Readers Write: Charter schools, reaction to endorsement decision

And then the promises were broken. The state reverted back to hours and seat time, grades and testing, testing, testing. Our school was eventually closed as we struggled to serve our unique population with the same-old, same-old style of education. One student who left, without the daily loving eyes of his charter school teachers, started doing heroin again and died from an overdose.

Turns out that running public education is hard. Really hard. The notion that amateurs could invent legitimate alternative education models, recruit qualified staff, operate an oversight board, and meet the needs of students was a cruel fantasy for most of the organizations described in the Strib's coverage. The motivation for charter schools came out of the public's disillusionment with the public school system, which was facing the same population of students with limited resources. The proposition was: Do away with all that unnecessary bureaucracy and those overpaid teachers. Get rid of all those awkward rules and standards. Focus on the needs of students and the rest will take care of itself. Nope.

I witnessed the slow destruction of a charter school (one of the schools mentioned in the series). The organization struggled with low attendance, unprepared students, untrained staff, an incompetent board and a host of other issues that drained money and energy, resulting in a decision by the sponsoring organization to shut it down. I also witness the ongoing decay of Minneapolis Public Schools (I have had children, alumni and grandchildren enrolled) as taxpayer dollars are directed away from the public schools in favor of these charters. The outcome as reported is disaster for both organizations. It is time that we recognize the evidence that is plainly visible to any who will pay attention. The charter school concept has delivered a few innovative success stories at the cost of massive failure for the vast majority of students. This experiment has weakened the formerly outstanding reputation of Minneapolis Public Schools and degraded the outcomes for students in both systems.

I have supported the public school levy referendums through the years. We still have a public school system that, while starved of resources, continues to limp along with the support of parents and staff who believe that public education is a worthy investment. We also know what educational models deliver the results that students and parents need and want. Now is the time to end the failed experiment and refocus public resources where they should have been all along. Fund public education at the levels required for success. Follow successful and proven programs. Hold the leaders accountable. Observe the improvements. See the community grow stronger. We know how to do all these things.

Admirable, but shortsighted. That's how I'd characterize Sunday's editorial "Endorsing voters in this year's election." What's admirable is the premise of the piece: "We are confident in the ability of informed citizens to decide whom they wish to vote for based on what they see, hear and research." It is crucial that each voter does his or her best to make a wise and reasoned choice. The extent to which the Star Tribune encourages all citizens to make informed choices is commendable.

But, l believe that the Editorial Board is shortsighted in refusing to endorse one candidate over another. It's all fine and well to say: "The Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board remains committed to using its platform to help inform Minnesota voters as they decide what is in their own best political welfare." But sometimes, as is the case this year, the stakes are so dramatically high that failure to state its reasoned preference might be considered dereliction of duty. Taking a public stand is a matter of civic integrity.

The Editorial Board may be underestimating its readership and its own sway. The average voter has enough common sense to consider a Star Tribune endorsement among others (Taylor Swift, Elon Musk, former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, etc.). Reading a Star Tribune endorsement should be a welcomed part of each voter's due diligence, certainly not the sum of it. In that light, I believe that the board should bravely and responsibly make its choice known. We wish to hear what you have to say!

There is a little parable that I would like to relate. One group of sources tells a major metropolitan newspaper that it is sunny and pleasant outside. An opposing group insists that dark clouds are gathering and a tornado funnel is descending to wreak havoc. In their wisdom, the sages of the newspaper instruct their readers to look out the window and make up their own minds, because we sure don't want to offend either the sunny weather party or the stormy weather party. So, leaving parables behind, it seems you're having a hard time choosing between democracy and tyranny on Day One. The sheer cowardice of what you're doing — or, I should say, not doing — almost takes my breath away.

I'm intrigued by the Star Tribune's decision to not endorse candidates, focusing instead on providing information and analysis to help voters "as they decide what is in their own best political welfare." Perhaps this change in practice will help lower the volume of the ever-present, strident, partisan voices as we head into the election's volatile stretch run.

I would hope the Strib, however, takes a broader perspective than how issues and candidates' positions affect individual or blocs of voters. I believe many of us take a broader view than our own welfare, taking into consideration, for instance, how proposed policies move society toward equity and inclusion, strengthen democracy, improve safety in schools, safeguard our planet and so on — whether or not we'll personally benefit in the near-term. I hope your analyses include these broader impacts.