Re: “They’re growing in popularity,” and “But they’re not better for our kids,” Sept. 13 Perspective articles.
As a parent with two young children in the Denver Public Schools system (and one more to come), the articles in last Sunday’s paper about charter schools caught my eye. Truly, I have never precisely understood the debate over charter schools.
Jim Griffin did an excellent job explaining how charters fit in with the public system. Griffin explained that charter schools exists to help kids with different needs and interests succeed, or at the very least, complete their education. No claims of superiority, as M.L. Johnson states, just the goal of educating more kids — and being accountable for it.
I’ll gladly support public dollars going toward charters as a way of diversifying our investment in educating American kids with special interests or strengths. Or at least preventing students from dropping out of school altogether. Pretty much a no-brainer, I’d say.
Amy Hicks, Denver
This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
As a former administrator in a Colorado school district, I worked with numerous parents who begged to come back to their neighborhood school after the charter school said their child “may not be right for the program at this school.” Interestingly, the child either had an individualized education program for special education services or needed additional help in learning or behavior. The fact that charter schools are “subject to the same non-discrimination laws as traditional public schools” is true.
Another fact is some charter schools only want students who are higher achievers because scores on CSAP mean everything to their marketing. Families are “counseled out” to avoid the look of employing selective admissions policies and thereby being open to a lawsuit. I know of charter schools attempting to recruit gifted students by calling parents who never requested an application, yet the sibling who was not identified as gifted is never mentioned.
Kathy Landry, Parker
This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
The truth on charter schools is somewhere between the too-sunny viewpoint of the Colorado League of Charter Schools’ Jim Griffin and the too-negative view of lifelong educator M.L. Johnson. Many children do benefit from charter schools, but not all. It depends on the quality difference between local traditional schools and available charter schools.
Quality charters such as KIPP and others can make a huge difference in the education of inner-city children, but not much difference in some of Colorado’s mostly suburban charters, located in wealthier districts.
Colorado’s charters are mostly volunteer/parent run, rather than professionally run by educational management organizations. Unfortunately, parent-run charters are especially prone to accountability problems, and can have hidden agendas.
The reason for the charter movement is that public schools were failing the students, and charters have provided a swift kick in the pants to public schools. Improving our neighborhood public schools is the best solution, but it does not take more money — it takes will. Teachers unions need to get on board with more schools of innovation, recently authorized by the Colorado legislature, in which the teachers and staff buy in to programs known to increase achievement, and can avoid some union work rules that impede better instruction. Programs that work emphasize high expectations, parent involvement, longer school days and years, and avoidance of instructional fads.
There is no magic bullet — it will take hard work by students, parents, teachers and the community.
Louise Benson, Broomfield
This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
Citizens should pay attention to what M.L. Johnson and Lisa Mieritz (“Are charter proponents hijacking legislative panel?”) have written.
Supporters of charters have apparently never considered where the current trend is taking us. Besides the arguments of those two, the future costs and effectiveness of Colorado schools should be considered. Charter schools aren’t likely to ever want to take more than 40 to 60 percent of the kids. They will also require much more money per child than currently, and the total costs and subsequent costs per students in the public schools will skyrocket. While charters are not private and do not charge tuition, it is the taxpayer who will be paying the bill. And which students will be left for the public schools?
I propose as alternatives to charter schools the following:
1. Reduce the number of school districts from 178 to 40 or 50, which will allow a district to provide more comprehensive and needed programs, while at the same time lower the total costs of education in Colorado.
2. Alter the procedure of selecting the members of the State Board of Education.
3. Citizens, be aware of which political party is really supports schools and change, versus one which primarily takes negative stands.
4. The state should be responsible for fully funding special education in spite of the amount paid for by the feds. That would release more than $500 million for the local districts to improvise.
5. Do not rely so much on standardized tests to measure results.
6. Do not place all the blame for so much of our failures on the teachers. Look at the State Board of Education, the legislature, the local boards of education, the superintendents, the principals, and, finally, you the citizen.
7. Be careful in choosing who is to identify the inept teacher. In my experience it was not the teachers union that prevented two inept teachers from being released, but administrators.
8. Repeal TABOR. Make it possible to place money and emphasis on where it is needed, and probably eliminate some not-so-necessary programs.
9. Find ways to assist all parents in being proactive with their children in educational activities.
John A. Ogden, Centennial
This letter was published online only.
Charter school proponents never seem to address that all taxpayers are expected to continue pouring money into a funding pool. Meanwhile, parents are supposed to have some “superior” rights alone to decide how those funds are spent on publicly funded charter schools. Non-parent groups – like single parents living in other states, elderly, gays, parents of school graduates, and childless folks – should not be expected to automatically fund school options we don’t support, or didn’t sign up for, vs. decades-old, largely successful public school programs that did just fine by me and my peer group.
Every two years or so, those of us funding schools should be asked where we want our money to go out of a few funding options placed on the usual November ballot. Charter-school-supporting parents can then spend as they wish the monies we voters allocate toward that option. My chosen default will be to continue funding traditional public education, not unaccountable charter schools that typically get to select the students attending.
Education funding is not some sort of manna that falls magically from Heaven. It smacks of arrogance to expect us to fund charter school options via what amounts to a “taxation without representation” scheme.
Dennis Webber, Louisville
This letter was published online only.