matter and children are not standardized.

Economists love numbers, but children are not numbers and education is far more complicated than that. Its pointless to talk about improving schools in terms of invalid test scores. There are plenty of social indicators and evaluation methods that would paint a more holistic picture of what a child has actually learned, but they wouldn't mislead the public and policymakers into supporting privatization. I guess this author has no regard for the generations of social capital that gets destroyed when a charter replaces a neighborhood school. Apparently, political capital and financial capital for the reformers is more important.


Charter schools do skim funding from public schools. Public schools are mandated to teach all children, including special needs students. In Arizona charter schools can accept the brightest students, but often tell parents that a special needs student will fare better in a public school as they already have programs in place. While the funding formula does provide some extra for special needs, it is not nearly enough to cover all the additional costs required. In addition, these special needs children's test scores are included in the overall academic measurement of the school. While I believe this is only fair for the special needs student and their family, it does skew the results of the studies and causes less money to be available for educating the non-special needs population.


I am disappointed that you don't address one of the main concerns about charter schools: they are able to control enrollment and hence do not serve children who do not have a concerned adult at home. Parenting is fundamental to school achievement. Charter schools are not boundary schools. Boundary schools give a place to every child who lives within a geographical area. Charter schools have an application process and choose their students from amongst the applicants. By definition, each student will have had a parent or adult who is involved enough to learn about the opportunity to attend the school, and to fill out the application. Charter schools and their methods are definitely a part of improving education in America but they can not be the complete answer.


I don't have good impressions of chartered schools. Many of these schools I get the impression that they are last resort, remedial schools. I lived in a bad neighborhood and see a few of these around. They're the schools for the system abusers, the parents that don't care much about education, but just trying to get their kids to finish school as easiest as they can. Of course, some students will do well and go on to do great things, but overall a failure. Not for my kids for sure. We want to get out of the ghetto. We like the challege. We want to play the same game as the Asian kids or the white kids. Bring in on science, math, English, etc. I work two jobs. My kids know homework is the most important thing. We could easily milk the many (Starbucks) chartered schools that have popped up and play the "minority" card. We would even have money leftover to get tattoos for everyone in the house and buy video games. But NO, we want better.

Critical Thought in reply to Kroneborge

Actually, they destabilize communities by destroying the generations of social capital that is accumulated in neighborhood schools. Schools should be sharing best practices and resources to ensure all children are educated. They should NOT be trying to put each other out of business.

Kroneborge in reply to Critical Thought

What generations of social capital. You mean generations of red tape bureaucracy, union rules designed to protect bad teachers, and of course generations of failed kids???

Bad schools should be closed, good schools should be replicated. We've waited decades for the public school system to fix itself, doubled spending (after adjusting for inflation) and yet no real improvement. The system is not working because monopolies never work. Competition is what brings improvement. education is no different than any other good of service.

It's staffed by people that respond to incentives. If you remove failure you get mediocrity.


Charter schools are in both states that have teachers unions and those that do not. Generally, students in unionized states perform better than students in non-union states, when results are broken out by demographic groups. Unionization of the teaching workforce does not lower student achievement, nor does it protect "bad" teachers. Unions negotiate better compensation and working conditions, thus improving student learning conditions and a more stable workforce.

Many critics of public education believe that increased competition among schools and teachers will improve performance. As a veteran teacher I can confidently state that this is simply not true. Teaching is a collaborative process where teachers share ideas and materials. Students do not benefit from teacher competition because in a competetive environment teachers are far less likely to share good ideas, lest they give their opponent a "leg up."

I teach in a high poverty school in a neighborhood that is refularly featured in the local news for heinous violent crimes. The school is an island of safety where we have a very high attendance rate and an extended day. Students are eligible for programs that feed them breakfast, lunch, and in some cases, dinner. They may be on campus from 7:30 until 7:PM. Even so, with all these extra services, including tutoring, academic themed clubs and AVID, or test scores, although steadily increasing, are still in the 2nd or 3rd decile. Why? Poverty and language issues. Unlike other schools that are considered "failing," we have a highly diverse student population, African American, Latino (which includes Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Mexicans), Indians, Fijians (both Indian and native Fijian), Hmong, Khmer, Lao, Chinese, Pakistani, Filipino and students from former Soviet republics.

