Few education-reform proposals evoke as much passion on both sides of the issue as charter schools. Or as much divisive, absurd rhetoric: “This really is sorta Washington State’s bridge at Selma moment,” Representative Glenn Anderson (R-Fall City) testified at a January 20 committee hearing, comparing a bill on charter schools to a 1965 civil rights march near Selma, Alabama, in which hundreds of nonviolent marchers were bloodied by police beatings.
“There was a day when people wanted to walk across the bridge because they wanted a better life for their children, and they were willing to make the sacrifices,” Anderson, a native Alabaman, continued with his tortured metaphor. “On the other side of that bridge, there were people who were there to enforce the status quo.”
Which I suppose makes the hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians who thrice rejected charter-school measures—in 1996, 2000, and 2004—the moral equivalent of the villainous Sheriff Clark and his nightstick-wielding deputies.
Elsewhere in the nation, the movement has been picking up momentum, growing more than threefold over the past decade from 1,542 charter schools nationwide in 2000 to 5,275 in 2011. And the push is on once again in Washington State, thanks to a bevy of reassuringly named new and newly reconstituted pro-charter reform organizations, including Stand for Children, Democrats for Education Reform, and the League of Education Voters, not to mention generous backing from the bottomless pockets of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Many of them are backing two charter-school bills in Olympia, one in the senate and another in the house, each with 16 cosponsors. If approved (as appears likely in the senate), the legislation would allow the state to transfer funds from regular public schools to create up to 50 privately run charter schools.
If other charter-school advocates have been more tactful than Anderson, they’ve been no less brazen. “Nationally, about 20 percent of charter schools have been found to do a better job of educating students than public schools,” insisted the Seattle Times in a pro-charter-schools editorial on January 16 intended to push the bill through the legislature. But the newspaper neglected to inform readers that the Stanford University study it cited also found that nearly half of charter schools perform no better than their public-school counterparts, while 37 percent “deliver learning results that are significantly worse.”
That’s right: The same study supporters selectively cite to tout charter schools’ success rate concludes that, in aggregate, charter schools tend to perform worse than traditional public schools.
That’s not to say that charters—which use taxpayer dollars to fund alternative, privately managed schools—can’t work. A more nuanced look at the data suggests that charter schools have different impacts on different children, depending on their family background, with the largest educational improvements tending to come from charters that serve low-income and low-achieving students.
And that’s what attracted the bill’s prime sponsor in the house, Representative Eric Pettigrew (D-Seattle), amazingly, the only currently serving African American out of the 147 state representatives and senators in Olympia.
“When I look at how the schools are doing in Seattle and look at the achievement gap… there’s not very much bottom-line progress being made,” says Pettigrew, referring to the long-standing gap in performance between Seattle’s majority white, more affluent North End public schools and the struggling schools in the more racially and economically diverse Central District and Rainier Valley communities he represents.
Pettigrew says he supports the long-term reforms that are already on the books but is “looking desperately for something that can impact students today… the kids that are in school right now.”
But “desperation” is exactly how some critics describe the charter-school proposal:
“Maybe it works somewhere in the Bronx,” dismisses Representative Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland), referring to some notably successful charter schools in New York City that have leveraged private contributions to offer round-the-clock social programs in an effort to level the disadvantages students face at home. “But there’s not enough substantive research to justify diverting resources when we’re already underfunding our schools,” Goodman insists.
“This ought not to be our priority,” says Goodman, “and I’m certainly not supporting it.”
Rich Wood of the Washington Education Association, the union that represents the state’s K–12 teachers, agrees. “It is just ridiculous that legislators would propose charter schools at the same time they’re ignoring McCleary,” complains Wood, referring to last month’s landmark court ruling that found the state was underfunding, by billions of dollars a year, its constitutional “paramount duty… to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders.”
“A lot of people think it’s a deliberate distraction,” says Wood. He bemoans the missed chance to start a frank conversation about education funding and the need for new tax revenue. The recent court decision “is an opportunity to find a real long-term solution to the state funding problem that has plagued our schools for years,” says Wood.
Even Representative Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle), the only other Seattle legislator to stand by Pettigrew at the press conference where he announced the bill, is skeptical about charters and agrees that legislators are missing the opportunity. “The revenue problem we face is structural and foundational,” says Carlyle, “and there doesn’t appear to be an organized, systemic approach on how to educate the public on this issue.”
But there is an alphabet soup of foundations, not-for-profits, businesses, and wealthy patrons, like those pushing Washington to become the 42nd state to authorize charter schools. 
This died in committee yesterday, I’ve read.
Charter bill died in the House yesterday, still alive in the Senate. And in Olympia some bills are more dead than others. This one will be around until the end. Darn!
Good summary by Goldy. A few more points:
– how, if we are underfunding existing schools, will bringing on-line MORE underfunded schools going to help? And, where is the money (something around $10-15M per year just for administration) going to come from? There is NO revenue for this.
