Washington State Will Vote on Charters

Washington State Will Vote on Charters – for the Fourth Time

It hardly seems to matter to the tenor of the debate that this is the fourth time Washington State voters will get to decide the issue of charter schools. Going on the ballot this November, Initiative 1240 would allow a limited number of charters to operate in the state, and as much as supporters are trying to paint this version of the plan as a radical departure from the other three attempts, Brian M. Rosenthal of The Seattle Times writes that the changes are negligible.

What isn’t negligible is the emotions that the proposal seems to stir in people on both sides of this issue.

The first time supporters passed on charters in the state, the idea wasn’t familiar to many voters. Many treated the concept of independently-operated and publicly funded schools as foreign and strange. That was more than a decade ago before phrases like “education reform” and “school choice” became common clarion calls of advocates looking to completely overhaul the way the school system operates not just in Washington, but nationwide.

The general sentiment about regular public schools, meanwhile, is that many are still not doing enough to educate all students. At the same time, though, a recent state Supreme Court decision has shifted much of the discussion about public education here away from changing it to increasing its funding.

Those in favor of 1240 have spent nearly $3 million to get the measure on the ballot, drawing on the traditional supporters of the school choice movement for both financial and logistical support. Opposition to the initiative has coalesced along familiar lines as well, as opponents have harnessed the influence of teachers unions and naming a popular education blogger Melissa Westbrook to lead the effort against the measure.

Those who are pushing for the passage of 1240 believe that charter schools could be the solution to the chronically underperforming public school system that is too hidebound in bureaucracy to really be accountable to itself or to its students and their families. On the other hand, those who oppose charters point to the fact that study after study found their performance inconsistent, and say that the close ties between business interests and the school choice movement shows that charters are just an attempt by profit-seekers to cash in on the country’s education system.

Those pushing this year’s measure emphasize that it’s not a replica of the previous versions, saying it calls for more accountability and oversight than ever before.

They point to the fact that Initiative 1240 would create a nine-member charter-school commission to judge applications from organizations seeking to start a charter school.

Traditional school districts would be able to approve and oversee charters only if they themselves apply to the state for that authority.

“This is a high level of accountability and oversight, and that’s really important,” said Shannon Campion, an initiative spokeswoman. “And it wasn’t in the 2004 law.”

Comments

wintertime

September 2, 2012 at 3:32 am

Even if 1240 fails, some good has been done. It has caused the teachers unions millions to defeat it. That means fewer millions to do damage elsewhere in the world of politics.

If supporters of school choice were smart they would put this issue on the ballot **every** year just to make the teachers unions spend millions to defeat it.

By the way, I noticed that the reporter stated the amount being spent by those supporting school choice ( 3 million). The writer neglected to tell us the amount being spent by the teachers unions to defeat it. My guess? The teachers are spending 6 or more million. Good! That is likely 6 million dollars less for the liberal/Marxists to spend supporting candidates who support liberal/Marxism.

Reply
Melissa Westbrook

September 2, 2012 at 4:34 pm

I am the head of the No on 1240 campaign.

I’d first like to point out to Wintertime that Bill Gates (and his friend, Alice Walton of Walmart in Arkansas and his friend, the head of Netflicks in LA ) and his friends who are paying the Yes side’s bills? They will spend 3x what any opposition will. And you have to ask? Why are out-of-state interests telling Washington state voters how to educate our children?

- charters don’t work, not for academic outcomes or accountability. The Feds report that over half their charter authorizers complained about NOT being able to close low-performing charters. And the best outcomes? Only about 17% of the time.

- we underfund our existing schools in Washington State (we don’t even fund to a national AVERAGE). So bringing on MORE underfunded schools is the answer in an system that has not proven it works any better is the answer?

- Washington State voters have said no three times and that’s because we are a smart and independent bunch of voters. The fourth time will be the final time.

- the initiative would harm far more than it could ever help. Examples:

- the new Charter Commission? once appointed, ZERO oversight by anyone
- districts that have for sell or for lease buildings HAVE to sell to charters at or BELOW market value. That loses money for taxpayers and districts.

- the most harsh trigger law in the country is embedded in this initiative. It would allow an approved charter to circulate a petition and with a majority of signatures from parents OR teachers, take over a school, building and all.

This is for ANY existing school, failing or not.

So in an average elementary, you have 18 teachers. Ten could sign a petition and upend an entire school community? That is not good for public education and not good public policy.

It goes on.

In short, as doctors say, first do no harm. I-1240 is harmful, charters don’t work and we need to fund and support our EXISTING schools first.

Reply