You know, some of us went through the university education curriculum once upon a time. At App. St. every education major had to take "audiovisual instruction", which was a two-hour credit. In that class we were taught to have a hook in the wall behind the screen you pull down so that you can hook the screen to it and eliminate "the keystone effect".
There was a block of instruction on this, and we had to test on it as a competency in order to pass (I am not kidding in the slightest),
So, when the point is raised about how Charters can hire those who aren't certified, I can only respond:
I wish I could say that it was the only education class that was a waste of time, but it wasn't, it was only the worst example.
So, if charters want to hire a kid who had another math or history or English class in place of that then I'm completely in favor of that. The bureaucracy surrounding all of this was built up over time and can't be quickly reformed. But charters are popular because parents do want some choice. They don't want some indifferent public functionary telling them where their kid will go to school, even if the school is horrible and the teachers are just counting down the days until they can get their pension (I saw plenty of those in the brief time I was in the classroom).
I've said it before, but it bears repeating-I hope the Democrats make it a point to run against school reform and school choice in every election. I want them to go before parents and say, "we know best regarding your kids". Please carry on with that.