Open Response to, Charter School Considerations, by E.F.F.'s, Lynn Harsh:

Evergreen Freedom Foundation has consistently been behind the push to adopt Charter legislation in the state of Washington for nearly a decade now.  Considering that E.F.F. bills itself as a "conservative" think-tank, it is most curious that their position on Charters is no different than those who are completely supportive of the radical and sweeping reform measures undertaken in this state in 1993.  After a decade, however, everyone except bureaucrats, legislators, the Business Round Table, Futurists and now think-tanks, knows just how miserable these "reforms" have been and will continue to be.  Outcome-based education, with it's accompanying "awful WASL," is ridiculed by parents, students and educators alike. Daily, one reads more embarrassing information about the awful WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) and yet, the very people who were supposedly opposed to these reform measures, including E.F.F., have championed a so-called alternative, Charters, that are legally bound to these same measures.  One has to ask what possible choice there is in a measure that mandates compliance with the same education reform laws, the same awful WASL, the same "Essential Academic Learning Requirements" (AKA "outcomes," as in outcome-based education) that created the disaster that created the perceived need for public school "choice" in the first place.

Oh, but wait!  Now we learn that somehow the opposition to these reforms has suddenly just faded away...after all, E.F.F. tells us, "the majority of lawmakers in our state have decided that the EALRs and the WASL will guarantee greater academic achievement for students; therefore, they will not approve any "reform" measures not linked to both."  Well, at least the truth about the fact that there is no political opposition to education reform is being acknowledged, but, my question is, so what?  So what if all the lawmakers in both political parties have decided...are we, their constituents, just supposed to accept this "decision"?  Ridiculous - their decision about academic achievement doesn't guarantee one single thing and it also doesn't make something "good" out of this dismal system of education reform.  And, if lawmakers think that charter schools will be unhindered and can, under this system, accomplish something greater than their public school counterparts simply because they have "flexibility," then they have been masterfully deceived.  Also, we are being told not to worry about the fact that charter schools are exempted from certain parts of the common school law that is a must for every other public school in the state - including the part that secures parent's and student's rights.  Hmmmm - something smells fishy here.  If being out from under the burdensome part of the common school law that protects both parent's rights and student's right is considered such a positive thing, then why don't these same lawmakers just deregulate all the schools and give them all the same benefit?  Probably because it's much more difficult to axe particular laws that you know the people would want to keep than it is to give blanket exemptions to large portions of "unidentified" law - exemptions draw a lot less attention!  Soon some will be scratching their heads realizing that something very precious was lost and it was lost in order to gain an ineffectual "flexibility".  The discovery will be, once again, too little, too late. 

Charters are nothing more than state contracts with a bunch of unelected people, and we are told that this should be an acceptable alternative to an elected school board! Since it seems that elected representatives are considered by some to have a kind of magical and sweeping power that grants them the right to pick and choose, almost on a whim, what kind of government they will give us, I guess we aren't supposed to care if representative government is off the list. OK...  It's even suggested that since the school board has pretty much been neutered by all this reform, that we ought to just give up on this antiquated idea of representation in favor of, "the right of parents to educate their children in the way they see best," as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive or even, really, have anything to do with each other.  That whole rhetorical nonsense might sound convincing to some, but it's logic run amok.  It's a sorry attempt to answer legitimate concerns by grasping at some pretty strange straws.  Besides, parent's have always had choices - real choices.

Then there's that little problem with the state's constitution - but we don't like to talk about that.  "Good ideas" and "desperate solutions" are more important than talking about the constitution.  After all, the ends will certainly justify the means!  And, after at least eight other times (the six times the Charter bill has already been defeated before the legislature and the two times it was defeated by a vote of the people themselves) it seems that lawmakers are just too tired or too busy to be bothered by re-reading any constitutional analysis of the legislation. They like sound bites we are told. Uh, huh... and we are supposed to believe that there is a deep concern about upholding our constitution?  It seems that listening to smooth "sales jobs" from "experts" (that leave the many and real constitutional concerns unaddressed), is the more desired method of decision making.

