One charter school's unfair advantage

Suburban campus? Good God. Beside a polluted river and a supermarket, and across the street from a biker bar. And in a neighborhood that tipped more black and hispanic than white years ago. That Shaw's is my regular supermarket, and I'm the minority when I go in there. Nice try.

And that 'custom-built campus?' If by custom-built, you mean a refitted, long empty hundred year old machine factory beside the railroad tracks, then yeah.

Ironically, you have the colossal nerve to use the Eliot school as a comparison. The same Eliot school that was recently in the news for being so oversubscribed. And how is it fair that some parents get their little angels in to the Eliot, and others have to settle for schools with low test scores?

How is the Eliot any different from the Renaissance? I might ask of the Eliot school "Why should some parents have all the good fortune?"

So what, exactly, is your goal, and what is your solution? Some schools will always be better than others. Shall we tear down the best schools yearly to make sure some kids don't get excluded from them? Should the city shut down the Eliot school, and send the teachers and staff to other schools to share the goodness?

Charter schools educate the children of the city. There are no 'public kids' or 'private kids.' They are all residents of the city, and the government is required by law to offer them all an education. The government is not required to fund a particular administration or a particular union.

That gazillion dollar high school in Newton? The state helped pay for it. Why should this school be any different? Charter schools are not private schools - they are public schools operating under different administration - thank God.

So where did you go to school, John?