Guest columnists
Charter schools wrong course for more innovative education

By Darlene Flynn and James M. Welsh
Special to The Times

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

THE recently released analysis of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) by the American Federation of Teachers presents an important opportunity to review the performance of charter schools. It is the first study that accurately compares charter-school students and their traditional public-school counterparts. It clearly states that charter-school students exhibit lower achievement than traditional public-school students.

Specifically, charter-school students in fourth grade and eighth grade showed lower achievement than traditional public-school students in reading and math. These differences translate into about a half-year of schooling for fourth-grade reading and math and eighth-grade math.

The NAEP data adds to the growing body of evidence that charter-school students do not outperform comparable students in regular public schools and should raise serious questions about continuing to employ charters as a sanction under the No Child Left Behind Act. More importantly in Washington, it should give us pause as we consider whether to approve or reject Referendum 55, on the November ballot, that would establish charter schools in this state.

Proponents of charter schools around the nation are crying foul. They claim that it's too early to compare charter schools to public schools. They claim that the American Federation of Teachers has an agenda. Data like this spurs debate. As it should. Without it, charter-school supporters can avoid serious discussion and continue to insist that charter schools are the solution to the problem.

Charter-school proponents claim that their schools will raise student performance. They claim that charter schools will help disadvantaged students. But the federal data compiled and released recently shows that charter schools just don't deliver on those promises.

And, while charter-school supporters point to other studies and anecdotal information to show that charter schools can work, vying studies don't demonstrate who is right and who is wrong. They simply demonstrate that the possibility for success of children in charter schools is an unknown. Our children's education is too important to try experiments to see what works best.

Voters should seriously consider what is at stake. We should focus on fully understanding the importance of this information and the impact charter schools could have in this state. We should look with a cautious eye to the experiences in other states with charters. Stories like the California Charter Academy, which closed suddenly and left 10,000 children without a place to go to school just weeks before school started, are cause for concern.

The AFT analysis specifically considered whether a higher percentage of poor students and students of color in charter schools accounted for lower scores in the charter schools. The analysis concluded that, "In each of the three major subgroup comparisons (free-lunch eligibility, urban location, and race/ethnic group), charter school students performed no better and usually worse than students in other public schools." Was the promise of charter schools to fare no better than existing public schools? Shouldn't we seek strategies that offer much more than that for our students?

Charter schools have been touted as the right place for educators to innovate, free from many regulations. If innovative programs alone were all that it took to create quality schools, then we would already have consistently top-notch schools in Washington. There are more than 240 alternative schools around our state, educating more than 30,000 students. Our system of alternative schools that provides school choice is the most unique in the country, and yet our minority students, as well as most minority students across the country, still exhibit an achievement gap. Based on what we already know, this is not surprising.

We know that smaller class size, a well-qualified educator in every classroom and effective instructional practices provide quality results. We know that involved parents make a difference. We know that support for children before and after school is vitally important. Voters know this, too. That is why voters approved two initiatives to fund these very things in Washington's public schools. Instead of fully funding the education initiatives passed by the voters, the Legislature passed a charter-school bill that takes money away from our public schools. It ignored the fact that Washington voters have rejected charter-school initiatives twice in the past eight years.

Fortunately, educators in this state are not asleep at the wheel. Educators, parents and concerned citizens across Washington put a referendum on the Nov. 2 ballot aimed at preventing the charter-schools bill from taking effect and telling our legislators, one more time: fully fund our public schools. The way referendums work, voters can reject charter schools once and for all by rejecting Referendum 55.

Darlene Flynn is a member of the Seattle School Board. James M. Welsh is superintendent of the Shoreline School District.