Charter schools should have four-day weeks

How does the 180-day rule for schools support educational equity and comply with the Yazzi-Martinez court ruling?

How will four-day/week charters based on hourly attendance meet these five-day requirements without losing funding, teachers, students, and schools?

Despite overwhelming opposition by educators, families, and legislators, the state Public Education Department will immediately move forward to enact this one-size-fits-all rule that favors high-resource schools and disproportionately affects our most vulnerable schools and students.

Public Education Secretary Arsenio Romero’s superficial quotations and the rapid implementation required for literacy and college-prep school exemptions, calendar submissions, additional funding, and attendance requirements are classist, racist, unattainable, and risk legal non-compliance caught between current and upcoming regulations.

Romero’s reasoning and the PED’s exemptions provide no concrete strategic explanation of measurable equity, equability, or legality regarding the effect on four-day charter schools and leave many unanswered questions.

While the legislative session adopted a law requiring a minimum of 1,140 instructional hours, this new ruling requiring 180 days forces a five-day or year-round format, which poses grave socio-economic challenges affecting our rural students, economically disadvantaged students, Native American students, English learners, and students with disabilities.

Students, families, administrators, and teachers and I demand and deserve Charter School Division leaders and the PED to immediately offer actionable amendments to charters to enable retainment and continuation of funding.

Is the plan to shut down these four-day charter schools by requiring unattainable goals or prompting catastrophic funding loss? The PED and Charter Division must communicate to the public how this all concretely complies with the Yazzi-Martinez goals and strategic equity plan.

JENNIFER FERRIDAY Sandia Park