Student mobility is high, as many of their families move after just a few months, as many apartment complexes have 6 month leases, with the seventh month free. This causes a cycle of moving from attendance area to attendance area and changing schools between not just schools within the district, but also other districts. As I have new students dropped into my classroom during the course of the school year I can access their attendance history and see the pattern. This makes serving these students with additional programs difficult as their records lag in transit.

I teach the lowest achieving students in my subject area, special ed., behavior issue and ELL. I am the most senior and I do this voluntarily. It is a difficult teaching assignment, but I still relish the challenge.

Perhaps enrollment in a non-geography based school, such as a charter, would result in better outcomes for these kids, but ignored is the familial economic stresses and other dysfunctions that make life difficult and complicated.

Some students, as a result of parental involvement, do benefit from charters. The main benefit, in my opinion comes not from teacher quality, but from shielding kids from other people's children. My kids, who attended public schools, were enrolled in GATE segregated programs in elementary and middle school. In high school they both were in a school within a school, that discriminated based on grades and an entrance examination. They did have the opportunity to "mix" with other kids in PE and elective classes. It wasn't until then, at the age of 14, that they came home with stories of other people's kids misbehaving and other hijinks.

Charter schools are able to offer this segregation by exiting out problematic, low achieving or disabled students.

Performance by charter school students is influenced by this segregation, parental choice and policies of exiting students.

Perhaps what the US should do is limit education to those that benefit from further education and place non-academic kids in training for employment that does not require academic knowledge.

Kroneborge in reply to sactoken

What a bunch of BS. My wife used to teach and both my grandparents at well. Teachers unions have been horrible for education in this country. That prevent bad teachers from being fired and good teachers from being recognized. Worse they don't even want people to be able to tell the difference between them (see their resistance to things like value added analysis).

Competition is good for EVERYTHING including education. It's time the public school sector was subjected to it.

sactoken in reply to Kroneborge

i am a competitive person, in the proper venue. The classroom, when it comes to what's best for kids' education, is not the proper venue for competition. If I was forced into a situation where I was being compered, using student test scores, to my fellow teachers, my students would lose. Any system that creates winners and losers is going to interfere with the process of collaboration amongst teachers. At my school many teachers have adopted my model for student research, I would be reticent to continue to share that method, if it could cost me. My neighboring teacher does amazing work with novel studies, I would be less likely to get his latest ideas. I could go on, but the point is clear.

Additionally students are not always cooperative players on your team, some are naturally motivated to always do their best, others not so much. If the test only has the effect of reflecting on the teacher's performance, some kids will not perform well. Outside factors, beyond a teacher's control, affect student performance.

The key to improving student learning is reducing poverty. Schools in neighborhoods beset by poverty are nearly always the ones labeled as failing. To ignore that fact, to toss out the pejorative, "bad teachers," is simply name calling.

Finally, as far as your wife is concerned, there is no better teacher than a former teacher. Ask one, they were the incarnation of Jaime Escalante.

Kroneborge in reply to sactoken

You forget that it's not just each classroom being compared but entire school's. Schools that don't perform can and should be shut down. Besides being a horrible human being if you didn't share your insights with your fellow teachers, you would also be hurting the changes of keeping your job.

Moreover, if you look at the competition now being generated in charter schools, they don't try and hide their secrets but are constantly offering seminars etc to show others what works best.

As for the students and teachers value added analysis should in part be used for the judging (along with total scores) to provide a more balanced picture of a students performance.

And of course the test shouldn't just reflect on the teachers performance. To pass on to the next grade the students should have to pass a comprehensive test on everything they should have learned in that grade.

Yes reducing poverty is a great way to increase performance, but poverty is ALWAYS going to be there. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to help out poor kids. That means giving them educational options through things like charter schools and vouchers, so they aren't doomed to follow in their parents footsteps.


Charters were a novel idea, as experimentation has languished in the traditional public model even as academic achievement (by almost all measures) faltered.

