I still have to write a thread on the entire charter bill (the Senate and House bills are identical, SB 6202 and HB 2428) and a thread on why charters I think charters are a bad idea for our state. But let's catch up on what others are saying.
First, the Times. Oh Times, you always slay me. Always out the gate with that bad "teachers union." Seriously, first thing. Then, they always get something factually wrong (and I ask them to cite the page and line for this):
Each would be required to adopt a specific plan to serve educationally disadvantaged children.
I've read the bill twice and I'm going to read it again but I do not see that statement anywhere but it sure looks good in print.
Then they have their funniest line (but I give them credit for printing it):
Nationally, about 20 percent of charter schools have been found to do a better job of educating students than public schools. Part and parcel of bringing charters to this state is to learn what those successful charters are doing and do it here.
You don't need me to tell you what the question is that both the readers of this editorial AND those reading the story over at The Stranger Slog all ask: You mean that 80% of charters aren't better than public schools? Quite the vote of confidence and sound reasoning to create fundamental change in an entire education system. They are right about learning from charters but you don't have to have charters to learn from them.
(One aside; there is this talking point on the pro side that charters are just a "tool in the education toolbox." No, they're not. You do not have this kind of sweeping change to a system and call it a "tool." Or you hear "oh, let's try a couple." This is NOT a pilot program - it's a new law. You can't just undo a law once enacted.)