The Education Gadfly Weekly

Let’s get this straight immediately: If you’re an educator, you’re a culture war combatant. It cannot be avoided. It’s literally your job.

Schools exist for the purpose of cultural transmission. They signal to children which books are worth reading, ideas worth embracing, who are history’s heroes and villains and, through hundreds of daily interactions with adults, the values, beliefs, and behaviors we praise or condemn. Education is not now and can never be values-neutral. Whether intentionally or by neglect, schools and the adults who staff and run them cannot help but shape the moral and intellectual lives of children.

So, no more hand-wringing about schools and “culture wars,” please. But the conservative response to education policy cannot focus solely on purging ideological threats; it must pursue with equal zeal competence and effectiveness. As last week’s release of NAEP reading and math scores vividly illustrated, schools are continuing to fail at their rock-bottom basic task of educating students.

A core conservative critique is that public schools have become hostile to the country that funds them, prioritizing ideological activism over academic excellence. It’s a valid and important critique. Yet, while conservatives rightly challenge ideological capture, they must also recognize that the greatest failure of K–12 education is not ideological but operational. Schools have long struggled to teach children to read and perform basic math at high levels. Before DEI, SEL, and CRT in schools became culture war flashpoints, systemic issues—such as poor teacher training, ineffective curricula, and weak accountability—were already limiting student success.

The Conservative Contradiction on Competence

Conservatives recently expressed justifiable outrage when reports suggested that the Los Angeles fire department prioritized DEI initiatives over firefighting competence. L.A. Fire Chief Kristin Crowley came under intense criticism for pledging at her confirmation to ensure that “diversity is celebrated and valued, and that equity and inclusion are intertwined into every policy, procedure, and practice.” As wildfires devastated the city, Elon Musk posted screenshots of the LAFD’s racial equity action plan on social media adding, “They prioritized DEI over saving lives and homes.”

The conservative position was clear and correct (and not even limited to the political right): Public institutions must focus on their primary responsibilities, not ideological distractions. Yet, when Penny Schwinn was nominated for Deputy Secretary of Education last month, she faced a conservative backlash for the opposite reason—focusing on student achievement rather than pursuing ideological battles. “I see it as extraneous politics, and my job is to educate kids,” she told The 74 when she stepped down from her position as Tennessee’s education chief last year.

Critics, including John Rich, Robby Starbuck, and local Moms for Liberty chapters accused Schwinn of supporting mask mandates, well-being checks during Covid, and failing to purge woke curricula from schools. They portrayed her as insufficiently combative in the culture war, and thus an unworthy candidate—despite her strong record on literacy, school choice, and curriculum improvement. Christopher Rufo, an influential conservative education activist, defended Schwinn, highlighting her opposition to explicit materials in schools, her support for school choice, and her efforts to increase curriculum transparency. But that defense by conservatives’ highest-profile culture warrior seems to have done little to mollify Schwinn’s critics. The contradiction is clear and ironic: conservative critics want a culture warrior, not an administrator focused on competent governance and delivering results.

If conservatives demand competence from fire departments and other government services, why not demand it from schools? Schwinn’s leadership in Tennessee was marked by a laudable focus on literacy and teacher training—exactly the priorities conservatives should want in an education leader. Her tenure in the Volunteer State was defined by a clear-focus on student achievement: She championed high-quality instructional materials, launched a statewide tutoring program, and revamped reading instruction based on the science of reading.

Opposition to her hints at a troubling myopia in conservatives’ vision for K-12 education, one that see schools exclusively as a battleground for culture wars rather than as critical institutions capable of competently getting children to minimally acceptable levels of literacy and numeracy. It also elides a fundamental truth: There was no golden age of excellence before CRT and DEI, and not even before there was a U.S. Department of Education. Long before these issues became political flashpoints, systemic challenges—poor instructional quality, and stagnant academic outcomes—plagued American education. If the conservative education agenda becomes solely about ideological purges rather than academic excellence, it will fail to improve schools in any meaningful way.

My colleague Rick Hess put it well: “Restoring common sense to classroom culture isn’t a distraction. It’s a necessary first step if we want educators focused on the work of educating. But then what? That’s when we need education leaders who unapologetically embrace the stuff of learning: academics, rigor, good teaching, and student outcomes.”

