My Note to KUOW about the Charter Initiative

Just listened to Shannon Champion from Stand for Children talking about the charter school initiative on The Conversation.  A couple of things:

- go back and listen to the tape.  She didn't answer virtually any of the actual questions that Ross asked.  You might want to keep that in mind going forward on this issue.  You won't get a straight, precise answer to questions like his question "can anyone open a charter school?" and the answer is "yes, anyone who follows the application process and has the background to open one."  She dodged that one.

- I have gone thru the initiative (versus the charter bill legislation which is its template) - some interesting changes/additions/deletions but plenty for folks to have concerns with including the very controversial parent/teacher "trigger".

- There will be organized opposition to this measure should it qualify for the ballot and it will NOT just be the union (or union supporters).  There are enough of us - statewide - that have no association with the WEA and are going to fight this on the merits of what it means to parents, students, school districts and taxpayers. 

I note that Ross tried to get her to talk about costs and she dodged that question as well.  This initiative will open a new commission of 9 people (that will sit in the Governor's office and costs for them paid out of the Governor's budget- a nice surprise for Inslee or McKenna).  Then there are the costs for processing the applications (which can be sub-contracted out by the Commission - that was estimated with the charter school bill legislation at around $1M a year). 

Comments

Charlie Mas said…
The charters can be sponsored by either school districts or by the commission.

I don't see Seattle Public Schools ever sponsoring a charter, especially since they would then have to save funding with it.
5/23/12, 4:59 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Charlie, I believe it's the Board who decides. That certainly could change Board elections, no?
5/23/12, 5:40 PM
Anonymous said…
Actually a careful reading of the initiative states that the authorizer, whether a Board of Directors in a school district, or the new Washington Charter School Commission, would be entitled to funding equal up to 4% of the charter's school's annual operating budget. This would be a separate pool, not able to be commingled with other funds, and to be used exclusively to held the authorizer administer and oversee the new public charter school. The applicant for a charter school may apply to either the Commission or the Board of Directors of a school district, but if it elects the Board of Directors of a school district, it must go to the Board that has jurisdiction over the school that is located within its boundaries. I do not see why a School Board election would necessarily hinge on this one issue since an operator is never bound to go ask for approval to the School Board due to the new Charter School Commission which is a more statewide entity. --Analytical One
5/23/12, 10:03 PM
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