Picture this scene: 100 students of various ages, genders, ethnic and economic backgrounds working at desks or computer stations pursuing a rich and rigorous curriculum. Surrounding them in this orderly environment are qualified teachers and interested parents.
Now picture this: 500 students of various ages, genders and ethnic backgrounds working at desks pursuing controversial and less-than-rigorous curriculum. Surrounding these students is a disorderly, graffiti-filled environment with not a parent in sight. All students and visitors have gone through metal detectors to check for weapons. Teachers are burdened by large classes, too much paperwork and too many students dropping out.
At which high school will you enroll your children? If you are a poor to middle class parent living in a big city like Seattle, you have no choice. Your child will very likely be in the second school because you can't afford to move or pay private school tuition. Scary thought!
And yet, the education bureaucracy is not afraid of school number two for your children. They are trying to frighten you about school number one. That's because school number one is a charter school and charter schools bypass much of the current bureaucracy.
The education bureaucracy, particularly the teachers union, has illegally funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the No Committee fighting the charter school measure, Initiative 177. Initiative 177 does not create charter schools, but it would allow citizens in individual school districts to vote to decide whether or not they wanted to have charter schools in their district.
But if you believe the ads run by opponents of Initiative 177, child molesters, idiots and hate mongers will be allowed to set up private schools run with taxpayer dollars.
However, if you have read Initiative 177, you already know these charges are false.
No additional tax dollars are required for schools operating under I-177 and certified teachers subject to criminal background checks must be hired. High academic standards mirroring those expected of private schools are mandated and no charter school can discriminate based on gender, race, ethnicity or income. In fact, at least 15 percent of the charter school student population must be reserved for low income students.
Four years ago, no charter schools existed in the United States. Today, nearly 400 charter schools in 25 states serve more than 80,000 students. Most of those students came from existing public schools where they just weren't succeeding.
The 400 charter schools across the country are serving a higher percentage of "at-risk" children than most traditional public schools. And 97 percent of the parents surveyed were very happy with their child's charter school.
So why is the education bureaucracy spending more than a million dollars fighting I-177? And why did the National Education Association send an $8,000 per month field representative to our state to help organize opposition to charter schools?
Because I-177 allows teachers to decide for themselves whether or not they want to belong to WEA. Because the union has had unchallenged control of multiple millions of mandatory union dues--money every one of the 65,000 union members must pay. Because I-177 frees schools from nonsensical regulations and allows teachers and parents to work together to design schools that best meet the needs of students.
In other words, the bureaucracy has less control.
Some public schools are excellent and parents and faculty in those areas won't even want to consider charter schools. But for those children whose parents are forced to send their children to schools like the one described above, charter schools have proven to be a wonderful option.
Cordially,
Lynn Harsh
Lynn Harsh is Executive Director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"