Public trust in schools is eroding not just because of ideological concerns, but because of decades of academic failure. Conservatives cannot demand competence from police and fire departments while dismissing it in education. Penny Schwinn’s nomination is an opportunity to refocus on what matters: ensuring that America’s schools fulfill their twin missions of cultural transmission and competence.

Eli Hager and his colleagues at ProPublica have published some eyebrow-raising articles lately about Arizona’s universal education savings account (ESA) program. Most recently, Hager dug into its testing and accountability requirements—or lack thereof. When it comes to the public’s ability—and that of policymakers—to know whether Arizona’s program, or the schools and other vendors that it’s funding, are effective, there’s zilch, nada, nothing.

Yet Arizona turns out to be something of an outlier. Most school choice programs—including education savings accounts programs, especially those enacted in recent years—come with some testing mandates. Granted, there isn’t as much transparency or accountability as I’d like. As I told Hager, “If you’re a private school that gets most of its money now from the public…there should be accountability for you, as there is for public schools. If the public is paying your bills, I don’t see what the argument is for there not to be.”

Yet in many other states, there’s more of it than conventional wisdom assumes. Table 1 provides a detailed look at testing, transparency, and accountability requirements, pulled from a recent Rand analysis, as well as Education Week, FutureEd, and (especially) EdChoice.

Table 1: Testing, transparency, and accountability requirements in America’s largest private school choice programs[1]

Since 2021 — the “Year of School Choice”— 15 states have created or expanded 16 large school choice programs. And the only one without a testing requirement is Arizona’s. Notably, 11 of the 16 programs are education savings accounts.

Moreover, if we look at all 21 programs included here (going all the way back to the 1990s), 15 include requirements to report test results to the state. As Rand recently argued, that means that high-quality studies of most of these programs should be feasible.

That said, whether the results are then reported to parents or disappear into a black hole is less clear. Only a handful of states — including Ohio, Wisconsin, and Louisiana — currently put school-by-school results on public websites. It’s hard to tell if the newer programs intend to do so in the future. If we want parents to be able to make school choice decisions using performance data, we need to do better.

As for accountability — kicking schools or other providers out of the program due to poor student results — there’s much less to report. Though given that there’s very little accountability for public schools these days, that’s not surprising. Indeed, we might be impressed that it exists in the private school choice sector at all. Louisiana, in particular, has long had a policy to remove schools from its programs for poor academic performance—a provision legislators maintained in its newest iteration. West Virginia, on the other hand, has a curious policy to kick students out of its program if they fail to make academic progress or land among the lowest-performing students in the state. I’m typically in favor of student accountability, but this version feels somewhat misguided even to me!

There are lots of arguments opponents make against education savings accounts, tax-credit scholarship programs, and other forms of private school choice. But the complaint that schools aren’t required to test their students is a charge that isn’t based in reality, save for a few exceptions. Consider the record set straight!

Special thanks to Fordham’s research intern Ali Schalop for her assistance in gathering and analyzing data for this article.

This fictional press release outlines a transformational approach to the typical school calendar, creating two different grade-level entry points and offering the promise of improving academic outcomes as well as the PK–12 education profession.

In Neonetos (Greek for “new year”) Public Schools, January isn’t just about New Year’s resolutions—it’s about new beginnings for half of our student body. While many districts across the country are returning from winter break to continue their academic year, thousands of Neonetos students are starting fresh in new grades, with new teachers and new opportunities. This isn’t a quirk in our calendar. It’s a deliberate innovation that’s transforming how we think about learning time.

“When we first proposed this calendar, there were naturally a lot of questions,” recalls Dr. Sarah Chen, Superintendent of Neonetos Public Schools. “But we knew we needed a bold solution to address learning gaps and provide more flexibility for our students and teachers. The results have exceeded our expectations.”

Our bifurcated school year creates two distinct entry points: first in July after Independence Day, then in January after the New Year. At those times, half our students are either beginning or midway through their academic year. This unique approach, while unconventional, has yielded remarkable benefits for our entire school community.

Addressing pandemic learning loss with precision

When we first implemented this system in summer 2023, it provided an elegant solution to one of education’s most pressing challenges: pandemic learning loss. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach, we gave about half of our students a “third semester,” an additional five months of instruction in their current grade level. The results were phenomenal. We received a waiver from the state to administer two testing windows in late spring and late fall with students only completing the test once per year. The percentage of students who participated in the third semester extended year and met or exceeded expectations in math and reading went from less than 1 percent in spring 2023 to 64 percent in late fall 2024, with most of the non-proficient students scoring at the “approaching expectations” level.

