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

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?

Why You Should Care Mr. Crabill has found quite the acolyte in Director Chandra Hampson. In the course of discussions over SOFG, she says his name over and over, "A.J .says we...." Now that's not too surprising given the direction the district is heading and that it is Mr. Crabill's work with the Council of Great City Schools is how we got here. But it appears that Mr. Crabill is working very closely with Hampson and we know she wields some amount of power over the majority of the Board. Mr. Crabill is going to continue to work with the Board as SOFG is instituted in SPS. In fact, his role may become more public as it did at one SPS Board meeting in the spring where he was on the phone during the meeting and suggested the Board stop the meeting to "self-reflect." I also noticed that in a district in South Carolina, when things weren't going to plan, he blamed the Board for not following SOFG to the letter. Look for that to happen here if Board members w
Read more

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong.  It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Read more