Hillary Clinton gets pushback for anti-charter schools comment
by Jason Russell
Washington Examiner
November 10, 2015
Most public charter schools don’t take hard-to-teach students, or at least that’s what Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in an interview.
“Most charter schools — I don’t want to say every one — but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them,” Clinton told TV One host Roland Martin this weekend.
First of all, charter schools have to take every applicant that comes their way. When space runs out, they are required to use a random lottery system to admit students. Charter schools don’t have admissions officers saying, “This student looks like they’ll be difficult,” before giving them the rejection stamp.
Second, charter schools serve hard-to-teach kids at higher rates than traditional public schools. We can’t know exactly what Clinton meant when she said “hardest-to-teach kids,” but the implication is children from low-income families or racial minorities. Charter schools serve both of those groups at higher rates than traditional public schools. There’s also no difference between public and charter schools in the portion of students learning English as a second language.
Charter schools are publicly-funded and do not charge tuition. Compared to traditional public schools, charter schools have more independence in their operations and curricula, which is why so many families find charter schools desirable.
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was quick to respond to Clinton. “Distorting the role charter schools play in transforming lives in order to placate the teachers unions is beyond the pale, @HillaryClinton,” Bush tweeted.
Clinton is endorsed by the two largest teachers unions in the country: The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools also responded to Clinton, in a statement from its president and CEO Nina Rees. “We do take issue with Secretary Clinton’s overgeneralizing of charter schools not serving these so-called ‘hardest-to-teach’ students, particularly when the facts are so strong to the contrary,” Rees said. “There is no difference in the percentage of English Language Learner students served between charter and non-charter public schools.” Rees also pointed out that charter schools in New York City retain students with disabilities better than traditional public schools, and that proficiency in Los Angeles’ charter schools is triple the rate of the traditional public schools there. She also noted that Clinton has supported public charter schools for decades.
The Center for Education Reform also responded with a statement from its founder, Jeanne Allen. “The vast majority of charter schools in the United States serve children who were not succeeding in their traditional public schools,” Allen said. “The vast majority of charter schools serve children who live in poverty, or close to poverty. The vast majority of charter schools transform the lives of the kids they serve at a fraction of the cost of traditional public schools. And the vast majority of charter schools not only have to fight to educate children, they have to fight the daily attacks from bureaucrats and special interests who place paychecks and adult jobs over the futures of disadvantaged kids.”
