Governor allows charter school bill to become law
Governor Jay Inslee, by taking no action, has allowed the charter school bill, SB 6194, to become law,
See the Seattle Times article.
See the Seattle Times article.
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.)
Comments
I agree, beef. The state will spend more money on lawsuits. Please take note that House Representative Larry Springer (D) sponsored the charter bill. Here is what he had to say:
"I mean, if I were them, I’d be planning my lawsuit- said Springer."
I'm anticipating $1M getting diverted to the Charter Commission, as well.
I'm just bewildered that everyone thinks a lawsuit is inevitable.
--- aka
Charters aren't public schools, and it is only just and right that the well-funded industry be fought tooth and nail. It truly IS "for the kids."
--GL
Non-partisan legislative staff attorneys looked at SB 6194 and said, numerous times, that this bill is constitutional. I tend to believe these people more than activist bloggers on legal matters.
--- aka
But here's my point, this bill is not on its face unconstitutional --- many legal experts without a dog in the fight gave this bill a legal analysis and called it good. The court might not agree but I don't think anyone with a legal background thinks this is a slam dunk.
--- aka
It seems clear to me that the Cour wants public schools to have elected boards. It makes sense. Taking money from a different pit doesn't abrogate that, it's just a shell game.
Second, as to why you think the WEA would sue over this, I think they regard this as a "camel's nose" situation: once you let the nose in, sooner or later, there's a camel in your tent. Since the main purpose of charter schools, based on who supports them, is to do away with teacher's unions, the WEA regards this as a priority. I agree. (Disclaimer; while I am a member of the WEA, I do not speak for them.)
I applaud your courage in telling the truth.
--- aka
Or did he make a mistake, and pass up what would have been a popular and winning veto?
Presumably he would have vetoed the law if he were following his heart, oblivious to consequences. Does this mean his political consultants and advisers tested the winds and told him he had to wimp out?
Opposition to charter schools is much deeper and broader than just teachers unions. We've seen this in other states and we will now see it here in Washington.
Most opposition to charter schools stems from the fact that they are not very good for kids. The child abuse that takes place at Success Academy is but one of the more notable examples.
But enough about the opponents. Will charter supporters be satisfied with this? Or should we expect them to start demanding that the 40 school cap be raised, and that they get funds from sources other than the state lottery?
Second, I am not so dense as to imagine that opposition to charter schools is relegated only to teachers' unions. I know opposition exists among other groups. However, opposition among other groups tends to be among allies to the unions, e.g., Soup for Teachers.
Third, there is no evidence whatsoever that charters are "not very good for kids." Your cherry-picking of data notwithstanding. Choosing one particular charter school or charter school network is a cheap shot and you know it. Should I begin to post the egregious violations of student rights perpetrated against students in traditional public schools that are reported on a regular basis? We could do this every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
--- aka
No, they were not. They said they wrote "the best charter law in the country." Over and over and over. They told audiences it was vetted. (I know, I was on multiple debate panels. As well, I'm assuming because Gates paid for so much, he paid for some lawyer to look it over.).
My belief is that the initiative supporters were told it was problematic but damn the torpedoes, they went for it. (I mean, that parent/teacher conversion clause? There wasn't another one like it in the entire country.).
Again, they gambled with kids' academic lives and lost. And I suspect that's just what the legislature and the Governor just did. But time will tell.
I've already seen a call to lift the caps on charter schools.
They're not allies to the unions, they're allies to the teachers.
The charter industry has never been allies to public school teachers; on the contrary, they vilify them. It's one of their main tools to gain traction.
I feel the pain that the Repubs must feel for their nominee prospects. Like them I won't vote for my party's (gov) nominee this fall. One less sure-thing Seattle vote for the huge D disappointment who is Inslee.
DistrictWatcher
I think most people feel that teachers are not the enemy. A smaller number, but still a majority, at least of Dems, believes that teachers unions are also not the enemy. Perhaps similar to views of unions in general which have done so much to create a middle class, and a more humane society in general, both here, and worldwide.
While the anti union leg of the tripod of the major charter concept flaws is a key one, so too are the others: non-inclusiveness because they don't have to be and there is pressure to increase test scores by selecting for high achieveing students only; and avoiding accountability to voters by not having locally elected school boards they must answer to. They are essentially private schools, whether they happen to be effective and great, or middle range, or indeed horrible on the other end of spectrum (abusive, authoritarian, 19th century style discipline, etc).
Teacher unions should rightly oppose charters as they are indeed an existential threat to unionism, since they expressly prohibit teacher unions. That doesn't make unions bad guys. The SEA, in particular, in the last strike negotiations, negotiated for improved student conditions, not just teacher work conditions and compensation, with some important success.
People support charters for a variety of reasons, some defensible, and some not. One that is not, is villification of teachers and teacher unions. One of the reasons for high teacher attrition rates is their feelings of being unappreciated by many people in our society.
Brian Duncan
http://westseattleblog.com/2016/04/with-state-funding-restored-charter-operator-still-working-toward-opening-in-west-seattle/#comments