More inane arguments from the Times over charter schools.
They try to play the civil rights card and they might want to watch that because there are those in minority groups who do NOT follow that argument.
They also say it is "divisive" to talk about loss of funds to schools if we have charters.
That's misleading because (1) the charter system WILL cost more money to taxpayers and since we know we have NO new money, that comes out the system, (2) the charter supporters consistently try to make it sound like it's one student transferring from one school to another - it's not, it's a student transferring from an existing school to a NEW school and (3) taxpayers lose money if cash-strapped districts are forced to sell/lease buildings to charters at a loss (as the initiative requires). Note: districts don't have to sell or lease anything if they don't want to. But if you are a district and you have available space and let that be known, the district HAS to sell/lease to the charter.
But even so, the it-works-in-other-states argument has been co-opted by
opponents to mean that outsiders are pushing the charters effort here.
Well, they are. Look up the PDC reports - it's the Walmart heiress in Arkansas and the head of Netflicks in LA. I have no problem with people giving input on how charters work in their state. I note that California and Arkansas are not famous for great results in K-12 education but maybe I misunderstand their interest. But when they give money to a campaign that has nothing to do with their state, I wonder why.
Initiative 1240, Washington's experimental toe dip into charter schools,
promises to be serious heavy lifting.
Once again, there's that little lie. It's not an "experiment", it's not a pilot program - it will be law. And, once enacted, hard to undo. Take from someone who has worked on closing schools, no one wants their school closed and will fight to the death to stop it. The feds report that more than half their charter authorizers complain about the difficult of closing low-performing charters. (And that may explain why there ARE so many charters in the U.S. - if you closed the low-performers, those numbers would be much lower.)
She also calls anyone who disagrees "close-minded." Frankly, if it's anyone who is close-minded it is the ed reform crowd who won't believe there is anything else that could possibly work (and, in the face, of real efforts out there that ARE working.)