Another point to add to Josh’s post below: The State Board is rigging the game by putting charter school applicants in a catch-22. If a charter school application puts forth a superb proposal that mirrors what KIPP successfully does (indeed, Prism’s application for Fayetteville arguably is similar to KIPP), then the applicant will be rejected for not being “innovative.” But if the charter school applicant proposes to try something brand new, then the applicant will be rejected for not having enough experience and for not having a proven track record.

In reality, of course, the “innovative” requirement is meaningless. At the end of the day, charter school applicants are trying to establish a school. Unless someone comes up with a way to transmit knowledge via electro-magnetic stimulation, or perhaps telepathy, the essence of a school is that teachers use curriculum to impart knowledge to students, which is something that human beings have known how to do for thousands of years. A slightly different curriculum here, a slightly different schedule there, a slightly different way of arranging the classroom over there — nothing that schools do is that innovative.