|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - January/February 2004 / PRO-CON: Charter Schools Take Our Eye Off the Prize |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
PRO-CON: Charter Schools Take Our Eye Off the Prize |
|
|
|
Written On: January/February 2004 |
|
|
|
Written By: Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos (D - Seattle) |
|
|
|
Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos is a member of the House Education Committee. Santos represents the 37th District, which includes Seattle and parts of Renton.
I’m not sure when or if the time will come when Washington would be wise to add charter schools to the state’s education system. From my perspective, the time has clearly not yet arrived and the voters of our state have twice confirmed this opinion. While charter school supporters can cite many reasons why this choice is needed, I believe that there are equally as many reasons to be skeptical of this latest educational trend.
My opposition to charter schools is simple and straight-forward: In the provision of public services, separate is not equal and unequal is unfair. These basic tenets have been cornerstones of American public education since the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. If the state permits the establishment of separate public schools called charter schools, then we will have authorized the creation of an unequal and inequitable public education system for Washington students. Clearly, such a step moves us backward when we need to move forward into the future.
A public education system that includes charter schools, by its very nature, produces a two-class system wherein both are separate and unequal. No matter how well-intentioned we are, a two-class system will require the majority of public schools to operate under rules and regulations that have been adapted and adopted since Washington achieved statehood. At the same time, a two-class system gives a select group of “public” schools immunity from the rules, whether the rules are good or bad. This is unequal; this is unfair.
To be evenhanded, the only rules that charter school advocates claim to want eliminated are those which somehow stand in the way of our children’s education. My response is this: If we can identify rules or regulations that adversely affect student achievement in our public schools, then we should correct the situation. Change the law; change the regulation; solve the problem for all of our schools, not for just a few. By the same token, if any law or regulation plainly serves a critical educational or safety purpose for our students and schools, then common sense tells me the rule or regulation should remain in effect at all schools. To expect otherwise is not equal; it is not fair.
Universal public education is not only a fundamental American birthright, it is a vital function of government. This is why I believe inequities in our public education system should not be funded with scarce public dollars, especially now when our existing schools need all the help we can provide. We count on our public school system to prepare students - all of them - to be well-rounded members of society who are able to succeed in the 21st Century. This, as most will agree, is an incredibly important job and we should hold our system of public education accountable for getting this important job done.
In my view, the way to ensure this kind of accountability for public education is through the ballot box. Three levels of government – federal, state and district – share in the responsibility for and, thus, should rightly be held accountable for the performance of our public schools. Charter schools, on the other hand, cannot be held accountable through these time-honored mechanisms of democracy. Yet these schools would be funded through our public tax dollars and would not be subject to the same measures of accountability or rules of operation. This is unequal; this is unfair.
I recognize that charter-school proponents sincerely believe we should explore all the possible avenues that might result in improved learning for our children. I’m also aware that many community leaders see charter schools as a potentially powerful tool for closing the academic achievement gap for students of color and for those who participate in the free and reduced lunch program. I appreciate these sentiments and concede that, in a few documented instances, charter schools might have proved useful and effective in boosting academic performance.
Nonetheless, I believe that the most decisive determinant of quality education already exists here: That is, the power and the political will to improve all public schools in Washington state, rather than focusing our reform efforts on a few select schools and overlooking the rest. I believe the students in my neighborhood schools and yours will benefit most from an education policy that improves each and every single school from the Pacific to the Palouse. If we make each classroom a vital laboratory of learning, we will provide every student in our state an equal education that adequately prepares him or her to succeed in the 21st Century and to realize the personal, economic and societal benefits that will follow. This is what is equal; this is what is fair; this is what, I hope, is our future together as one state.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
