Seattle students ill-served by hostility to charter schools
Two teachers from Nathan Hale High have been trying for years to start a small school in the South End to serve at-risk students. School district officials ignored them.
Another Seattle teacher, Steve Colmus, moved to Dallas to start a KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) academy school, one of the most successful school programs in the country serving disadvantaged students. Colmus says the climate for starting new schools in Seattle was just too hostile.
A former dot-com executive and former assistant principal in Harlem, Stig Leschly, hoped to start a school in Seattle but the school district refused to provide more than 50 percent of the state funds Seattle spends per student. Nobody's fool, this exec couldn't see how anyone could operate a school on less than half the funds other schools get. Leschly has since moved to the Boston area to teach educational entrepreneurship at the Harvard Business School.
If Washington state had a law allowing public schools to operate as charters, these stories likely would have very different endings. Seattle likely would have at least three, maybe more, new South End schools in operation today, with more on the way.
Charter schools provide a local catalyst for these mission-driven teachers and leaders to put their ideas into action. A charter-school law creates a clear and consistent process for teachers and other school leaders to create new models for effective schools, offers parents new options, creates innovative opportunities for low-income children, and empowers other schools with their infectious enthusiasm and drive.
Charter schools are extremely popular with parents. I regularly get e-mails or calls from parents who have moved to the Northwest from other parts of the country asking for a list of the chartered public schools in their areas. I have to explain, to their surprise, that there aren't any. Washington is one of only 10 states without a charter-school law.
Some say Washington state doesn't need a charter-school law because innovation is already possible within the system. Sure, there are pockets of innovation and some options in the public-school system, but they are simply not enough, especially for parents who cannot afford private schooling or tutoring.
The reasons school districts regularly drive away or frustrate entrepreneurial teachers are many, but here is a typical scenario:
You have an idea and track record for starting a new, non-charter public school. You speak to 10 different district managers who tell you that you need to get the support of the superintendent before they can do anything for you. The superintendent doesn't return your calls. If you happen to get the superintendent's ear, he or she is likely to see your proposal as a distraction.
Even if the superintendent wants to help you, you probably won't be able to set your own budget priorities, select your own staff and principal to work at the school, and your students probably will be assigned to your school rather than being able to choose it. You are simply thwarted at every turn.
Now consider what happens when there is a charter-school option.
There is a clear process for applying to start a school. A school district or a state agency reads your proposal and performance goals. There are community hearings and expert reviews. You are more likely to get a charter if your school will serve at-risk students. You can find quarters by renting a commercial space or co-housing with a museum.
You can recruit teachers and attract students that like your particular educational philosophy and focus. You have more freedoms but you are expected to produce outcomes quickly, a perfect challenge for educational innovators.
Sadly, five members of the Seattle School Board, one of the most progressive school districts in the state, have stated their opposition to a state charter-school law. The reasons are puzzling. The opportunity is great and the risk is low. More than a decade after passage of the first charter law in Minnesota, charter public schools around the country enjoy bipartisan support, are enormously popular with parents, serve mostly minority and at-risk populations, and perform at least as well as other public schools.
As families begin the annual process of seeking schools for their kids, many are finding that their neighborhood schools are not good fits for their children. And the district's current alternative-school offerings are so oversubscribed that they have almost no chance of getting their child in. The demand is clearly there, but the district has not responded.
If nothing changes, the district will continue, by virtue of inflexibility and neglect, to drive away new school possibilities for low-income children. If not charter public schools, what is the board's solution? Families making choices today are waiting.
Robin J. Lake is associate director of the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education, and a Seattle parent.