Must we really debate the value of charter schools again?

Rocky Mountain News Editorial 

4/3/07 

      The language of Rep. Mike Merrifield's now infamous e-mail message to Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, is disgraceful, but the Colorado Springs Democrat has apologized for it and resigned his position as chairman of the House Education Committee, so that specific issue may be set aside for now.

      But even if Merrifield had not suggested that charter school supporters deserve a "special place in hell," the depth of his and Windels' hostility toward charter schools and other parental choice options would remain profoundly disturbing.

      Their December e-mail exchange focuses on their intention to eliminate the State Charter School Institute, established by a 2004 bill so that recalcitrant districts could not block or sharply limit attempts to start new charter schools, as several had done. Windels passes along the information that Bill Ritter, then governor-elect, had said he would never have signed that bill. They then discuss whether they could get the votes for a full repeal if, in Windels' words, "we knew we had the Gov.'s support." Merrifield replies, "All depends on how strongly Ritter dislikes the Institute."

      But why should Ritter dislike the institute at all? It is a very minor part of the state's charter school scene - seven schools, with around 2,600 students. And charter schools in turn are only a small part of Colorado public education - roughly 45,000 students in 114 schools.

      Even so, charter schools are a very important part. A number of them appear year after year among the top performers on the statewide testing program. And it isn't always because they attract a select population. The Denver School of Science and Technology, for example, opened in fall 2004, specifically aimed at reaching students from groups typically underrepresented in science, including girls, minorities and those from poor families. Last year it was one of only two Denver high schools to earn an excellent rating on the state report card, and one of just three in the whole state to demonstrate significant improvement for two consecutive years.

      That's great for that school's students, of course, but it also issues a challenge to other schools and districts. "If they can do it, why can't we?" is the question other educators should be asking themselves. And if indeed they can do it - and why shouldn't they be able to? - then districts will not have to worry so much about students shifting to charter schools and taking funding with them, which is the problem that ostensibly so concerns critics of Merrifield and Windels' stripe.

      With charter enrollment growing steadily over the years, it should be obvious to the most diehard opponents that these schools are offering something that parents value highly.

      We'd have thought the charter debate was essentially over. Evidently, not so. Even with Merrifield out of the House chairmanship, Senate Democrats will have a major image problem as long as they allow Windels to wield so much power and influence in the education debate. The legislature should be trying to enhance school choice rather than seeking to undermine it.