A serious, rookie mistake by Seattle School Board

The Seattle School Board is making a serious, rookie mistake by pursuing a resolution against charter schools.

It is not only distracting and time-consuming for board members to take an official stance on a matter outside their jurisdiction. The knee-jerk position is an affront to legislators and educators who have studied the issue for years and are crafting bipartisan legislation that aims to benefit some of the state's most disadvantaged students.

The School Board's effort is reminiscent of another silly move by a newly elected group three years ago: the Seattle City Council's vote in support of breaching four lower Snake River dams. Like that one, this resolution is based more on ideology than careful study.

It's unlikely the School Board's position will affect state charter-school legislation, which legislators plan to re-introduce in the next session. But the board's simplistic position on an important education reform is still troubling.

The proposed resolution, supported by all the board members except Dick Lilly, contends that charter schools are contributing to the privatization of public schools. In fact, charter schools are public schools that receive state funding on a per-student basis. Many are chartered by school districts.

There's something ironic about this board's hasty rejection of charter schools. Didn't the new members run on platforms of change? Why are they so resistant to innovation aimed at improving education for the neediest students?

More than three-fourths of the states in the nation have passed charter-school legislation, and about 700,000 students attend nearly 2,700 charter schools. The current version of legislation, which could change, would allow 70 charter schools to open in the state in six years. That's hardly a radical transformation of the system, considering the state has nearly 300 school districts serving more than 1 million students.

In recent years, the Seattle School District has decentralized its administration to give individual schools more autonomy. At the same time, it has allowed students to choose their schools. Charter schools are really another step in that same direction.

Charter schools would be required to first apply to a school district for charter status, but districts could decide not to sponsor them. Charter schools, which could also be sponsored by four-year universities, would still be held to state standards. But they would have the ability to hire and fire their own teachers, manage their own budgets and set their own curricula and schedules.

Clearly, charter schools are no panacea. There's a study to support just about any conclusion about them: They're better than traditional public schools; they're worse; they're about the same. Some have failed and closed. Others are limping along.

What's undeniable is that some charter schools are doing amazingly well. There are charter schools in Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and New York. Why should this state deny that opportunity to its kids?

Like all schools that serve the neediest populations, charter schools sometimes struggle to adequately fund their programs and have a hard time attracting experienced teachers. Still, good charter schools can inspire other schools and share their winning formulas.

If legislation passes, the School Board will be in a position to grant charters. Rather than spending time opposing the movement, members should familiarize themselves with the elements of successful schools. The board's duty, after all, is to the students, not the system.