Washington voters have rejected charter schools three times for good reason.
In a 16-state study of 2,403 charter schools conducted by Stanford University, charter schools performed no better than typical public schools (credo.stanford.edu). Also, the researchers state, "failing charter schools often have powerful and persuasive supporters in their communities who feel strongly that shutting down this school does not serve the best interests of currently enrolled students."
Parents Across America (parentsacrossamerica.org) reports on problems with charter schools, including a lack of transparency and accountability, discriminatory policies and practices, enrolling fewer English language learners, discipline policies that are unduly punitive, low-performing students who are encouraged to leave and charging burdensome fees and penalties. It is reasonable to assume that not all charter schools display these problems, but they are all too common.
Delta High School is a credit to our community yet it begs the question, if it is already possible to make a school like Delta, why do we need charter schools?
The major question is, if the state Supreme Court found that our state is not adequately funding basic education, why add the expense of funding new schools?
Washington voters should continue to make the right choice.
-- Daniel Bell, Kennewick
Similar stories:
Fast Focus: Look beyond propaganda
Fast Focus: Look beyond propaganda
As we consider charter schools for our state we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of charter schools and take a hard look at research on charter schools.
If the purpose of charter schools is to increase the academic performance of our students, the broad research on the academic performance of charter schools compared to traditional public schools is mixed at best.
There is no agreement among researchers that charter schools outperform public schools.
It's time to take a look at charter schools (again)
It's time to take a look at charter schools (again)
Washington voters have rejected charter schools three times but things are different now.
Today, we are one of only eight states that don't allow charter schools. It's not always a good idea to follow the herd, but when everyone else is on a different path, it's prudent to find out why.
In any case, there is an advantage to being one of the last to join the party. Other states already have broken ground, leaving a smooth path for those that follow.
Fast Focus: Not the answer
Fast Focus: Not the answer
Charter schools have been tried across the country for 20 years. They are no magic bullet. They are just an alternative way of organizing schools that runs the risk of reducing oversight, and especially local oversight, of the expenditure of public funds.
In 2009, Stanford University published the only comprehensive assessment of the performance of charter schools. The study, Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States, encompassed more than 70 percent of the charter school students in the United States.
The study found that 37 percent of all charters had significantly worse academic outcomes than traditional public schools, and 46 percent, or nearly half, did no better than a traditional public school with similar demographics. In other words, there was an 83 percent chance that a randomly selected charter school would either do significantly worse or no better than a traditional public school.
Fast Focus: No to charter schools!
Fast Focus: No to charter schools!
These schools are governed by private school boards selected by a nonprofit corporation rather than elected by the citizens, taking away the right to elect representatives to oversee the spending of taxpayers' funds. Charter schools will be exempt from state statutes and rules applicable to school districts and boards, creating a separate and unequal school system. The Supreme Court just ruled the state is not funding the public schools it already has, let alone any new ones.
If the idea sounds good, then allow public schools the flexibility to create schools within the existing districts that will meet the needs of the students. -- Judy Golberg, Richland
Fast Focus: It works elsewhere
Fast Focus: It works elsewhere
Since we have no experience in charter schools here, I can only state what works for my grandchildren in California. The advantages they receive by having community, parents and teachers reaching for the highest standards in education, the children thrive. They are active in every facet of learning from theater to advanced reading and math. There is friendship between all of the families with the emphasis on growing leaders and happy, well-adjusted, world-oriented adults. Since our education system is lacking in Washington, why not study the outcome of other states that do allow charter schools?
-- Sandy Stroben, Kennewick
Print
Email Story
