COLUMN: Charter schools give parents more choice

A wave of discontent within the Los Angeles Unified School District has brought local policymakers together to augment existing infrastructure by increasing the number of the city’s charter schools. Just this month, LAUSD and other California school districts experienced a common sentiment of worry when their students’ low Common Core test results were released. Inevitably, plans to aid the district’s rates of high dropout, low test scores and low proficiency ratings has called for new programs. This strong and unified stride to advance the K-12 educational system in Los Angeles will reap long-term benefits in the end.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced his support for a plan in conjunction with fundraising to double the number of L.A. charter schools over the course of the next eight years, according to the Los Angeles Times. The combination of the foundation’s internal fundraising alongside other donors is expected to generate $490 million to open 260 charter schools in the school district.

Though it seems this new plan for charter schools would appease worried parents and Angelenos, the proposal has received a mixture of both support and disdain. For proponents of the plan, including Villaraigosa, the increase of charter schools will not completely solve the education crisis in L.A., but rather, temporarily ease it. Last week, Villaraigosa spoke at the Sol Price School of Public Policy on issues facing the current educational system where he expressed this notion.

“I don’t think just expanding charter is the path,” Villaraigosa said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “I said while I was mayor that I didn’t care if it was a charter school or a traditional public school or a hybrid … I want to see more success and higher standards and accountability.”

Though opponents might argue that charter schools leave behind students who are “incompetent” and difficult to work with, they should also note the level of improvement K-12 charter students have undergone. If one were to compare test results between charter school students and LAUSD students, the former would most definitely outdo the latter. But if one were to compare charter and magnet schools, the latter’s students would outperform the charter school students. Thus, one cannot simply use data and analytics to reach a substantial conclusion of which form of schooling is best for students in L.A.

Though statistics are a good way of measuring student progress, opponents of the traditional public school system argue that greater options are always better. Often, the debate regarding whether the public, private or charter school is best for students is lost in numbers.

The difference among all three comes down to preference. A traditional public school offers funding backed by federal revenue while the charter schools in Los Angeles can be independent or district-affiliated and are exempt from state regulations. In 1992, the Charter School Act created a performance-based environment with the intent of specifically aiding students who are academically low-achieving. Charter schools are open to any interested public school student and are shut down when deemed as inefficiently increasing student performance ratings.

I support charter schools because they are founded upon the freedom of choice. In an era in which Common Core standards are taking over traditional curriculums — one which constantly adapts to meet the needs of students and their performance — charter schools are certainly the stronger alternative.

By creating more charter schools, proponents have been faced with opposition for allocating funding away from public schools. But charter schools are creating the prospects for low-income students to attend charter schools with specialized curricula geared towards their needs. If opponents of the plan are truly concerned with the waste of funding backed by a failed curriculum, they should look at the existing Common Core system backed by state funding. Don’t attack a system that promotes greater options for parents.

Parents deserve to determine where their children will best fit. Whether that be in a public, charter, private or magnet school, it’s their choice to assess which school will best accommodate their children. The future of LAUSD should not be limited if so much more can be done to augment its existing infrastructure.

Sarah Dhanaphatana is a junior majoring in political science.  She is also deputy features editor of the Daily Trojan. Her column, “Dhanapolitics,” runs Fridays.