The Case Against Charter Schools

This is a reply to the column written by the Maine Wire of June 1 that advocated for more charter schools in Maine.

I don’t oppose charter schools if they target students who truly can not learn in Traditional Public Schools and share what works with hard to teach students so that where possible TPS can add to their teaching methods.

Stanford University’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes has done several comprehensive studies on the effectiveness of charter schools over the last fifteen years or so. If charter schools were an educational effectiveness issue rather than an ideological one, they would have been discontinued or significantly changed by this time.

That they are an ideological issue is shown, in my opinion, by Maine Wire’s advocacy of virtual charter schools. First, TPS already use online educational opportunities particularly at the high school level. They are used in alternative public school settings for students failing in TPS. They are used for students who have excelled in their classes and can benefit from online instruction in material otherwise not available to them.

The results of CREDO’s research is that for the average student online or virtual charter schools have been a disaster. A few years ago, CREDO researched outcomes for virtual charter schools in the 17 states. One conclusion reached was that these students might as well have not even gone to school. Average students enrolled in online charters lost 72 days of learning in reading and 180 days of learning in math over the course of a 180 day school year. In 15 of the 17 states, online students had lower reading scores than their TPS counterparts.

For charter schools to continue to be touted as a good alternative to public schools is due solely to ideology not an interest in children’s learning. Charter schools enroll about 6% of school age kids. This is a highly self selected group and if charter schools can not do much, much better than TPS, we need to stop permitting them from taking public school students and monies.

Brian Hirst,

Harpswell

Keep It Local!

I do not believe The Times Record should allow anyone not living in their viewership area to post comments in their paper. a person should have to live in the local of the represented newspaper to present their opinion. The Times Record is wrong in allowing this from someone like Rick Jensen, who is a Delaware-based conservative talk show host. Let’s keep it local and simple.

Bill Perreault,

Brunswick

The Times Record always gives priority to local content on the Opinion Page and throughout the paper. Those interested in submitting an oped or recurring column on a local or Maine topic are encouraged to contact Managing Editor John Swinconeck at editor@timesrecord.com — ED.

Carbon Fee May be Best Bet to Slow Climate Change

In the wake of President Trump’s shortsighted decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, where are we to turn for leadership on the climate issue? A hopeful development is that many cities, states, businesses, and environmental groups have responded with commitments to forge ahead with plans to lower their emissions in keeping with the Paris goals.

But is there still hope for leadership from Washington? According to a group of seven well known, senior Republicans, who call themselves the Climate Leadership Council, the answer is “yes.” They have asserted that Congress can step into a leadership role by legislating a fee on carbon pollution. They advocate a policy called “Carbon Dividends” which calls for a steadily rising fee on coal, oil, and gas with the return of the proceeds going equally to all Americans in the form of regular dividends.

In keeping with conservative ideology this plan would rely on the free market to drive the transition to clean energy. The fee imposed on carbon pollution would reflect the hidden costs of poor health and environmental degradation and would prompt businesses and consumers to explore clean energy options. Since all the money collected from the fee would flow back to citizens as dividends, ordinary Americans could afford the inevitable increase in price of coal, oil, and gas, while also having the financial incentive to explore investments in increasingly cost competitive clean energies.

On June 13 over a thousand volunteers, including a highly dedicated group of 10 fellow Mainers, are scheduled to visit the offices of members of Congress in Washington to lobby for carbon fee and dividend legislation, similar to what the Climate Leadership Council advocates. If you, too, feel passionate about the looming threat of a more unlivable climate, a few minutes of your time to call our members of Congress would lend meaningful support to the mission of our fellow Mainers as they lobby for a fee on carbon pollution, which may just be our best option to slow the pace of climate change.

Paul Perkins,

Bath

Concerned Over AHCA Impact on Medicaid

I am concerned about cuts the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would make to Medicaid, cuts that would be in the billions of dollars. Medicaid (in our state known as Maine Care) is a lifeline for millions of Americans. It provides longterm services and supports to people of all ages living with disabilities and to middle and low-income seniors. If the AHCA passes, and Medicaid is slashed as the legislation proposes, the results will be devastating.

In 2017, 268,000 Mainers received health coverage and long-term services and supports through Medicaid. An alarming proposal of the AHCA is that the bill creates a capped financing structure which would affect vulnerable individuals through a “per capita cap.” This spending limit would give Maine a fixed dollar amount per enrolled Medicaid beneficiary and would lead to cuts in program eligibility and services. Health care costs would shift to state taxpayers and families, including caregivers.

Maine is home to approximately 178,000 caregivers whose unpaid caregiving is valued at 2.3 billion dollars annually – a huge savings to the state of Maine. Medicaid supports family caregivers and their loved ones because it pays for many services and community programs that help Mainers age at home rather than in more costly institutional settings. These services include programs such as respite which helps caregivers take a much-needed break. Cutting Medicaid would jeopardize respite as well as other vital programs. We simply cannot expect family caregivers to bear more of a financial or emotional burden than they already do.

As the nation’s oldest state, Maine’s care needs will only increase. We cannot turn our backs on our most at-risk population. Readers, please call Senator Collins today and let her know that cutting federal Medicaid spending will jeopardize Mainers’ access to the services they need right here at home.

Jackie Katz

AARP Maine Volunteer

Advisory Council

Brunswick