ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, February 19, 1997 TAG: 9702190068
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
UNTIL GOV. George Allen finally relented the other day, Virginia stood virtually alone in scorning federal Goals 2000 money for the public schools.
When Democrats criticized the Republican governor's resistance, were they playing politics? Of course. But that didn't invalidate their point: that Allen's posturing, in obeisance to activists in the Republican Party, was not serving Virginia's interests.
Now let's shift the focus to charter schools - and reverse the players.
Because General Assembly Democrats stubbornly resist any authorization of charter schools in Virginia, the state won't be eligible for any of the $100 million in federal grants proposed by President Clinton.
When Allen last week reintroduced in the state Senate a charter-school bill that had already been killed in the House of Delegates, was he playing politics? Of course. But that doesn't invalidate his point: that state Democrats' closed-mindedness on the issue, in obeisance to activists in the Democratic Party, is not serving Virginia's interests.
Allen's reintroduced bill was killed Sunday on a party-line vote in committee. Too bad.
Properly construed, charter schools offer one route by which public education can be improved. Since charter schools would themselves be public schools, successful ones simply by their existence would contribute to the quality of public education. More important, successful charter schools could serve as models for emulation, laboratories for experimentation and catalysts for reform by traditional public schools.
As for unsuccessful charter schools? If they failed to meet pre-set, measurable performance standards, their charters would not be renewed. This notion of accountability by performance rather than adherence to detailed regulations lies at the heart of the charter-school idea.
Charter schools are no cure-all for public education's maladies, which vary too greatly in kind and severity from school to school and division to division for any single approach to be a magic charm. But that, in the end, amounts to one more reason for adding variety to public education such as charter schools could provide.
To qualify for public money, charter schools - whether new ventures or already-established private schools converting to public status - should be expected to meet certain criteria. They should not be allowed, for example, to discriminate in admissions or charge tuition or preach religion.
Not only did the Allen bill contain such restrictions; it was even more limited than that. It would have allowed no more than two charter schools per division, and would have placed the power to charter schools, on a purely optional basis, with local public-school boards.
Perhaps the bill could have been improved. But almost from the day early in his administration when Allen started promoting the charter-school idea, the general attitude among Democratic lawmakers has mirrored that of their allies in the leadership of Virginia's teacher associations and civil-rights organizations.
Rather than try to perfect the idea, they choose to oppose it adamantly. Rather than jump at an opportunity to diversify and improve public education in Virginia, they keep it straitjacketed.
LENGTH: Medium: 64 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1997by CNB