Were they rolled out too hastily? Probably yes. But frankly there is a huge group of people willing to do whatever it takes to get their kids out of conventional public schools (private or magnet if possible, otherwise charter). Now that is saying something. Just about every other sector in the world has made huge productivity gains, bar education. Classes are way smaller, there are more support staff, etc. Yet achievement continues to languish.

So you tell me why? Are a higher proportion of US students from poorer backgrounds? Have unions made progress all but impossible? Are outside influences (social media, TV, internet, games) too tempting? Are kids brains just not as sharp as they were on the olden days?

I don't know. I do know most charters in Chicago are oversubscribed, and that must mean they are doing something right. People vote with their kids feet.

Medicine4theDead in reply to trippytom

Let me help. They are called unfunded mandates - Title IX is but one example. The states and fed pass laws requiring schools to serve groups but don't provide increased funding or do provide funding but also require an extra administrator to monitor such funding. Learning isn't a hamburger it is a process and you will find that all such processes are expensive and difficult to control because they aren't a product you can box up on a shelf. Please try to think things through before saying something ignorant.

Medicine4theDead in reply to trippytom

Popularity is no proof of effectiveness. Snake oil was once popular. Electrocuting people as therapy was once popular. Radiation was popular as well. Bug zappers were popular until the truth came out that they kill lots of non-biting good bugs. Chiropractic care is popular too, but it is a treatment without any scientific proof of effectiveness. Please spare us your inability to distinguish between correlative and causative evidence.

Terence Hale



Charter schools were established 20 years ago to serve as test schools for new, innovative approaches to education. In this regard, Charters are actually a great thing. The problem is that when these innovative approaches proved successful, state politicians, in a misguided effort to lower the cost of education without sacrificing quality, increased the number of Charter Schools. In other words, they wrongly felt that the lack of unions and School Boards was the reason for charter success, rather than the new, innovative approaches (of which only some were actually effective). In truth, there's no evidence that teachers unions and school boards reduce the quality of education. Here's the other factor that the author failed to consider: Charters are able to pick and choose their students. Routinely, in Florida, at least, they choose the best and brightest public school students in a merit-based lottery. This causes two things to happen: 1) Charter test scores improve, and 2) Public school test scores get worse. And that happens regardless of the quality of education in the Charter School. The fact that Charters are able to pick brighter students also explains why parents appear to be more involved in the process--after all, brighter students often have more involved parents. I'd recommend a follow-up article discussing these issues more in-depth. You know, like other Economist articles. I can write it if you want.

hidalgos head


Sophie brown

As a veteran of both traditional public and charter schools I can say that charter schools do some things well, including involving parents and integrating their views. This is really important because it keeps families engaged in their children's schooling. It's not that parents in Conventional schools don't care, but many become passive in the face of school systems that don't know how to receive their feedback.

I agree that it's all about regulation. There are some awful charter schools, especially in rural states like mine. There are many run into the ground by well-meaning but inexperienced boards. There are some which are just sources of revenue for for-profit corporations. There are some created to push religion or exclude marginal groups. The idea is an easy one to misuse by people with their own agenda.

Oh, and it's not just a union-generated rumor that charter schools take funding from conventional schools. It's a n inescapable fact. That doesn't mean that they should not exist. -- but that they need to be planned and implemented with care, since they have an effect on kids within the schools and outside them.


When it comes to unions, the Economist is right wing. It often derides them minus facts or evidence to back it up. The Economist usually has to resort to some convoluted logic. It is really quite sad.

Sorry, but I have been reading the Economist since 1980 and they have never once published an article that was anything but negative towards unions and teacher's unions even though there is scientific and observable evidence that unions improve productivity - see Scientific American. The one time a neutral statement about unions was made is when the head of Fiat commented on the fact that Chrysler's problems were management related and not labor related.


While there is a lot of speculation, the fact remains that Charter Schools that serve a small minority of the population are still no better than conventional schools. The research indicates that it is not the charter of the school that matters but rather the size of the school. Generally, a school would want to have less than 500 students.