“As a parent, I was initially concerned about my daughter getting held back,” shares Amanda Torres, mother of a fifth grader. “But that extra semester made all the difference. She caught up on math concepts, passed the state math test in the fall, and her confidence soared. Now she’s thriving.”

Flexible grade progression for individual needs

Our system revolutionized how we handle grade-level retention and advancement decisions. Instead of requiring students to repeat an entire academic year when they need additional support, we can now retain students for just six months—the second semester of their current grade level--to catch up. For advanced students, we can promote them by a more developmentally appropriate half-grade level at any time.

Marcus Williams, an eighth-grade student, explains: “When I was struggling with pre-algebra, my teachers gave me an extra semester to really get it. Instead of feeling rushed, I had time to understand the concepts. Now math is one of my favorite subjects as I look forward to starting high school with my friends this January!”

Supporting teacher growth, work-life balance, and recruitment

Our calendar innovation extends beyond student benefits to support teacher development, well-being, and recruitment. Every five years, our teachers now earn a six-month partially-paid sabbatical for professional growth and renewal. Teachers end a school year in December or May with their students and return six months later with students starting a new academic year, minimizing mid-year turmoil.

“My sabbatical transformed my teaching,” says David Parker, a veteran elementary school English teacher. “I spent three months studying innovative science of reading literacy programs in Mississippi, and three months developing a new curriculum. When I returned in January, I brought fresh perspectives and energy to my classroom.”

Our new parental leave policy for teachers has also made a difference. “Being able to take a full six months off and return at the start of a new year made such a difference,” notes Rebecca Foster, a fourth-grade teacher. “I didn’t have to worry about my students having multiple transitions, and I could fully focus on my newborn, knowing my return would align perfectly with a new school year.”

Having multiple entry points to the school year also means multiple opportunities to capture career changers who are ready to become teachers and midyear college graduates with education degrees, giving us the chance to capture top talent earlier than nearby competing districts.

Minimizing learning loss, maximizing learning time

Our year-round calendar with two one-month breaks instead of the traditional two-month summer break has shown impressive results in reducing learning loss. “The shorter breaks really help me stay sharp,” says Emma Chen, a tenth-grade student. “I don’t forget as much over break, and it’s easier to get back into the rhythm of school. Plus, having breaks in June and December means better weather for sports and outdoor activities.”

Sofia Rodriguez, parent of three Neonetos students, adds: “The new calendar actually works better for our family. Instead of scrambling to find two months of summer activities, we plan shorter but more engaging experiences during the breaks. The kids come back refreshed but not disconnected from their learning.”

Planning and communication for the 2023 transition year

The success of Neonetos’s bifurcated calendar began with methodical planning and transparent communication starting a full year before implementation. According to Dr. Chen, “You can’t overstate the importance of that preparation year. We began conversations with teachers and families in summer 2022, well before our July 2023 transition.”

The district developed a multi-layered communication approach that was designed to reach every family. “Having those early conversations with families was crucial,” says Maria Torres, Family Engagement Coordinator. “Parents need time to understand the benefits, adjust their planning, and feel confident about their children’s paths forward.”

Teachers received comprehensive professional development that focused on both the logistics of the new calendar and the pedagogical implications for teachers who would continue with one group of students for the third semester. They learned how to utilize formative assessment data to restructure content and pacing charts to meet students where they are and accelerate their learning in July 2023, with the goal of passing the state assessment in their assigned grade in fall 2024, the equivalent of three semesters later.

The district prioritized keeping students who needed extra time with their current teachers whenever possible. “This continuity was vital,” explains Dr. Emily Santos, Director of Student Services. “Students could continue their learning journey with a teacher who already understood their needs, in a classroom community they knew.”

Check out our full implementation timeline.

Looking forward

“What started as a pandemic response has evolved into a model that better serves everyone in our educational community,” reflects Superintendent Chen. “We’re seeing higher student achievement, improved teacher retention, and stronger family engagement. Other districts are starting to take notice, and we’re excited to share what we’ve learned.”

