On the one hand, I support charter schools. They are the only real form of school choice available to people who don’t have the money to send their kids to private schools. They are the only alternative to the failed inner-city public school systems for most low-income students.
On the other hand, charter schools are supposed to follow rules - and in the case of Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (in Blaine and Inver Grove Heights), there have been credible allegationsthat TIZA brokea big one, the Establishment Clause. Charter schools use public money - each student’s allotment of state ed money - to operate; the law says that money can’t support religion. Other charter schools in the state use the parochial school model to get excellent results, while scrupulously leaving actual religious instruction for times and places outside school; TIZA may not have, and may have reacted poorly to the allegations.
On the third hand, TIZA gets the kind of resultsthat many charter schools, and all urban public schools, should envy. With a student body that is 80% low-income and 2/3 of whom speak English as a second language, TIZA gets math and reading test scoresthat shame most schools of all types, everywhere in the state (and nationwide). They are obviously doing something right.
On the fourth hand, they are allegedly doing something wrong; the American Civil Liberties Union took TIZA to court.
On the fifth hand, the first of the ACLU’s three suits got dismissedlast week.
On the sixth hand, TIZA is counter-suing the ACLU:
“TiZA was forced to take these steps because of the tortuous interference the ACLU has caused one of the state’s best public charter schools,” said Erick Kaardal , TiZA’s legal counsel. “The ACLU’s claims are meritless as TiZA has followed state and federal regulations. TiZA hopes the court will prevent the ACLU from inflicting further interference and defamation with a permanent injunction.”
So who do you root for? The Establishment Clause (allegedly), or anyone who’ll cut the ACLU down a notch?
Both?
