Updates on WA State PTSA Opposition to I-1240

The Seattle Times had an update to its news that the Washington State PTSA reviewed I-1240 and, despite their past support for charters, stated it was opposed to I-1240.  (Note: Ramona Hattendorf, WA State PTSA, let me know that they are not going to actively campaign against the measure but do not support it.)

Apparently Stand for Children thinks that the folks at the WSPTSA can't read.

Shannon Campion, a spokesman for the initiative, said she was surprised by the PTA’s decision.
“We respectfully disagree with the PTA board’s position and view it as essentially a misreading because of the strong parent involvement in this initiative,” Campion said.

Really?  Because:

- the word parent is in there 16 times and only once used as a suggestion for charters to include parent engagement in their proposals (not that they have to nor that it will be enforced)

- parents get two things in this charter initiative.  One, the ability to flip ANY existing school, failing or not, by signing a petition from an approved charter group.  Two, the ability to choose to apply to a charter.

As for the first one, after you sign that petition, that ends your ability as a parent to influence anything at that school.  There is nothing in the initiative that would allow parents to be part of what happens or is presented at a charter.  There would be one single public meeting for input.

As to the second one, the ability to apply is somewhat negated by the fact that you may have to fill out a long application that may include essays and recommendations, you may end up in a lottery and not get in at all, and lastly, even if you do get in, you may not be able to access the school as no charter has to provide transportation which is likely to be a barrier to many parents who may be seeking change.

- parents won't be asked for any input on a renewal or non-renewal of a charter

So Ms. Campion (or anyone else), tell me where in the initiative all this "strong parent involvement" is.  Saying it does not make it so.  (And I will be happy to provide citations from the initiative for all I have pointed out.)

Again, kudos to the WA State PTSA for doing the right thing and saying no to I-1240.

Comments

Jan said…
Exactly right, Melissa. In this legislation, parents are no more than "simple tools" in the hands of corporate ed reform. They come in -- pitch to a group of disgruntled or disheartened parents the benefits of "choice" and independence -- and then, once the parents have carried the water of "flipping the charter switch," they are gone -- dismissed from the equation. Unnecessary -- and unwelcome (at least in terms of governance, stuff like deciding what kind of education they want for their kids, or how to accomplish it -- they still have a role to play helping the charter "enforce" its rules by buying the uniforms, enforcing the homework policies, filling out the apps, providing the mandatory volunteer hours, etc.)
8/14/12, 2:12 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