The bifurcated school year represents more than just a calendar change. It’s a fundamental reimagining of how we structure learning time. By aligning our academic calendar with the natural rhythm of learning and development, we’re creating a more responsive, flexible, and effective educational environment for both students and teachers.

As Jason Martinez, president of our teachers union, puts it: “This calendar looked radical on paper, but in practice, it just makes sense. Teachers are less burned out, students are more engaged, and we’re all wondering why we didn’t think of this sooner.”

A special issue of the Journal of School Choice is now out, focusing entirely on homeschooling research. It includes 16 studies from 23 authors at more than a dozen institutions. Hard data on homeschooling has long been scarce, so this issue is worthy of attention. Two of the studies in it are by Angela R. Watson, director of the Homeschool Research Lab at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy. The first provides descriptive data on homeschool participation before, during, and after the pandemic. The second, co-authored with Alanna Bjorklund-Young, digs into homeschool participation by race and ethnicity.

Plentiful were the reports that homeschooling participation had skyrocketed during Covid, but these were often anecdotal and riddled with confusion as to what constituted homeschooling during this unprecedented and chaotic time. Watson uses data from both the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, which was first administered at the height of the pandemic, and state-level data housed in Johns Hopkins’s Homeschool Hub that were gathered from individual state departments of education.

National Pulse data captured self-reported homeschooling participation at the height of the pandemic schooling disruption in 2021, with 21 percent of parents then reporting that their child was being homeschooled. In the 2022–23 school year, data from the same source show that nearly 6 percent of all K-12 students in America were homeschooled, compared to an estimated 2.8 percent before the pandemic. (For comparison, private school students represented around 9 percent of the total school-aged population in 2022, and charter school students represented 7 percent.) By 2023–24, several years after the start of the pandemic, Pulse data show that the homeschool percentage was holding at 6 percent. 

To bolster the self-reported data, which may be messy as a result of parents’ understanding of homeschooling, Watson examines data from about half of the states that have maintained longitudinal trends on homeschooling—some for up to 20 years. Unfortunately, consequential states like Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Arizona are missing because they don’t mandate reporting of homeschooling status. Since most school enrollment reporting is conducted in the fall, Watson uses the 2019-20 school year as the baseline comparison to measure net growth in homeschool participation going into and out of the pandemic. The key finding is that net growth has decreased since the height of the pandemic but is still above pre-pandemic levels. Specifically, she estimates an average pre-pandemic rate of homeschool participation growth of 4 percent. Interestingly, in the most recent year (2023-24), there was a clear pattern of regrowth in homeschooling that obviously can’t be attributed to the pandemic.

More specifically, this is how it played out over time: Since 2010, homeschooling in general has increased by around two to seven percent per year. It rose by a whopping 39 percent in the 2020–21 school year; declined by 3 percent in 2021–22; and shrank by another 7 percent in 2022–23. But then data indicate that the decline reversed in the 2023–24 school year, with homeschool participation increasing by 4 percent over the prior year. All but 2 of the 20 states with data for this particular analysis showed such a rebound in 2023-24. (For what it’s worth, analysts say that we saw a similar pattern of rebound after the Great Recession was over.)  All that said, data from one of the two exceptions, New Hampshire, is called into question. That state’s decline, Watson finds, coincides with a huge increase in participation in New Hampshire’s universal Education Freedom Accounts (aka education savings accounts or ESAs), propelled by an expansion of eligibility and a boost in funding. Homeschooled students in The Granite State could use the ESA benefits but, if they did, the state no longer counted them as homeschooled. In other words, their outlier status is likely more about changes in reporting than decreases in homeschooling.

Some reports find that student safety is a primary factor driving the decision to homeschool, even surpassing moral/religious and academic concerns. Watson speculates, too, that the explosion of new school choice legislation during and after the pandemic emboldened curious families and that the growing acceptability of choice may mean that families are more comfortable reporting their homeschool status.

The companion report by Watson and Johns Hopkins senior research and policy analyst Alanna Bjorklund-Young examines “the changing face” of homeschooling. Two different data sources show that homeschooled students are more racially diverse than 25 years ago. For instance, the National Household Education Survey (NHES) finds that the portion of White homeschooled students decreased by 4 percentage points from 1998 to 2023, mirrored by an increase of 4 percentage points among students of color. But NHES also uses a more traditional definition of homeschooling that likely underreports participation because of the various innovations—think school co-ops, micro-schools, and hybrid schools—that became go-to options during Covid and are still with us today.