Medicine4theDead in reply to calbearz

Can you read? I said "generally". Your one anecdote doesn't prove anything except that you don't know what you are talking about. You also failed to mention the name of the school so your assertion can be verified. Too much work?

calbearz in reply to Medicine4theDead

Given that there is only ONE national Academic Decathlon champion is not hard to find out which school I was talking about. It's Granada Hills Charter School with over 4200 students. Is not the only one, I know many others but I only mentioned the most obvious one to me. So no, is not about class size or your vague concept of "generally". There are many benefits to large schools, such as increased opportunities and availability of academic programs gearing to diverse interests.

Medicine4theDead in reply to calbearz


calbearz in reply to Medicine4theDead

The fact that they serve an online virtual school without compromising their academic integrality is EVEN more impressive! It is the kind of innovation only a charter school can offer. But the online virtual school only serves a few hundred students, not thousands. Granada is also a diverse school unlike you said. One third of its students are Hispanics, another third White, twenty percent Asian, and the remaining other minority groups. So no, this is not an elite school. Is not in East L.A., but is not Beverly Hills either, is in a middle class neighborhood where many other conventional public schools exists and are no nearly as successful.









just a couple of thoughts :D

LanceSmith in reply to DrayNorton

While I 100% agree that the parents need to be invested, I would posit the vast majority of them are invested and they do see the importance of an education. Is there a minority of parents that think nothing of school (and instill such guidance in their kids)? Of course. But we need to make sure we don't focus so much on this minority while through creation of excuses, we leave the majority to flounder.

Reminds me of the so-called Serenity Prayer:

Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

We can't change other people...all we can do is provide the best service we possibly can. As long as we continue to throw excuses around, we will never get anywhere. After all, the best way to prove to these parents that education is important is to DEMONSTRATE that education is important.

As for your other points, they are interesting. The unions would probably have something against them.....but then that doesn't surprise me.

calbearz in reply to DrayNorton


A Reasoned Voice

I think the fundamental problem is in trying to group schools together based on a concept that can have very different meaning in different states/regions.

"Charter schools are publicly funded but independently managed."
Wow, that sure does leave a lot of room for variation!! No wonder there is such a wide variety of opinion and difference in survey results. And shocker: the opinion usually aligns with one's political viewpoints.

E.g. I would bet some states charter schools are closer to elite private schools (complete with cherry-picked students) and others are closer to specialized public schools (like NYC's High School for Performing Arts). To me, trying to discuss the performance of "Charter schools" in general is not all that different from comparing the performance of schools named after Presidents with those named after Governors.

Like most things, the success/failure will have more to do with the details of implementation than whether it is called a "charter school". I can envision funding mechanisms for charter schools that can decimate public schools, and others that can actually make public schools more efficient.

Romney and Obama may both support "charter schools" but I would suspect their interpretations of what that means is quite different.

While I always appreciate the Economist bringing up subjects like this for discussion, IMHO this is a case where a much more detailed analysis is necessary to provide any real usefulness.

calbearz in reply to A Reasoned Voice



A Reasoned Voice in reply to calbearz

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You made generalizations such as: "Since charters use public funds, they are regulated by the education board and they prohibit cherry-picking policies."

While we hope that is true, and of course that is what school boards try to avoid, there is absolutely nothing in the definition of "charter school" that prohibits this from happening. And as we know, smart profit-driven business-people can always outsmart volunteer school boards if they put their mind to it.

Likewise: "The key difference, however, is accountability. Charter school are held accountable and can be closed down, but conventional public schools can't." Again while that may be the goal, whether that is true in reality has more to do with implementation than the name. Not all charter schools operate under the same rule... each local school board i a bit different.

Having said that, I don't think you and I disagree that much. I think we are both making valid points from different ends of the same spectrum. E.g. Clearly, right now the majority of the charter schools do operate the way you say, so I'm being a bit pendantic. But I did want to make the point that just calling them "charter schools" is not as good a measure as rating them on implementation details such as the ones you mentioned, especially as they evolve).

calbearz in reply to A Reasoned Voice


A Reasoned Voice in reply to calbearz

OK, now this is the kind of political spin I'm talking about.

You said: "all charters schools are susceptible to some accountability (even if not perfect) and conventional public school are held to none."

