Fact-Checking on the Charter Initiative

I didn't say this in either of my threads on not signing the charter school petitions or about the pro campaign.

Any statements I make about what is and isn't in initiative 1240 are based on my reading of the initiative.  Two other parents read it thoroughly as well (I won't name them because I didn't ask yet) and we cross-referenced our reading.

Anything I say, I am happy to back up with a citation of page and section from the initiative.  Just ask.

I am confident in my reading of the initiative but if someone sees something I missed or perhaps have wrong, speak up.  But again, I worked with other people to make sure of my understanding of this incredibly dangerous initiative.

There in no link to the initiative at the pro-side's website.  They are not going to fully explain everything in the initiative.  They are not going to name citations from the initiative to back up what they are saying are "facts". 

You are only going to see that here.  You should ask yourself why that would be.

No matter what side you come down on the charter debate,  the important thing to consider is what is in OUR proposed law. 

Comments

Jan said…
Bravo, Melissa! It is hard, I think, to craft really good legislation by initiative (usually works best for getting RID of something -- rather than putting a whole new system/bureaucracy in place.

This one appears to be even worse than usual, probably because it was a rush job and (my suspicion only) driven by ed policy folks high enough up that they are clueless (and really don't give a damn anyway) about how the thing works at the "boots on ground" level, or how adversely it affects existing schools or the ability of school boards to run local education in their districts (in fact, maybe they think the more chaos and harm, the better).
6/17/12, 6:01 PM
Michael H said…
"...incredibly dangerous initiative". Dangerous?? Dangerous to whom or to what? You really should tone-down the
demagoguery.
6/17/12, 7:24 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Sorry, but I stand by that statement.

I consider introducing privatization and use of public funds to maintain private buildings and charters taking over public schools by petition - well, dangerous.
6/17/12, 9:23 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Also, understand that if you are a SPS parent, you take a couple of schools (and their buildings) off-line and watch the enrollment plan shift. Watch the boundaries change. Watch the levy dollars - operations and capital - go down.

That's just SPS. Now imagine that throughout the state.
6/17/12, 9:25 PM
Anonymous said…
This short summary by Diane Ravitch
http://dianeravitch.net/2012/06/17/four-step-demolition-polka-in-north-carolina/
Also, read her post on Louisiana and Washington State this week.

Public School Parent
6/18/12, 9:28 AM
Anonymous said…
Ken Schram weighs in against Charter schools.

http://www.komonews.com/opinion/kenschram/Ken-Schram-Charter-schools-not-the-answer-159448805.html

FHP
6/18/12, 10:37 AM
Anonymous said…
Ken Schram weighs in against Charter schools.

http://www.komonews.com/opinion/kenschram/Ken-Schram-Charter-schools-not-the-answer-159448805.html

FHP
6/18/12, 10:41 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more