Taken together, these reports point to the need for a better definition of homeschooling that captures its variations without confusing everyone. It once conjured the idea of a stay-at-home mother educating her children around the kitchen table. But homeschooling is not limited to a home location; it’s a flexible approach to education that allows kids to learn outside the traditional classroom. Still, one can’t blame parents for confusing it, for instance, with full-time virtual schooling since both occur outside the traditional classroom and often take place in the home.

We also need to adjust our conventional thinking about homeschooling. Outdated is the stereotype that it is confined to White, upper-income, Christian families who educate their children at home out of a faith that distrusts public education. As the data improve, so will our picture of homeschooling in America today. And the burgeoning of school choice demands nothing less.

SOURCE: Angela R. Watson, “Homeschool Participation: Post-Pandemic Persistence and Growth Trends,” Journal of School Choice (December 2024).

SOURCE: Alanna Bjorklund-Young and Angela R. Watson, “The Changing Face of American Homeschool: A 25-Year Comparison of Race and Ethnicity,” Journal of School Choice (December 2024).

Conducting empirical research on homeschooling is complicated by two factors. One is the overall lack of longitudinal data on the topic—especially data not reported by survey or other voluntary means. The other is lack of clarity as to what precisely constitutes “homeschooling” in the first place, especially as educational options have broadened in recent years (virtual schools, micro-schooling, ESAs, etc.). A new report from the Journal of School Choice clearly illustrates the issues homeschooling researchers face and offers a couple of insights for further work.

Researcher Albert Cheng of the University of Arkansas uses five nationally representative data sets to construct a picture of the information available on homeschooling. Three of these focus on school-aged children in the U.S. who were being homeschooled at the time their families were surveyed for the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) in 2012, 2016, and 2019. The other two focus on U.S. adults who report ever having been homeschooled. Importantly, the adult surveys include full education histories for the respondents, which allows Cheng to identify times when they were most likely not being homeschooled (i.e., formally attending a public or private school). The observable patterns of students moving into and out of homeschooling prove interesting and important.

First up, findings from the Understanding America Study (UAS), conducted between February 2016 and October 2022 by the University of Southern California’s Center for Economic and Social Research. Among those who reported ever having been homeschooled, the majority either did so for only one to two years total (43 percent), or else for all of their primary and secondary education careers (11 percent). The remainder ranged between three and nine years of homeschooling. Very few adults reported being homeschooled for 10 or 11 years. Adults who were homeschooled for only one year spent about 10 years in traditional public schools. Adults who were homeschooled for two or three years were enrolled in traditional public schools for about eight years. Meanwhile, adults who were homeschooled for four or five years spent nearly an equal amount of time in traditional public schools. Private school attendance was low across the board for UAS homeschoolers, but peaked for students reporting six (2.4 years), four (1.9 years), and seven (1.5 years) years of homeschooling. Interestingly, some of those mid-range homeschoolers also reported from one-half to nearly a full year spent not attending school at all during their K-12 careers.

Next, findings from the 2023 Education Survey fielded by Cardus, a Canada-based research entity. Their most recent U.S. survey sought to “examine the school-sector effect in the lives of a nationally representative sample of high school graduates, aged 24 to 39.” The results are remarkably similar to those of UAS: Thirty-six percent of respondents who were ever homeschooled did so for just one or two years while 17 percent did so for all of their primary and secondary education. The mid-range homeschooling durations were also similar, as were the splits between non-homeschooling time spent in traditional public (a lot) versus private schools (a little).

According to both UAS and Cardus, the grade levels at which students moved into and out of homeschooling were all over the map. For example, nearly one-third of adults who were homeschooled in eighth grade exited homeschooling for ninth grade, which could make some intuitive sense given the greater complexity of high school-level curricula and/or the numerous requirements for adequate college preparation. At the same time, though, 64 percent of ever-homeschooled adults were enrolled in formal schools in eighth grade and only about six percent of them moved to homeschooling for ninth grade. Such dichotomies exist at other grade levels, too, indicating what is likely a wide variety of motivations (unobservable in the data at this level) for families choosing to start or end homeschooling at any given time. The main point is that the choice to homeschool seems to be under evaluation at all times among this population.

