As for “people who read it know that it often editorialises in its stories” - well I don’t read it, so I just evaluated the article as I found it - rubbish - a mixture of describing some existing US program, with unsupported proposals and claims.

The article gives an example of how failing schools are ‘rescued’ by bringing in new management who have a mandate to restructure. The article goes on to say that the legislation does not go as far as allowing failing schools to close or teachers to be sacked, because the Democrats would block those measures. However, the article does suggest that greater management accountability for school performance, including publication of more data, penalties for under-performing schools, and the threat of management replacement, may have led to students performing better on certain tests.

As for more money, that was part of the overall package designed to win Democrat support, but the quote you’ve picked up on funding is 6 paragraphs below the quote on how schools are ‘rescued’. So it is grossly misleading to suggest that the package works by unconditionally handing over extra cash to schools that are doing poorly.

On your last quip, the Economist describes itself as a newspaper, not an academic journal, and people who read it know that it often editorialises in its stories.

I forced myself to read your Economist article. It doesn’t report that failing schools are closed, on the contrary they are rescued: “The act’s provisions for rescuing lousy schools have also done some good…. Democrats liked the extra money Mr Bush threw in to sweeten the deal” - are you suggesting extra money for failing schools?

The author proposes that “School funding could also be made dependent on how many parents choose to send their children to a particular school, so that good schools would expand and bad ones would close or be taken over.” But doesn’t explain, as you didn’t, how this could work - where are all the extra places in the better performing schools? how long would it take to provide those places, and what happens in the meantime to the kids stuck in failing schools?

And it claims that “The toughest obstacle to improving the worst is the strident opposition of the teachers’ unions to meritocracy.” but doesn’t offer any evidence. The article is rubbish.

And naturally more people are sending their kids to private schools these days - the government now subsidises it more heavily than they used to. This says nothing about whether the increased subsidisation is either a Good Thing or a Bad Thing - I’m just making the point that its observed effect is going to be to increase the number of kids in private schools.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8744594

It suggests that greater autonomy and accountability for school administrators could help improve student performance.

Because it won’t be just “bad schools” that need attention. What about 2 or 3 bad teachers, or a bad principal, in an otherwise good school ? I think assessment, examiners and appropriate action would be better.

And given that you have to book years ahead to have a chance of getting into elite schools, where are you going to move your child to? Not long ago the was a really sensational story about the local high school on the front page of our local paper: girls giving boys oral sex, the usual drugs story etc. That may have prompted some parents to want to move their kids, but where to ? I don’t imagine the schools with the better reputations (ie before the local paper get hold of a story about them) have lots of room for more kids.