– this bill is really 3 bills in one; charters, transformation zone schools (basically, underperforming schools taken over, charter-style, by the state) and a parent trigger law which would allow an approved charter to take over an EXISTING school if the majority of parents OR teachers signed a petition saying that’s what they want
We should not be passing bills with multiple issues; we don’t do that for initiatives or referendums.
– the charter portion of the bill would allow for-profit companies to run/manage any charter school
– even though the thrust of the charter bill is to help educationally disadvantaged kids, there is not enough strength to it to make SURE the majority of the charters would serve these kids AND be high-quality.
Lastly, the Washington State voters have visited this issue THREE times and THREE times said no.
We’re not stupid and charters don’t look any better with the vantage point of more time.
This should stop.
Melissa Westbrook
Seattle School Community Forum blog
Another really important point that is being missed has to do with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that religious schools do not need to adhere to ADA regulations. Combined with the recent national push for more charter school education, this paints a very frightening picture for the future of childhood education.
The extreme religious right has been open and blunt that they are using this as a means to bring the country closer to a theocracy, their ideal form of government. As it becomes more difficult to indoctrinate well-educated, critical thinking and skeptical individuals as they progress into adulthood, it is necessary to get them while they’re young.
In many ways, I see a direct parallel between the Madrasa school systems in many middle eastern countries, and the rise in private Christian charter schools in this country. Both serve the ends of the extreme religious right of their respective countries, and both undermine the very foundation of a free society.
While I don’t think we have regressed as far as many other countries, if this system goes unchecked, it would only take a few generations before a growing horde of brainwashed religious zealots demand a theocratic government for all. Far fetched? It’s already happened in many countries, and it would be our folly to believe “It could never happen here.”
Great story Goldy. You forgot the juicy bit about how charters will be handed to for-profit businesses. Their investors are drooling to get at the public trough.
Charters and Gates-led reform garbage are the next mortgage debacle. Public education is the only thing left they haven’t raped.
“Washington State’s bridge at Selma moment” More likely our cliff and Thelma moment. (you know, Thelma and Louise? anyone? never mind.)
@4, you have two two questions there.
One, charters are public schools and anyone can enroll in one. An interesting aspect of this bill is that a student ANYWHERE can enroll in any charter. For example, a student from Redmond could attend a charter in Seattle. If a charter is overenrolled, a lottery will occur. (The exception here is that up to 10% of of charter seats can be set-aside for founders’ children, staff children and charter board members’ children.)
Two, various groups/entities would have to apply to one of several “authorizers” to have their charter approved. A charter can only apply to one authorizer. If that charter is approved, the authorizer also oversees the charter school’s work.
Two reasons for the push (here and elsewhere):
(1) $$$$$
(2) Fuck you, teachers’ unions.
If Goldy’s daughter couldn’t go to school in Mercer Island and had to go in South Seattle, you can be damn sure he’d be calling for charter schools or vouchers rather than sending her to the shitty public high schools in her area.
9 –
(3) shitty public schools
(4) old-ass teachers who stopped giving a fuck in 1979
There is nothing that a charter school can do that a public school cannot do.
If there is an innovative instructional strategy that charter schools are using that gets better results, there is no reason that public schools could not adopt that strategy.
The call for charter schools is a distraction from solving our problems. The real solution is to take the steps necessary to counter the absence of necessary educational supports in children’s homes. Not only would this be expensive, much of the work is perceived to be outside the proper role of the school. So the very people who are kvetching about school failure are the same people who won’t allow the schools to implement the necessary fixes.
If the problem is that our public schools are not responsive to the needs of our children and families, then the solution is to get involved in the governance of our schools to make them responsive. If we cannot get school districts, the most locally controlled form of government we have, to be responsive to the needs of the people, then what hope is there for democracy on any level?
Finally, despite all of the talk about how “shitty” our public schools are, they are actually pretty damn good. For all of the talk about how many bad teachers we have, they are actually very rare. Neither the schools nor the teachers are the source of the perceived failures.
Do you really trust “facts” as presented by Goldy? He doesn’t have a very good record.
The first thing that should be done is return to neighborhood schools. End the stupid lottery system, and the practice of busing kids around town to achieve racial balance.
@12 THANK YOU for fighting the bullshit corporate school reform narrative that public schools are failing and filled with lazy, bad teachers. Bad teachers are no more prevalent than bad doctors, bad taxi cab drivers or bad TV anchors. This issue is a red herring.
I taught in a Title I school in the Seattle area for four years. We were consistently labeled “failing” by the feds because our refugee ELL students without any formal education couldn’t pass the WASL/MSP. I taught with dedicated, hardworking colleagues who busted their asses for our students, both in and out of the classroom. I had colleagues who legally adopted “problem” children who couldn’t be placed in foster care because of their unpredictable behavior. Corporate school reform, charter schools and teacher’s unions busting are all connected by an overarching scheme to make money off of public schools. I gave up and moved to another country to teach, but I’m always heartened to see people like you fighting the good fight back at home.
I live in Portland, and worked in a public high school for a few years. This school was in a high poverty, racially/ethnically diverse neighborhood. Well, diverse for Portland, anyway.
