Charter Schools’ Track Record Not Reassuring

Re “Teachers’ Pets,” editorial, May 19: I object to your characterization of the charter school situation. I have not seen any evidence that charter schools do a better job in educating students than public schools. I do not understand why colleges, either public or private, do not apply for a charter school under the current system.

If organizations are allowed to establish a charter school independent of their local school district, any safeguard whatsoever on the accountability, either financial or educational, of the charter school has been eliminated. Even under current conditions, charter schools have shut down, gone bankrupt, leaving students without a school to go to.

To characterize the California Teachers Assn. as a special interest, interested only in its “unionized members,” is ridiculous.

The association has supported smaller class size and other uses of money in the education budget that would improve education. The fact of the matter is, supporting a better education for students means less money to pay teachers a decent wage.

Students are our special interest. Teachers sacrifice their personal livelihood for their profession. They spend their own money to supply their own classrooms. Very few other professionals make this sacrifice.

Christopher Kakimi

Hacienda Heights

I would have hoped that The Times would have researched its own articles regarding charter schools before coming down so hard on the education lobby for opposing extending license to universities to establish charter schools. If it had, it would have discovered that the most recent research reported by this august newspaper indicated that charter schools fail to live up to their promise of significantly improved achievement by their students. In fact, charter schools do no better than other public schools. So why the strong support of a failed experiment?

Bob Harris

Lancaster