Even more harmful to children than the week of instructional time lost during the Los Angeles Unified School District teachers’ strike is the insidious attack on charter schools that followed.
After the conclusion of the six-day teachers union strike in January, the LA Unified School Board approved a resolution calling for a moratorium on new public charter schools. No new charters may be approved for eight to 10 months until a “study of California’s charter school authorization laws” is conducted.
Though only the state government can amend the laws governing charter schools, Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., said during his campaign that he supports a “temporary pause” on charter expansion until they display more transparency in their management and finances.
Thus, charter growth might grind to a halt in California, even after the study is conducted.
Though the vote on this moratorium was not mentioned in the contract that ended the strike, it has always been a main goal of the union. The union claims that charter schools have drained money from traditional public schools, an argument echoed again and again by school choice opponents.
Since 2002, 484,000 students left LAUSD schools (a more than 30 percent enrollment drop) for charter schools. Now, more than 117,000 students in the district attend more than 200 charter schools. Why are students fleeing?
First, charter schools are performing better than non-charter schools locally and nationally on the Nation’s Report Card. Students in Los Angeles charters scored higher on both math and reading, with students making progress, while those in district public schools flatlined. If test scores don’t persuade you, consider that California charters also boast higher graduation rates (91.5 percent vs. 84.1 percent) and higher normalized SAT scores (1417 vs. 1299).
Charters achieve all these gains while spending 44 percent less money per pupil ($10,649 vs. $15,372) than traditional public schools.
No wonder unions view them as a threat. Yet, if teachers union leaders really cared about children, they would want to allow access to all kinds of educational opportunities, realizing that district public schools are one such option. Instead, they seek only to protect their own broken, educationally substandard, and bankrupt schools.
Moreover, part of the reason the LAUSD is bankrupt is its ballooning pension costs, not only the influx of charter schools. Blaming charters for the district’s financial insolvency is a straw-man argument.
It was not enough for Los Angeles teachers to hold back the learning of more than 640,000 mostly low-income students in their schools while clamoring for higher pay (even though LAUSD salaries range from $50,368 for new teachers to $112,963 for senior teachers, and including benefits brings those ranges from $69,407 to $155,662).
They also had to punish the growing number of students seeking education options outside of the traditional public school system.
President and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association Myrna Castrejon expressed her disappointment with the school board’s decision. “For parents, the issue isn’t about politics, it is about what their child needs and what learning environment will help them thrive,” she commented.
“Without a doubt, this charter school ban will unfairly target the most vulnerable students in Los Angeles,” Castrejon added. “This resolution to ban charter schools is a solution in search of a problem. The real problem facing Los Angeles public schools is the persistent achievement gap.”
Kate Hardiman is a contributor to Red Alert Politics. She is pursuing a master’s in education from Notre Dame University and teaches English and religion at a high school in Chicago.