None? Wow. Talk about hyperbole. In most places, public school boards are ALSO elected officials, no different than charter schools. And just because they are elected, doesn't mean they aren't volunteers! (In most communities they aren't paid or are barely paid. People do it because they want to, not because it is a job. IMHO, that is a volunteer).


This article is just another example of lawyering the data to fit a predetermined narrative that unions are bad and that education is just another commodity to be packaged and sold like hamburgers.

Here is the most telling part: "Each class is examined every six or seven weeks. The teachers are monitored too. As a result, Harvest Prep outperformed every city school district in Minnesota in maths last year." It confuses correlative evidence with causative evidence.

In the very next paragraph, this statement is made which seems to contradict the previous paragraph: "The idea was born of frustration with traditional publicly funded schools and the persistent achievement gap between poor minority pupils and those from middle-income homes."

Look, I am a unionized teacher and I don't have a problem with Charter schools. I do have a problem with teacher's being arbitrarily terminated or dismissed for variables beyond their control. Doctor's aren't blamed for the behavior of their patients. Police officers aren't blamed for the behavior of the criminals they arrest, but teachers are blame for the behavior of children who aren't their own. What I have a problem with is all crap about teacher's unions. If you want to help children, then let's talk about that, but leave the right wing talking points out of the discussion.

DrayNorton in reply to Medicine4theDead

Unions tend to be bad for "progress", just like any other type of monopoly....

Education IS just another commodity like ANYTHING ELSE...

"look i am a unionized teacher"

Well there ya go, your interests are blinding you and everyone agrees that people should not be fired for variables outside of their control.

non unionized, smaller charter schools can adapt to a changing world much faster than public schools. I recently graduated and i can honestly say most of my teachers were lazy. They chose the easy path of becoming a teacher and not really doing anything more than following the textbook. Charter schools will give teachers the freedom to go OUTSIDE the box and teach.

Honestly, If you ARE a good teacher, you can sell your services for a lot of money and promise parents good results. or... START YOUR OWN CHARTER SCHOOL if you are so good at designing a system to help children.

But here lies the problem. no matter how much education reform occurs, it is ultimately up to the parents to enforce education on their children. without this you have nothing.

As a tutor for 7 years, I can honestly say that 98% of my clients needed tutoring because of bad and lazy parenting. (who can blame them, 9 hour a day jobs and 1 hour commutes = TIRED PARENTS).

LanceSmith in reply to Medicine4theDead





Keep your eye on the ball.

Medicine4theDead in reply to DrayNorton

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You made several claims about Charter schools minus facts and evidence. Stop wasting my time with your sophomoric statements that clearly indicate you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry, but I am an adult educator and there aren't Charter Schools for adults and my teaching certification is tied to the school. I am not allowed to start a private practice like a doctor or lawyer.

Medicine4theDead in reply to LanceSmith

Would you please mind providing facts and evidence to support your claims about unions? What excuses are you talking about? If you can't understand the basic rules of providing evidence and facts, I think we all know why you don't like teachers and have resorted to ignorant bigotry.

calbearz in reply to Medicine4theDead

I'll admit that teaching evaluation is not easy, but lack of one is far worse. I think a combination of improvement in test scores over years, classroom observations, and student feedback should all be part of it. What I don't agree is the absolute lack of accountability in the teaching profession and seniority rules (last hired, first fired).