The alternative schools/charter schools in that area of town worked their asses off to reach and educate kids. These kids struggled with the standard education system for a lot of reasons; homelessness, parental neglect, academic gaps, behavior problems, etc. The smaller setting and more personalized attention worked very well for lots of those kids. I did not see the corporate model of charter school decried here. I can’t tell you anything about their test scores, but I can say that some kids I thought were lost, ended up graduating from those programs.
Of course, the regular school I worked at tried hard as well. We had free breakfast for all kids, after school programs, counseling, tutoring, and a talented, dedicated staff. It still doesn’t work for all kids. It was good to have an option for the ones on the margins.
I object to framing this conversation as help for THOSE CHILDREN, in the ghetto, in poverty; they are not the real problems in education. While subtle and nuanced the argument for charter schools sounds uncomfortably similar to the reasoning for rounding up Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals into boarding schools. Nakedly an effort of cultural genocide, they rounded up thousands upon thousands of children, abusing and traumatizing families for generations. Missionary schools lay an identical trap amongst the crumbs of nourishment offerred. Charter schools have that same feel to me.
Children of color and indigent peoples do not need regimentation, assimilation, and molding into the Euro/American image and mindset. Each of us NEEDS to be ourselves and not LOSE what distinguishes us, makes us unique. Education should nurture the discovery of our strengths, and provide tools to help us grow. Our education system is little more than a factory for political and corporate interests. In America it denies and minimizes the contributions of non-European and non-American cultures and people. It distorts the truth of this country’s genocidal and exploitive past, making it impossible for children to learn from these mistakes and dooms them to repeat and create more of the same mistakes. Most of all public education is intentionaly being pervert ever more to produce brainwashed automatons for political and corporate interests.
Schools in the ghettos fail, if failing worse than those in wealthy neighborhood is any meaningful measure, for some basic economic reasons too numerous and obvious to list for this comment. We need re-focus the pubic education conversation on real, substantial improvements in public education, not quick fix-all panaceas like charter school outsourcing but instead on how best to educate ALL children in the way that produces knoiwledgable, creative thinkers and problem solvers. We’re going to need them more than ever if we’re to survive as a species.
Can anyone answer this: how do for-profit charters compare to nonprofit charters?
Just found this: Who “helped” the charter bill get introduced? ALEC. The super-PAC funded by the “there is no global warming,” Koch Brothers, whose mission is to defund and tear down government.
Nice company so-called Democrats Rodney Tom and Eric Pettigrew are keeping. Expected as much from the union-busting ‘Democrats for Education Reform” and ‘Stand on the Children’
the problems with schools as they are =
1) education degrees don’t cut it – core degrees do
2) tenure should be terminated
3) the curriculum has sunken to pure muck and it needs to return to the 3 R’s without the political correctness that ruined it. Raise all boats instead of lowering them.
4) there needs to be different tracks within each grade to allow enough focus with gifted and regular students
5) if the state will not bend and the electorate does not get it – then charter schools need to be the alternative and we will see what happens – but we know the present system is a failure since the 1960’s.
6) teacher unions – please – that has helped sink the system and right to work needs to be the law of the land.
@clashfan – Thank you for your comments.
I don’t see why we would want to limit options, especially when public education is being underfunded. This is not as clear are corporate vs. communist, there are a lot of different ways to design the schools’ charters and Rep. Pettigrew’s proposal was very thoughtful. As the only African-American lawmaker in our entire state legislature, he deserves to at least have his points heard.
This isn’t about the corporations or the teachers unions or the government or the alphabet soup, this is–or should be–about the students.
If a small number of charter schools could make a difference in outcomes for even a few children, shouldn’t we let them have that opportunity?
The “we need another option” argument doesn’t seem to stand up to the evidence presented here. Rather, we may need another option, but charters ain’t it.
Note that 83% of the chartered schools in the 2009 CREDO study performed about the same or worse than public schools. So why spend so much time, energy and resources on a solution that’s clearly not that much better than the existing structure? Who then would support charters?
Well, like every other conservative “solution” to current social problems, this one ends up with a few people making money off the deal, while the rest of us are left holding the bag.
The “we need another option” argument doesn’t seem to stand up to the evidence presented here. Rather, we may need another option, but charters ain’t it.
Note that 83% of the chartered schools in the 2009 CREDO study performed about the same or worse than public schools. So why spend so much time, energy and resources on a solution that’s clearly not that much better than the existing structure? Who then would support charters?
Well, like every other conservative “solution” to current social problems, this one ends up with a few people making money off the deal, while the rest of us are left holding the bag.
Seriously, how the fuck did the idea that public monies should be used to subsidize private enterprise with a serious lack of accountability gain traction? This isn’t even competitive market capitalism, it’s public/private collusion that privileges only the wealthy, also know as ‘corruption’. NO ONE (Republican, Democrat, socialist, capitalist) ought to support this shit, except people who are pro-their-own-wealth-privilege.