State law and implementation matter

With respect to my UW colleague, Wayne Au misreads the evidence on charter-school research [“The false promise of charter schools,” Opinion, Jan. 31].

Au is correct that charter-school performance varies from state to state. This is necessarily true given that states have taken very different approaches to charter law and implementation.

But despite Au’s assertions, the charter record for urban and low-income kids is actually quite good and consistent.

There are inappropriate conclusions throughout Au’s commentary. For example, he dismisses Knowledge Is Power Program’s results on the assertion that some students leave. All of the recent KIPP studies have accounted for student turnover and still show unprecedented results for low-income students. Au also fails to cite strong charter results in New York City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Denver and many other cities.

It’s tempting to get pulled into the drama of selective studies to support one’s point. But to inform policy, it’s essential to look at the body of evidence from rigorous studies. When that’s done it’s clear that low-income kids benefit nationally from charters. And in some cities, it’s by impressive margins.

Even the CREDO study that Au cites shows that low-income/urban kids benefit from charters. CRPE commissioned a meta-analysis (a review of all rigorous studies) from Julian Betts, one of the top evaluation experts in the country. Betts found that charter schools tend to outperform district schools, particularly for low-income students.

In the end, the record on charter-school outcomes points to an important conclusion: state law and implementation matter.

Done right, charters can overcome most of the out-of-school factors Au cites, something that has rarely been achieved before in public education.

— Robin Lake, associate director, Center on Reinventing Public Education

Charter schools are not a fix for our education system

Wayne Au is correct — “charter schools are not a fix” for the challenges in the education system. In addition to not delivering improvements they also undermine already-in-place teaching standards and certification processes. Charter schools are nothing short of a full-frontal attack of our public-school teachers’ collective standards and rights.

In addition, there are grave discrepancies with public schools in their buildings and grounds. Charter facilities often are ill-suited for a broad educational experience.

Yes, some are good, but not enough.

— John A Richards, Tacoma

There are different rules for charter schools

Professor Wayne Au’s op-ed is right on — there is much about charter schools that the public doesn’t understand.

Charter-school boards lack public accountability. They can hire teaching staff with no credentials, they do not have to accept students with disabilities or health and behavior concerns. Of course this changes the whole educational picture, and makes comparing public schools and charter schools a farce.

Public schools accept every student. Students with serious health concerns, even those with life-threatening concerns, walk in our doors. School staff (nurse, counselor, psychologist) along with parents and medical-care providers make an Individual Health Plan, which that provides treatment and emergency care for that student so he/she is safe and healthy at school and can learn.

Charter schools take needed funding from public schools, yet do not have to play by the same rules.

What’s wrong with this picture?

— Mary Kathryn Myers, Kent