THANKS TO RICHY RICH Microsoft guy Paul Allen, it looks like Washington voters will have another chance this year to steer dollars away from public education and toward charter (read: quasi-private) schools. The Allen-backed Initiative 729 would legalize charter schools in the state and allow up to 80 during the next four years. Gogerty Stark Marriott, the lobbying group Allen hired for $700,000-plus to put the initiative on the ballot, handed in an estimated 298,000 signatures (well over the necessary 180,000) by the July 7 deadline, setting I-729 on course for the November ballot. I-729 is eerily similar to previous charter school initiatives and legislation that failed. They failed for good reason. Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, a Democrat representing North King and South Snohomish Counties, a mother of six, a grandmother of nine, and a 14-year veteran of the Northshore School Board, has taken the lead in Olympia against charter school legislation. Now she lays out what's wrong with the latest attempt to introduce charter schools to the state. --Allie Holly-Gottlieb

With Initiative 729 headed toward the ballot in November, it's time to look at some facts regarding charter schools.

For one thing, residents have already made themselves clear on the issue. In 1996, Washington defeated a charter school initiative by 66 percent. Charter school bills were then introduced in both the House and the Senate in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, but failed every year.

Initiative 729 has the same shortcomings as its Olympia precursors. First, charter schools are not accountable to local school boards. The initiative contains the provision that charter schools would operate "independently of any school district board." This raises concerns. The nonprofit corporation that operates the charter school would not be elected by the people, nor be accountable to taxpayers. Community members would also have no opportunity to vote on the acceptance of a charter school in their school district.

Charter schools are exempt from all laws that govern public schools (except those that pertain to health, safety, and civil rights). These laws were passed to protect taxpayers from the misuse of public funds, to provide oversight and accountability by elected officials, and to spell out parents' rights regarding their children's education. If the laws create barriers to quality education for our children, then the laws should be fixed or changed. Let us all play by the same rules. If the laws are not necessary for some schools, then they are not needed by any schools.

Second, charter schools reduce the funding for our existing public schools, while giving a small number of kids the benefits of smaller classes. In his book, Victory in Our Schools, former Seattle School District Superintendent John Stanford stated, "If small is right for some children, why isn't it right for all? The answer is affordability. The state can't afford small schools and small classes for all children. But is it right for the state to 'afford it' for some children while denying it to others?" The public dollar should be used to educate all children, giving every child an equal opportunity to learn.

Finally, research shows that charter schools lack the ability to serve all children. Our public schools, on the other hand, are open to all. The Academic Achievement and Accountability Commission (or A-Plus Commission), a K-12 oversight group formed by the state last year, is trying to identify struggling schools in order to provide them with the help they need. Issues such as teachers' salaries and smaller class sizes remain unresolved. Ultimately, we have limited resources for education. Public schools need our support.

In an era when privatization is seen as a magical cure-all for today's social ills, we need to be careful about experimenting with our public schools. Public schools are essentially the glue of our civic communities. In the rush to address the problems that exist there, we should tend toward banding together rather than exclusion, isolationism, and abandonment.