Finally, Cheng uses the (admittedly incomplete) data from three administrations of NHES as a sort of robustness check on the other survey results, and finds broad congruence. For example, one out of every five NHES children who were being homeschooled at the time of data collection in 2012 had been homeschooled for less than 20 percent of their years of schooling, while 36 percent of those children reported being homeschooled for all of the educational career they had completed at the time of the survey.

These findings, confounding as they may seem, actually provide interesting food for thought for future research on homeschooling. For instance, only a small percentage of students likely fit the definition of “homeschooled” if that is limited to students who never attended a formal public or private school. Indeed, the findings generally reject easy dichotomous comparison between “homeschooled” and “non-homeschooled” students, given the amount of movement between sectors that’s evident in these data. There is a whole continuum of students—probably the majority of those who would cop to the “homeschooled” label—who have actually experienced varying amounts of each type of education. It’s likely that even more students could opt for the “homeschooled” label in the wake of pandemic innovations and post-pandemic school choice expansion. And since those options muddy the definition of “homeschooling” further, future analysts must hone their meanings and refine their comparisons according to the truer picture of what homeschooling is and isn’t, even before they start examining their data.

SOURCE: Albert Cheng, “The Year-By-Year Primary and Secondary Education Histories of Homeschooled Individuals and the Implications for Empirical Homeschooling Research,” Journal of School Choice (December 2024).

On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Brian Kisida, Associate Professor at the Truman School of Government & Public Affairs at the University of Missouri, joins Mike and David to discuss his recent Education Next article, which reports on what high school students are hearing from their teachers about racism in America. Then, on the Research Minute, Amber shares a study about how test-optional policies at elite universities hurt high-achieving, disadvantaged students.

Recommended content:

• Brian Kisida, Gary Ritter, Jennifer Gontram, J. Cameron Anglum, Heidi H. Erickson, Darnell Leatherwood, and Matthew H. Lee., “Bridging the Divide over Critical Race Theory in America’s Classrooms,” Education Next (November 1, 2024).
• Frederick Hess, “It’s a Crisis! It’s Nonsense! How Political Are K–12 Classrooms?,” Education Next (Winter 2025).
• Bruce Sacerdote, Douglas O. Staiger & Michele Tine, How Test Optional Policies in College Admissions Disproportionately Harm High Achieving Applicants from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, NBER (2025)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our podcast? Send them to Stephanie Distler at [email protected].

Cheers

• Welcome to PoliSci 0193, Tufts University’s course on American Conservatism. Your professor, Eitan Hersch, will lead students to a better understanding of conservative thought through research and debate. “There are people in that class—people on the left, I mean—who I’m sure disagree with each other” about any given issue, Hersh says, “…but they can see the challenge and they can learn… I want that to be the norm of the university.” —Wall Street Journal

• On the final day of National School Choice Week, the U.S. Department of Education announced it was withdrawing a raft of “burdensome” regulations on charter schools, issued in the waning days of the Biden Administration. —United States Department of Education

• Looking at the impacts of desegregation through an economic lens, Roland Fryer says that racial integration isn’t merely a moral or ethical endeavor but an economic necessity when access to important developmental resources are on the line. Access to resources is fundamental to black progress, he writes, while interaction with whites is less a less vital outcome. —The Wall Street Journal

• When education leadership and training are commandeered by those who dismiss the traditional work of schooling, learning suffers. “Ugly” NAEP results tell the tale. —Education Next

• Economists Alison Baulos and James Heckman downplay the recent NAEP scores, repeating the long-discredited canard that such tests don’t really show what students are really capable of. —Hechinger Report

• Looking at the impacts of desegregation through an economic lens, Roland Fryer says that racial integration isn’t merely a moral or ethical endeavor but an economic necessity when access to important developmental resources are on the line. —The Wall Street Journal

• When analyzing the NAEP reading results, don’t focus on phonics alone. Content knowledge is a big part of the story. —Natalie Wexler

• Even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that religious charter schools are allowable, Greg Richmond says there’s a strong case for religious schools not to take the plunge. He's been both the Superintendent of Schools for the Archdiocese of Chicago and the leader of Chicago's Charter Schools Office; so he ought to know. —CharterFolk