make blanket statements like that. Actually, what he said was no one opposes "good" charter schools. So what it comes down to is this--what are "good" charter schools? Well, clearly they must be the ones that replace "bad" public schools.
Perhaps it's KIPP that's "good." It's good for our kids to spend many extra hours and days at school. They learn to "be nice and work hard." That trains them, I suppose, to work many extra hours as adults. That's a good thing, because over in Europe people work far fewer hours. That, I'm told, makes them "socialists," which is scary and dangerous. Even worse, everyone over there gets health care, even if they work for Taco Bell. They have unions that make demands, have power, and go on strike. This is also bad, because it indicates they are neither working hard nor being nice.
But the fact that Duncan thinks "no one" opposes whatever it is he's determined good charters to be is indicative of the bubble he's in. The New York Times recently posted a story suggesting charters don't produce better results than public schools. That's remarkable, considering the fact that 100% of the kids who attend have proactive parents.
I wonder whether Duncan knows or speaks to anyone who isn't either affiliated with charters, a hedge fund manager, or a politician owned by Bill Gates. He doesn't seem to require a lot of input. After all, his policies seem not to have worked in Chicago, yet he's replicating them nationwide anyway. I wonder who he consulted before he applauded the firing of an entire staff at a Rhode Island public school. Certainly he didn't squander his valuable time talking to teachers.