Kalamazoo Promise versus charter school vouchers: Which is the better philanthropic model for education?

After president Obama visited Kalamazoo, did it settle the debate between the Promise model and Charter schools? From the Grand Rapids Press:

The anonymous donors behind The Promise are using their money to boost public education -- and, by doing so, are creating community transformation in Kalamazoo.

Compare that to, say, Grand Rapids, which has its own cadre of philanthropists who have put significant money into education-related endeavors. But their cause tends to be charters and vouchers -- and, in terms of community transformation, there's little to show for it.

My point is not that charters and vouchers are bad. It's good for families to have options. But as reform efforts go, charters and vouchers have a mixed record, and they also affect a small segment of American students -- about 5 percent.

In bypassing traditional public schools, which educate the vast majority of American schoolchildren, reform occurs only on the margins, at best.

By contrast, The Promise taps into the power of public schools and its mission to educate the masses. One of the most distinctive and effective features of The Promise is its universality: Almost every graduate of Kalamazoo Public Schools qualifies -- regardless of family income, regardless of academic achievement.

What's your take?

Read the full article: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/kalamazoo_promise_versus_chart.html