Freddie deBoer delivers a jarring, necessary correction to the sanitized narrative surrounding school choice: the most celebrated charter schools succeed not because of superior teaching, but because they systematically exclude the students who are hardest to teach. While policy debates often get lost in abstract metrics, deBoer cuts through the noise with a blunt admission from the ground level—that many parents and educators view the removal of "bad kids" as the primary feature of the charter model, not a bug. This is essential listening for anyone trying to understand why the promise of universal educational excellence keeps colliding with the reality of classroom dynamics.
The Mechanics of Exclusion
The author's central thesis challenges the integrity of the data used to champion charter schools. He argues that the impressive test scores of elite charter networks are largely an illusion created by "admissions chicanery" and aggressive attrition. Freddie deBoer writes, "The fact that hundreds of charter schools have been caught cheating the admissions process points directly to the fact that there's no magic happening in the charter school space; as usual, there's just the overwhelming power of selection effects in educational outcomes." This observation reframes the entire debate from one of pedagogical innovation to one of statistical manipulation.
The argument gains significant traction when deBoer highlights the candidness of charter parents who openly admit they seek these schools to filter out disruptive peers. He notes that for these families, the ability to "give poor families the same ability to filter out the lowest-performing students as rich families do when they send their kids to pricey private schools" is the whole point. This is a stark departure from the usual rhetoric of "equity" and "opportunity." The author suggests that the mandate for universal K-12 education has created a tension where the least motivated students are viewed as obstacles rather than beneficiaries. Critics might argue that this perspective ignores the systemic failures of traditional public schools that lead to disruption in the first place, but deBoer's point is that the solution of simply removing the problem students does not solve the underlying educational crisis.
"Simply creating artificial separation between different students is not a strategy for 'educational excellence.' It's just segregation. It might not be racial segregation, explicitly, but it's still segregation."
The Historical Echo of Cherry-Picking
DeBoer anchors his critique in historical precedent, drawing a direct line between modern charter practices and the long history of exclusion in American education. He references the work of Robert Pondiscio regarding Success Academy, noting that the school's founder, Eva Moskowitz, effectively "cherry-picks parents" rather than just students. As Freddie deBoer puts it, "Success Academy is cherry-picking parents. Parents who are not put off by uniforms, homework, reading logs and constant demands on their time, but who view those things as evidence that here, at last, is a school that has its act together." This selection process acts as a proxy for academic ability, filtering out families who cannot meet the rigorous time commitments or behavioral expectations.
The author also points to the historical transparency of this strategy among charter pioneers. He recalls how Geoffrey Canada, of the Harlem Children's Zone, once bragged about a 0% dropout rate despite the fact that his cohorts shrank every year because he expelled students who fell below his standards. DeBoer writes, "If you expel the kids who are hard to teach, you can't turn around and brag about how good you are at teaching students! It's like expelling all the kids who have asthma and bragging about how good your school is at respiratory health." This analogy is devastatingly effective because it strips away the jargon of "accountability" to reveal the simple mechanics of roster pruning. The reference to Eva Moskowitz's Success Academy and the historical context of "cream skimming"—where the most capable students are siphoned off—adds depth to the argument that this is not a new phenomenon, but a repackaged one.
The Uncomfortable Truth of Student Agency
Perhaps the most provocative section of the piece is deBoer's insistence that school reformers often ignore the fundamental role of student will. He argues that the belief that any child can be taught regardless of their engagement is a dangerous fallacy. Freddie deBoer writes, "Education is not something that can be done to someone; it's something that requires at least a minimal act of will from the learner, and no reform agenda can engineer that away." This is a hard truth that many policy wonks, including those on the left, are reluctant to accept because it complicates the narrative of universal solvability.
The author suggests that the "crude pro-charter-selectivity argument" acknowledges a reality that reformers deny: some students simply do not want to learn, and no amount of data or better pedagogy will fix that. He challenges the "Jon Chait types" to sit in a classroom with a resistant child and try to teach them division. The implication is that the push for universal inclusion, while morally sound, often leads to the public school system becoming a "school of last resort" for the most challenging students, which in turn depresses outcomes and fuels the demand for exit strategies. A counterargument worth considering is that labeling students as "unwilling" can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that excuses a lack of support for trauma, poverty, or undiagnosed learning disabilities. However, deBoer's point remains that ignoring the element of student agency makes the comparison between charter and public schools fundamentally flawed.
"The demand for universality in school reform rhetoric... breaks apart on the rocks of the reality that some students simply aren't willing to do what it takes to learn."
Bottom Line
Freddie deBoer's most powerful contribution is his refusal to accept the polite fiction that charter schools are achieving miracles through teaching; instead, he forces a confrontation with the reality that they are often achieving results through exclusion. The argument's greatest vulnerability is its potential to be used to justify abandoning the most vulnerable students, yet its strength lies in its honesty about the limits of educational reform. Readers should watch for how this tension between the ideal of universal education and the practical desire for selective environments will shape the next decade of school policy debates.