When people complain about Seattle process with too many meddling parents asking questions and too many groups seeking answers, oh my, who wants to come here? they're serving as a distraction from the facts.
I have written frequently and in varied places about the issues in this charter bill. I am talking here about the descriptions within the bill about how charters would be carried out in our state, not my opinion.
In no place - not LEV, not the Times, not here, not anywhere - has a single person said "No, you read the bill wrong." "You have this fact wrong."
Not on a single point in a single place.
That means that every charter support that has read the Times comments or read LEV's posts or even the posts here supports every single thing in the bill? Interesting.
Now maybe these people don't see what I pointed out as flaws and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I do find it odd that not one single time over these months, at any venue, has one person said my interpretation of the bill is wrong.
So why, if there was someone out there going around bad-mouthing a charter bill you supported, why wouldn't one of them defend the bill itself?
I mean even Lynne Varner at the Times said on KUOW that the bill has "issues."
But the goal is getting charters in the door and not to have the best starter charter bill for a state that hasn't had charters. If Senator Tom's "coalition" group had written a (yes) modest and go-slow bill, I certainly would have had less to argue about.
But, this was not about writing the right charter bill for Washington State, it's about getting charters in the door with as much flexibility to the charter groups as possible.
But see the facts don't matter in this discussion.
For example the only thing charter supporters will say in specific to this bill is that "it's modest". I believe the only thing about the bill that is modest is the number of charters per year but if you are keeping up then you know that the number 1 goal today of charter organizations is to get the caps lifted from all states that have them.
Meaning, if we get charters, it would not remain 10 per year for long. And that's because this is maybe one-quarter about possible academic outcomes and likely three-quarters about the public education face of Washington State and about swimming in the big education pool and about people making money.
And about a fairly small number of powerful people with a lot of money who believe they know best.
So I wait.
I wait for someone to read the bill thoroughly and say to me that they have no problem with its issues.
I wait for someone to explain to me how this bill will really help low-performing schools in its current writing. Because in its current state, it's almost a crapshoot of what we might get.
But, in the end, that because it's really a lot more about the end game of having charters and a lot less about thinking about what we could be doing in addition-to or differently-from what we currently have.