And finally, when a charter school fails, and then closes, we're supposed to clap our hands and rejoice over another "victory" in the marketplace of ideas - and that's regardless of how we have defined this "free marketplace".  The closure of a school that doesn't "work" is a really nice idea for all those big city folks, but in the real world of rural Washington, it's entirely possible under this law, that the only public school available may be a Charter school.  If it goes away, there may not be another choice for public school students, but that's supposed to be a sign of success and fairness - a mere trivial matter.  We won't bother to learn from disasters like this in other states - we will simply ignore all that data.  We can also surely overlook a number of other trivial matters - school buildings, school property, etc., who owns what? 

And finally, with the introduction of charters and vouchers, we are told that we must come to understand the nature of true competition - but we must understand it in terms of a newly defined free market system.  Did you know that government money is now considered part of the free market system?  How does that work?  I think I like the Democrats more and more every day...

Seriously, it's time to take a hard look at E.F.F.'s history of promoting Charters in this state and it's time for lawmakers to stop putting quite so much faith in certain analysts.  Because our state's lawmakers are about to try to heal the wounds of our collective mistakes in education by taking a sharp knife and cutting even deeper, a refresher course in what education reform is really all about seems more than necessary at this moment in the state's history.

Roxanne Sitler, Citizen Education Analyst

Charter school considerations

Prepared by Lynn Harsh, Senior Education Analyst (360) 956-3482

Since its foray into the public square, controversy has surrounded the educational delivery system known as charter schools. Are they a step toward reforming K-12 education or are they a dangerous diversion? In this paper, we attempt to address some of the concerns commonly voiced.

Statement: It is dangerous and maybe illegal to remove control of the operation of a school from the locally elected school board.

Response: The school board is a creation of the legislature (through statute) and its oversight functions can be changed by the legislature. Chartered public schools represent a type of change.

The state constitution (Article 9) does not address governance; it principally concerns itself with elements of funding and sectarian control.

The intent of the legislature in creating school boards was to create a mechanism whereby local communities, especially parents, could oversee the effective operations of their schoolsa direct attempt to protect local control. This intent has been eroded; in fact, entire organizations have been created to manage education, not from the local school board level, but from the state and federal government levels down.

Regardless, the right of local school boards to manage a school district does not trump the right of parents to educate their children in the way they see best.

Statement: Most of the people who pay for K-12 education do not have children in our schools. Electing a school board is the only way these taxpayers can ensure they have taxation with representation.

Response: Most school district funding comes from state government, and the responsibility for its collection and distribution falls on the shoulders of our Senate and House of Representativeselected members all. This is where taxpayers´ interests should be protected. Most charter school laws, including the one considered by the 2003 Legislature, do not allow charter schools to receive local funding dollars unless the school was chartered by the local board.

Statement: Charter schools cannot be part of true education reform if they must still adhere to the state's Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL).

Response: The majority of lawmakers in our state have decided that the EALRs and the WASL will guarantee greater academic achievement for students; therefore, they will not approve any "reform" measures not linked to both. Traditional public schools really have a hard time complying with all these requirements because they have little financial, calendar and employee/teacher contract flexibility.

Without these impediments, however, chartered public schools can go about their academic business, with an eye on two things: what they must do to satisfy the state, and what they must do to satisfy their charter. In exchange for deregulation, a charter school agrees to meet the requirements of current law, in addition to what the school's directors believe they must provide to ensure properly educated students.

Statement: When a charter school fails, its students have no place to go. This is not fair.

Response: It is not only fair, it defines success. In fairness to children, their parents, and taxpayers, a school that fails to properly meet the needs of its students should be closed. The fact that a school can be closed provides greater incentive to succeed. Students from "failed" schools will go to the traditional, non-chartered public school they would have attended in the first place, until another option emerges.

Statement: Charter schools are dangerous because they will "lure" homeschooled students through their doors.

Response: It´s not government´s job to protect a homeschooling family from "temptation." It is each family´s responsibility to determine its own values and goals and to adhere to them as they see fit. For some homeschooled families, a particular type of charter school might be exactly what they are looking for.

Added note: For proper context, remember this paper discusses chartered public schools. Private schools and the regulations they do or don't adhere to are a different matter entirely.

Prepared by Lynn Harsh, Senior Education Analyst (360) 956-3482


Evergreen Freedom Foundation