Yes on 1240 Website -Up but not Live
So the early Yes website was a placeholder and now there is this /http://yeson1240.com/. I tried some of the links but they do not work so it is not live yet. I'll be interested to see what they come up with for the FAQs.
Update: the site appears to be live but I'm not sure it helps. Let's look at it:
- These schools will be subject to strict oversight and public accountability, including annual performance reviews to evaluate their success in improving student outcomes.
Again, that "strict oversight" comes from either one of two authorizers.
Those are school boards that have applied to be authorizers and have been vetted through a process by the State Board of Education and the newly created Charter Commission. The Commission does NOT have to be vetted by the Board of Education. Now, keep in mind, these people do NOT have to have any kind of education background so you'd think they would need to go through the process. But apparently being selected by the Governor, Speaker of the House or Senate President fully qualifies them.
And, as the Washington State School Directors Association, in their firm stand against 1240, have said, a charter can shop their proposal around if it gets rejected by one authorizer. Hint to charter operators - go to the Commission because they will be the ones least qualified to know what they are looking at.
- There will also be an evaluation of the charter school program after the initial five years to determine whether expanding the number of allowed schools is appropriate.
This is part of their "Get the Facts" which is interesting because you'd think explaining the accountability and how charters get chosen would be more important to voters than the fact that there is a way to have even more of them come on-line after five years.
- 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.
Whaaa? Wait a minute, first the status quo is bad, bad, bad and now it works for some students? We actually DO have schools that are working well? That's quite a different tune.
(However, the status quo works both ways - 20 years and 41 states and charters STILL don't fulfill the promise of more innovations, better outcomes and more accountability. How long will that take?)
- there are four whole FAQs and guess what? Nothing specific. That's an interesting thing. The argument seems to be "other states have it and we should too."
There is nothing about current outcomes. Nothing.
There is nothing specific about how charters help struggling students. Nothing.
There is nothing about how charters would work in Washington State (because folks, what's in the initiative is what will be the LAW here no matter what they have in other states). Nothing.
How is it that you are expected to vote for an initiative with no specifics given?
It almost seems like they DON'T want to educate you about it. So charters will better educate some small group of students but you, the voter, don't get the facts to educate yourself on how that will happen?
You should wonder about any group that would push a law they don't want to explain.
Update: the site appears to be live but I'm not sure it helps. Let's look at it:
- These schools will be subject to strict oversight and public accountability, including annual performance reviews to evaluate their success in improving student outcomes.
Again, that "strict oversight" comes from either one of two authorizers.
Those are school boards that have applied to be authorizers and have been vetted through a process by the State Board of Education and the newly created Charter Commission. The Commission does NOT have to be vetted by the Board of Education. Now, keep in mind, these people do NOT have to have any kind of education background so you'd think they would need to go through the process. But apparently being selected by the Governor, Speaker of the House or Senate President fully qualifies them.
And, as the Washington State School Directors Association, in their firm stand against 1240, have said, a charter can shop their proposal around if it gets rejected by one authorizer. Hint to charter operators - go to the Commission because they will be the ones least qualified to know what they are looking at.
- There will also be an evaluation of the charter school program after the initial five years to determine whether expanding the number of allowed schools is appropriate.
This is part of their "Get the Facts" which is interesting because you'd think explaining the accountability and how charters get chosen would be more important to voters than the fact that there is a way to have even more of them come on-line after five years.
- 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.
Whaaa? Wait a minute, first the status quo is bad, bad, bad and now it works for some students? We actually DO have schools that are working well? That's quite a different tune.
(However, the status quo works both ways - 20 years and 41 states and charters STILL don't fulfill the promise of more innovations, better outcomes and more accountability. How long will that take?)
- there are four whole FAQs and guess what? Nothing specific. That's an interesting thing. The argument seems to be "other states have it and we should too."
There is nothing about current outcomes. Nothing.
There is nothing specific about how charters help struggling students. Nothing.
There is nothing about how charters would work in Washington State (because folks, what's in the initiative is what will be the LAW here no matter what they have in other states). Nothing.
How is it that you are expected to vote for an initiative with no specifics given?
It almost seems like they DON'T want to educate you about it. So charters will better educate some small group of students but you, the voter, don't get the facts to educate yourself on how that will happen?
You should wonder about any group that would push a law they don't want to explain.
Comments
In somewhat related context, as I dig through the PDC rules and regulations I found this interesting new bit. As of June 7,2012, an ad that supports or opposes a ballot measure and costs more than $1,000 must name the top five contributors to the political committee for the past twelve months. TV ads require that the sponsor's name (ie the political committee) be clearly spoken and the five top contributor names may be spoken or appear on the screen provided they are visible for at least four seconds and appear in letters greater than 4% of the visual screen height and have a reasonable color contrast with the background.
So the YES on 1240 campaign will have to own up to its mega-millionaire contributors if they want TV, radio or large newspaper ads.
"We’ve heard from opponents in the past that we should keep to the status quo"
This is the central theme of the charter marketing strategy, that anyone against charters is for some mythical status quo. This bald-faced lie positions charters as something radically different that offer something radically different that public schools can't because public schools are locked in stasis. What a load of crap. The charter propagandists should have BS called on this piece of blatant falsehood at every opportunity.
Here is the data from the last time charter schools were on the ballot, referendum 55 in 2004.
Follow the Money Ref 55
What, did some people who were against charters three times in the past tell the Reformistas, "we don't like changes. Ever. No, we must stay the same."
Of course not. They heard no such thing from anybody. It's frankly disgusting how manipulative and deceptive that statement is. I know the world of the 21st century is saturated in such manipulation, but this is an out-and-out lie and it's tragic that such drivel has become THE driving idea of people who purport to support public school children and their educators.
Find me one educator who hasn't changed practice in a decade...or two or three...of educating. Just one.
2000 Campaign for charters
On the anti I-729, we have one small committee that raised $386 (plus some in-kind donations) and we also have a committee that didn't disclose on the form that is was against I-729, so I cannot determine if all of this money was raised for that measure in particular or if there were other measures it was supporting/opposing. Since the bulk of contributors were from teacher unions, one might assume it was the main campaign against I-729. Citizens for Quality Educators
Oompah