Despite issues, charter schools need room to work

Most mid-biennial sessions in Olympia don’t end up producing much in the way of substantial, earth-shattering legislation. But thanks to a pair of Washington State Supreme Court decisions, this year’s January – March legislative get together might be different.

Those two decisions are regarding K-12 education. One is 2012’s McCleary verdict. Enough said.

The other is last September’s ruling nullifying Initiative 1240, which was narrowly approved by 50.69 percent of voters in 2012 creating up to 40 charter schools in the state.

In the 6-3 ruling, the court declared charter schools unconstitutional because they aren’t “common schools.” The initiative allowed charter schools to be governed by appointed rather than elected bodies, like public schools, and therefore, as Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the majority opinion “money that is dedicated to common schools is unconstitutionally diverted to charter schools.”

There are lots of aspects about charter schools many of us either don’t know or don’t remember from the election battles of 2012. Charter schools are exempt from some requirements public schools must follow.

One of those is educator hiring. According to an email from the state’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, charter schools have more flexibility in hiring certificated staff according to state law, or non-certificated if they had “unusual competence” or in “exceptional circumstances.”

Charter schools are exempt from laws governing public schools in “areas such as scheduling, personnel, funding and educational programs.” Charter schools don’t report to OSPI, but as the Court noted, are governed by appointed boards and the Washington State Charter School Commission.

Students attending charter schools are drawn from a lottery, but that selection process must be “free and open” to all students, as public schools are, including special needs students, who must be taught in the same manner as in public schools using what is termed a “least restrictive environment.”

Charter schools have flexibility in their curriculum, but so do public schools. And like public schools, charter schools must provide a basic education and teach to established state standards.

“Note that that’s standards, in other words, the ‘what,’” OSPI media communications manager Nathan Olson said in the email. “The ‘how’ — what we’d call curricula — is up to each public school district. The state does not dictate curricula. This is the same for charters.”

With the exceptions noted above, it leaves one wondering what would be the reasoning behind creating charter schools if they must follow much of the same requirements, and enjoy the same abilities, as public schools. On the other side of the coin, why not then relax some of these requirements with public schools if, as charter schools proponents feel, they are getting in the way of quality instruction?

Charter schools have produced good education results, although there’s likely a debate about the veracity of this claim. And if proven results are needed, wouldn’t the grade point averages and graduation success rates of charter schools be enough to provide us evidence of their effectiveness?

Wouldn’t we then perhaps wish to incorporate those successful charter school methods into the public system? That would seem to be money well spent, even if it is coming out of the same funding used to pay for public schools.

The public school environment isn’t for everyone. Those who wish to set up charter schools do so to eschew the perceived one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter, teach-to-the-test approach of public schools.

To some extent, this argument is about who controls what and whom, which is likely one of the reasons organizations like the Washington Education Association filed suit challenging the validity of I-1240. Control equals money, and money equals control.

To that extent, the state Senate has passed SB 6194, which would pay for charter schools using Lottery funding. Because that Lottery account would be repaid out of the state’s general fund — the same one paying for public schools — one wonders how long SB 6194 would remain constitutional if it becomes law.

Charter schools have their place, and more time is needed to understand how to utilize them as a resource for effective teaching. We wonder why OSPI, WEA, charter school proponents and lawmakers can’t get together in one room and figure out a solution.