Re "Reimagine LAUSD," editorial, Feb. 11
I appreciate The Times taking a fresh look at the issues with the Los Angeles Unified School District. I'd like to comment about your observation that there may be situations in which a charter school would "encourage" its low-achieving students to leave. It's important that the charter schools not measure student achievement exclusively in terms of success on a college track. They also need to implement a curriculum and high standards suitable for students who wish to pursue trade school after high school.
We must prepare our students with a safe learning environment and the appropriate education to succeed, whether it be in colleges and universities or the trades.
The Times is advocating the wholesale abandonment of the LAUSD's secondary schools to the charter movement. If this is not tantamount to a radical dismissal of the foundations of democracy, of equality and access to a free, high-quality education for all, I don't know what is.
As stated in the editorial as a minor caveat, public schools must accept everyone, while charter schools do not. If this is all we debated, it is obvious that once I have chosen and restricted my elite, highly engaged population, I have chosen my success. Need we mention that charter schools have inconsistent results; that each is a mystery unto itself, with no transparency as to its operations, standards or focus; that each is subject to the whim of whomever controls it for that moment; that its staffing is exploited, and that any student may be ejected for any reason it sees fit?
Just try to find any objective information on charter schools, especially in The Times. What concern does it have for the future of democracy or equality? We need to collectively work to improve our public schools for everyone's benefit.