Sometimes the most thought inspiring articles we read are not articles about big events or news, but rather commentaries about tricky issues or interesting research developments.

One of the most popular education beat writers who specializes in this latter form of writing is Jay Mathews, who has a weekly post called "Class Struggle" with the Washington Post. His latest article , called "Five Ways to Boost Charter Schools" got me to thinking about some of the proposals that researchers and edu-pundits out there have, especially in light of what I've seen in the charter school at which I teach.

The five strategies Mathews points out, which are actually strategies taken from two excellent education reform experts Andy Rotherham and Sara Mead (so I suppose that means this article ought to be called, "Reflections on reflections on reflections on charter schools), are the subject of this post. I'll talk about them below starting with the most obvious and critical solutions and ending with the more controversial ones.

Suggestion #1: Close down the low-performing schools! This should be an obvious way to improve the quality of charter schools, but it's one that is least implemented. It should be standard practice (and not a major news headline) when bad charter schools are evaluated for closing. But in order for this to happen, we'll need better data collection systems and better leadership from politicians who make decisions on school closures.

Suggestion #2: Knock down quantity barriers to opening charter schools... so long as suggestion #1 is also followed. What we need is a constant and fresh supply of new schools trying new and innovative strategies to serve our most at-risk kids--and then the courage to close down those schools which fail to meet our high standards. But too many states and cities are missing the mark on the first part of this equation by restricting the number of charter schools that can be opened within their limits.

Suggestion #3: Judge schools based on how much the students improve. This seems like it should be obvious, but it really hasn't been the major metric for judging charter schools so far. Schools have instead relied on measures of fiscal responsibility, some graduation rate data, some proficiency test data (which is different from year-to-year student gains), but very little in the way of student learning gains.

Suggestion #4: The parents shouldn't be the final judge - student learning gains should be! This runs hand-in-hand with the 3rd suggestion, but it isn't an obvious notion. The truth is - and I've seen this first hand with many of the parents in my school - some parents will send their kids to a certain school for the wrong reasons. Many of our students come to our school because they live nearby and can walk. That's all fine and well if our school is providing a better education than the public school they're coming from (or some other city charter school that may be offering busing), but from the parents I've spoken with, many of them followed the golden rule of real estate when picking our school: location, location, location. Policy makers must step in with a firm hand and emphasize student learning, student learning, student learning.

Suggestion #5: Pay attention to who is authorizing the charters! Specifically, let's not let local school boards authorize charters, since they're the ones who have the most institutional and entrenched motive to oppose them in the first place! Mead and Rotherham found that the nature of the authorizer had a strong effect on the quality of the school. Local school boards are the worst, universities, independent bodies (and some non-profit organizations), and state school boards do better. So let's act on these findings and give preference to those who have done better already!