hee, hee...you Chaits are scrappy. Maybe after the tea and scones, you can ask Will to go outside and play catch and we can finally determine if Will throws like a girl...

"Beer-swilling?" as the first phrase in your piece?  What dreck.  

On a more serious note, what Will contends is really nonsense. I have dedicated my adult life to working in public education in all kinds of districts, and I can tell you that more resources, better teachers, and yes, more involved parents make the difference. But to imply that demographics and entrenched sociological patterns renders all interventions pointless is more than stupid, it ignores the data that La Chait cites, and it runs against the grain of a basic American shibboleth: That education is the great leveler. I know that my life, in so many ways, is testament to people, unlike Will, who really believed that scrawny brown street rat could rise beyond Clela Street in East LA. I am glad that the prissy Will was never one of my teachers.

Robin's citation of sketchy facts (the causal links between charters and achievement is far from established and perhaps refuted depending on which studies you believe) is no more impressive than Will's citation of outdated facts (we know a lot more today -- and society and its educational system have changed -- than we did in the early 1960s).

P.S. Is it really a feud if the high circulation columnist doesn't acknowledge the existence of the so-called foe at TNR?  I love TNR and enjoy reading TRB, but it's unbecoming to try to elevate this into a two-way intellectual dialogue.

I was reminded while reading Judis's biography of Buckley that George Will kicked off his career as an anti-populist . When he was NR's Washington correspondent, he irritated many of the editors -- though not Buckley himself -- by refusing to blunt his criticism of Spiro Agnew, who he called "Nixon's Nixon" and evidently believed to be a boor (fair enough). Even then, Will was seen as a bit of a prig.

Having experienced education courses first-hand, I know what Will means when he talks about the crazy fads to which teacher candidates are exposed, but when did the desire for smaller class sizes become a "shopworn panacea"? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the difference between teaching 170 students per day (5 classes of 34) versus 125 (5 classes of 25). I wonder which group of kids gets the most attention in class and comments on papers? Unless you assume the teacher is totally incompetent (and Will seems to make that assumption--especially if the teacher belongs to a union), class size has to make a difference.

don't forget George Will's sports machine!

www.nbc.com/.../play.shtml

But, contra Ms Chait, Mr Will was not focussing on black or poor children . . . he was talking about children from dysfunctional, one-parent families.  So, to say that poor or black or poor black kids in charter schools can do well does not answer his point . . . unless you can say the charter school kids are not only black and poor but also from single-parent families.  Maybe so, maybe no, but that has to be part of the argument.

Follow up:  Ms Chait begins by noting that Will and Moynihan were discussing "family structure and poverty" . . . but then all she ever addresses is "poor children."  Misdirection, because, I assume, that is all that fits her mindview.

"see if Will throws like a girl"?

I don't get the acrimony, Jonathan. Just out of curiosity, do you or have had any kids in the public school system in the last 20- 30 years?

Do you disagree with the idea that a stable home life is likely to be conducive to the educational well being of a young student?

The reason my children's charter school was a success is due in large part to the license which they took to ignore most all of the 'imperatives' which were emphasized in the larger public educational community. The priority of unearned self esteem diminished and served as an unhealthy gravity toward mediocrity. Real achievement was downplayed so as not to offend the sensibilities of those less talented.

Inasmuch that this charter school did not extend beyond 7th grade I found it necessary to send my kids to a private school. We gave public high school a try. One of my daughters was told that she was a B student but that was okay. She was a good person just the way she was. Well. This particular school had two kinds of students..... A and B students. Everybody was a winner. One straw. When my A student daughter brought home a science project which received accolades praise I agreed that it was a wonderful effort...... for a 5 year old. Last straw.

I'm happy to say that both of these girls are doing quite well in their respective universities. They thank me often for having sent them to private high school as the habits, work load and expectation aren't the rude surprise which their public school counterpart often express.

Incidently I live in the area of one of the more highly regard public school systems. The only reason the charter school I mentioned was created was at the insistence and determined lobbying of concerned parents. The success of this school has been downplayed from the git and continues to be a source of derision for the board and its officers. This despite the fact that these kids consistently score much higher than the district at large. Concerned parents is a huge part of the equation. Teachers that accept their station as arbiters of standards is the other.

Obviously I think that beer swilling Will has a lot of it right.

Splendid comments, especially rcansler and boxo.

George Will has more intellectual heft on this subject in his fingernail parings than the entire Chait family has demonstrated here. Too bad they probably don't read the comments, or for that matter apparently do any research on public education that involves actual students and parents as something other than numbers.

Tea is actually drank so much in Britain because it's incredibly cheap. Sure, it has become a national icon, a la Apple Pie in America. But there shouldn't be upper class connotations to tea drinking, unless you're an abject anglophile like Will.

pccostello,

yeah, the movement of the arm, during the throw, originates from a locked elbow and the fore arm and hand stay as one as the girly thrower pushes the ball, without any zip, to the other person.  Think of coed softball games from junior high school and you have the perfect vision of George Will throwing a baseball.  Maybe you too, for all I know...