Republicans Say Deal Near for Charter Schools
The Republican House/Senate Majority Caucus had a press conference to discuss various subjects on the docket as the end of the legislative session draws near. At about 2:30, Rep Chad Magendanz weighs in on charter legislation.
He said:
- there was a tentative agreement this morning
- that there may be potential amendments that may need time for legislators to "digest"
- they were not sure which "vehicle" they would use; 6194, 3000 or 3002
- that they may be able to get this done tomorrow
Changes:
- more oversight of charters from state superintendent
- districts would have "right of first refusal"
- takes out conversion charters (which he called a "concession from our side"
I had to smile when he said that this bill "tries to anticipate challenges to constitutionality." Well, it's about time, no?
So the changes do address the constitutional issue of Article 3, Section 22 of the state constitution which says that the superintendent will have oversight over "all public schools."
I'm not sure what the second one - "district right of first refusal" means. Does it mean districts can refuse charters in their districts after a certain number of them open (that was in one bill?). Or does it mean districts get to say yes to some charters they like and no to others?
The last change is one that is also good to see because it was just shady and immoral all around.
I don't know how much real support this has from the Democratic side so not sure if the numbers are there.
So we may get charters. I have always said that if someone would write a constitutional law, there wouldn't be much anyone could do if it were voted in by the people or the legislature.
I will say that this bill is NOT what the people voted in. We did not vote on a fill-in-the-blank charter law back in 2012. No one will be able to read this bill (probably) until after the fact. That's troubling.
He said:
- there was a tentative agreement this morning
- that there may be potential amendments that may need time for legislators to "digest"
- they were not sure which "vehicle" they would use; 6194, 3000 or 3002
- that they may be able to get this done tomorrow
Changes:
- more oversight of charters from state superintendent
- districts would have "right of first refusal"
- takes out conversion charters (which he called a "concession from our side"
I had to smile when he said that this bill "tries to anticipate challenges to constitutionality." Well, it's about time, no?
So the changes do address the constitutional issue of Article 3, Section 22 of the state constitution which says that the superintendent will have oversight over "all public schools."
I'm not sure what the second one - "district right of first refusal" means. Does it mean districts can refuse charters in their districts after a certain number of them open (that was in one bill?). Or does it mean districts get to say yes to some charters they like and no to others?
The last change is one that is also good to see because it was just shady and immoral all around.
I don't know how much real support this has from the Democratic side so not sure if the numbers are there.
So we may get charters. I have always said that if someone would write a constitutional law, there wouldn't be much anyone could do if it were voted in by the people or the legislature.
I will say that this bill is NOT what the people voted in. We did not vote on a fill-in-the-blank charter law back in 2012. No one will be able to read this bill (probably) until after the fact. That's troubling.
Comments
It would be a profound mistake for House Democrats to put these charter schools ahead of the 1 million kids who are still waiting for fully funded public schools - especially when charter schools undermine funding for those same public schools.
I just saw this post and I will have time to study tonight. At first glance,
SB 6194 put SPI on the Charter Commission. The state's SPI would be one of many and I'm not certain if this will pass constitutional muster.
Article 3, Section 22 states, "The superintendent of public instruction shall have supervision over all matters pertaining to public schools." It does not say supervision over "all public schools." If that were the case, local school boards would be unconstitutional entities.
Various courts, including the lower court in the charter school lawsuit, have defined those "matters" as pertaining to the program of the public schools such as standards, assessments, teacher certification, etc. They have never defined that authority to pertain to the direct supervision of schools.
--- aka
I would like to hear the courts end up saying about this round.
To the extent that they are public schools, the SPI would have supervision over their standards, assessments, teacher certification, etc. as I read the various court rulings on the matter; thus, the SPI's supervision authority is not undermined by charter schools since they required to teach the state content standards, administer the state assessments and be held accountable to the results, etc.
--- aka
Can you send a link about the process?
Also, the SPI can revoke a teaching certificate but has no authority to hire/fire teachers in good standing.
--- aka
Not at all clear to me what district "right of refusal" would come out of this amended language.
The section on levy funding has been struck through. Unless it's put back in somewhere else, that's a pretty significant change for smaller districts.
-SDD
"Let's also keep in mind that in every other state with charters, there's always pressure to relax oversight and numerical limits on charters. Magendanz would be happy with pretty much any bill that can pass the legislature, as he assumes he and his allies will be able to put the things they want back in the coming years.'
I am in COMPLETE agreement with Robert.
"Article 3, Section 22 states, "The superintendent of public instruction shall have supervision over all matters pertaining to public schools." It does not say supervision over "all public schools." If that were the case, local school boards would be unconstitutional entities."
As is, SPI will NOT have supervision regarding matters pertaining to charter schools. It is important to remember that SB 6194 puts SPI on the Charter Commission. The Charter Commission is to consist of 9 APPOINTED and PRO Charter individuals. The SPI's voice is essentially meaningless.
I stand with Melissa. The court will decide.
As well, the court will have continued issues regarding the funding mechanism and charter schools remain under the governance of an appointed board and local and elected oversight is to be questioned.
SPI's authority extends beyond standards, assessments etc.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Amendments/House/6194-S2.E%20AMH%20SPRI%20H4714.2.pdf
This is called a "striking amendment" which has been added to floor calendar for tomorrow. There may be an amendment to restore language for the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the (unelected) chair of the State Board of Education to be on the Commission. Otherwise the Commission remains a group of cheerleaders for charters, who are barred from being skeptics in order to be eligible to be appointed. Putting the cheerleaders in charge of the oversight and authorization led to incredibly lax authorization and failure to even ensure that parents knew from the charter school operators that the schools might be held unconstitutional.
The amendment proposes to add what is called an emergency clause to prevent a referendum from being held on the bill. So much for the chant of respect the will of the voters. The initiative barely passed in a low turnout year. In a presidential election year, it would likely fail.
Still two main issues;
- funding charter schools before McCleary fulfillment
- that this bill is NOT the "will of the people" because it is significantly different from what was voted on.
Just say no.
- Facts matter
Charter bills should NOT be brought to the floor based on the funding of charter schools- alone.
"The legislation, Senate Bill 6194, attempts to get around the issue by funding the schools, not through the state's taxpayer-supported general fund, but through the Opportunity Pathways Account, which is fed by revenue from state lottery sales. During the last fiscal year, the account provided more than $348 million in scholarships and student loan repayment assistance. The bill would divert $18 million from the account to support the charter schools program but would then replenish the lost scholarship money with $18 million from the general fund.
The bill's supporters must be counting on the Supreme Court to look the other way as taxpayer money goes in one door and out the other."
SavvyVoter
In Seattle, the school CSIPs are the plans. They are certified by the Board each year around November. It's a motion on the Board Agenda.
If that's your basis of your argument, it would seem to undermine your SPI supervision authority argument.
--- aka
5th class result 2016