LanceSmith in reply to Medicine4theDead

From the AFT: "Those who describe themselves as education “reformers” advocate top-down overhauling of systems, ... using competition to leverage change, although ... [the] approach has been shown to improve student achievement. "
1st: Bunk. Look at Sweden (arguably one of the most liberal countries on Earth). They have had pervasive school choice since the the early '90s, and it has been quite successful.
2nd: there are top-down reformers out there...but they are just as bad as the union. HINT: there isn't a top-down solution. There is a solution that allows for greater competition, greater collaboration, and greater innovation...and that is pervasive school choice similar to Sweden's. That's not top-down...just the opposite. It puts the power back in the hands of individual teachers.
From the AFT: "Since that time, the AFT has pursued a quality education agenda focused on evidence (to ensure quality, efficiency and effectiveness), equity (to provide a great education to all children), scalability (to make success systemic, not isolated) and sustainability (so that the reforms outlast changes in school, district and union leadership; don’t fall prey to budget cycles; and aren’t buffeted about by political shifts)."
2/4 of these items can and are used to excuse poor teaching. Specifically,
* scalability - not all solutions will scale to all districts everywhere. To suggest that is idiotic...We don't need scalability, we need flexible, evidence-based methods that will work best for the populations to which a particular set of districts caters. Competition and collaboration encourage innovation. Scalability encourages stagnation. That just can debate all you want, but demanding one-size-fits all approaches will not lead to solutions.
* sustainability (another name for stagnation) - sounds great on paper...but again, innovative solutions are going to lead to some less sustainable solutions on occasion. Over the long haul though that isn't the point. The point is whether or not the system allows for the level of flexibility and innovation required to change the status quo. Sustainability=status quo.
No where in their platform have they said they are open to greater flexibility and fact just the opposite.
Here's an interesting point though: no matter what, we pro-innovation reformers win. With greater possibility for competition, the union WILL change...probably for the better. They will change or die.

Medicine4theDead in reply to calbearz

Sir, I live in Wisconsin, where Governor Walker just made it so that unions have no more power whatsoever. Yet, when given the opportunity to make changes to the pay structure, did the Republican Governor attempt to put measures of performance in place? Nope, he went by seniority. Nice try. Teaching is an experience driven profession which is why experience or seniority are rewarded. What lesson are you teaching children when you throw people away for not being able to control the behavior of children who are not their own?

Medicine4theDead in reply to LanceSmith

Where is the evidence for you claim that competition works? Really, where is it? Has competition in the field of medicine brought prices down? No. Has competition in higher education, which already offers choices brought prices down? No. There isn't any evidence to support anything that you claim. You have failed to support you assertion that unions are bad time and again. Your empty comments are a waste of digital space and offensive to anyone with a brain and a basic understanding of facts and evidence.



KRE728 in reply to robert2012

I think that's a good point that wasn't raised in the article. Public schools have to teach everyone - what is the process for selection on charter schools' student bodies? What are the responsibilities parents also assume, and process/consequences for failure?

All the statistics seem to have been sourced from Charter Schools' lobbyist group, which made me skeptical of the rest of the article.

calbearz in reply to robert2012


Medicine4theDead in reply to calbearz



The New Orleans charter school movement offers an interesting take on the debate. The system was completely overhauled after Katrina. The system is now divided between Charters, Recovery School District (which runs additional charters), and New Orleans Public Schools (which runs few schools). The Charters are competing with the catholic schools, private schools, and other public schools for students. This competition has forced schools to improve as there are fewer students to attract. The unique conditions that led to the Charter schools reforms cannot be replicated. There were some drastic decisions made to fire teachers, etc.. However, from the ashes emerged a system that is offering New Orleans an immensely better school system and allowing the city to compete regionally for sustained economic growth. Detroit and other cities will have a harder time implementing such a strategy, because their decline is gradual and there are entrenched interests, both left and right, who have hard time understanding when they are in fact in a 'manmade catastrophe'.

guest-isnmlnj in reply to Nola64

After 10 years of charters schools, New Orleans schools still perform below the state average and the state of Louisiana is no higher than 45th out of the 50 states and DC in reading, writing and math. I suspect students in Detroit still get a better education than the vast majority of students in New Orleans.

Nola64 in reply to guest-isnmlnj


guest-isnmlnj in reply to Nola64

According to the just released 2012 test scores: "New Orleans still trails the state in the percentage of students performing Basic or above." In the state of LA 68% of students are at basic or above, in New Orleans 58% are at basic or above. New Orleans is abysmal. Charter schools are not the answer to anything unless the primary goal is to destablize the union and privatize education.

Nola64 in reply to guest-isnmlnj

The numbers are still bad. However, the numbers are improving. For four straight years, the numbers have improved. There is no doubt about that. New Orleans knows it has a long way to go. But 40 years of decline in education cannot be reversed in 4 years. The trajectory is looking bright for the city though. Charters are part of the answer. The innovation it offers is invaluable. For example, under the charter model several French schools have opened in the city. Under traditional education, especially before Katrina, this would be difficult to execute.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
