A bit tepid, their website. It's called - big surprise - "Yes on 1240". (Interestingly, a web designer I know told me "No on 1240" domain name is taken - very clever. Only I don't think anyone would want it because, as the designer pointed out, it would read in the URL "noon1240".)
There are several things to note about this website:
There is NO link to the actual initiative. Why wouldn't you want people to be able to read what you want them to support? That says it all.
They say "There will also be an evaluation at the end of the five-year period to determine whether additional public charter schools should be allowed." See, it's not a pilot project. Also, if this thing passes, I'd bet money they will ask for the cap to be raised in three years.
Of course, they are urging people to "simply" sign the petition so voters can "consider the facts." I find this very funny because it has NEVER been LEV or Stand's work to make sure all the "facts" were put out there.
They have a PDF Fact Sheet which, frankly, is repetitive and well, not what I expected as the thrust of the campaign.
This campaign, unlike the bill in the Legislature, is not being framed around helping failing schools and high-needs students who attend them. This campaign is about giving all parents and students choice. Keep that in mind because I have to wonder if those kids they were so worried about in the fall are now in the background.
One "fact" they get wrong and you should understand:
Charter schools are independently managed public schools operated by qualified nonprofit organizations.
They could be OR could be "managed" and/or "operated" by a FOR-PROFIT. The only control solely left in the hands of the charter school board is to maintain oversight authority. That is NOT the same thing as operations or management.
They also say:
"The initiative sets strict qualification requirements for public charter school operators and requires strict oversight and accountability standards..."
Well, somewhat true. Read the initiative and decide for yourself. I don't think the qualifications are all that strict. And, the Charter Commission does not have to follow any of them (for some reason not disclosed in the language of the initiative). What can the Charter Commission do differently? The initiative is silent on this point and you have to wonder why.
This is also stated:
We've heard from opponents in the past that we should keep to the status quo and let it work - and it does work for some students - but not for all students.
I hereby publicly call them out on this statement. Show me one person - anywhere, any office, any group - that has said "keep to the status quo". You won't find one person who wants things to stay the same. But it's a tired (and false) line they keep repeating.