Get Real, I can.

First, in general, charters don't work. The most quoted,used and peer-reviewed study is out of Stanford called CREDO. They found that 17% do better, 46% do the same as traditionals and 37% do WORSE.

There is not one state or even one district that can say that having charters has helped them close the achievement gap.

41 states, 20 years and that's where charters are. That's the real status quo. Why are they popular? We're Americans, we like choice and yes, a small portion of them work.

Keep in mind that many charters receive outside funding so they are not operating at the same level as traditionals. KIPP, a well-known charter group, gets about $4k per child more. Our traditional schools could do better if they had $4k per child more as well. One of the most highly touted charters, Harlem Children's Zone, spends $23k per child. That is not sustainable nor scalable.

Charters underserve Special Ed, ELL and homeless students. A recent GAO study confirms the underserving of Special Ed students. Why would that be? Those high-need students cost more and charters don't want that cost and so are happy to "counsel out" those students, returning them to traditional schools who have to take every child.

I-1240. It's not modest or reasonable and has the most aggressive takeover "trigger" in charter law history (that's not an exaggeration).

- a charter can takeover ANY existing school, failing or not, with a petition signed by a majority of parents OR teachers. If you have 30 teachers in an elementary school, 16 people can change an entire school community.

- under this initiative, a charter can buy or lease any closed or for lease school building at or below market value. Not a good deal for the district or taxpayers. They can also ask for building space from a public entity or commercial real estate at or below market value.

- if you like more government bureaucracy, here's the Charter Commission. Nine people appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and who have NO oversight and you can't get rid of any poor-performing members.

- at-risk kids. Proponents say this measure will create high-quality charters for these students. Not so and when press, no one can name the section and page where this is affirmed. It only says an authorizer can give "preference" to a charter that proposes to serve at-risk kids but it doesn't say how. It also says nothing stops authorizers from giving the ok to ANY kind of charter.

Note - even though a religious group cannot start a charter, there's backdoor. A charter can be "themed" and there are many ethnically themed charters. In fact, the largest charter in the country is called Gulan and it is Turkish -based and imports Turkish teachers ...to teach English.

In short, charters don't work. Are we trying to achieve better academic outcomes? Then charters are not the answer.

The good news? Our state IS moving forward. The Legislature has passed two Innovation schools laws in the last two years. They also passed a Lighthouse School law to support more STEM schools. We have many great examples of innovation in our schools and that tide is continuing.

We need more early childhood education. We need more college and career counseling. We need more summer school and direct interventions for struggling students.

There are many things that we can do to support students but charters will create more problems than any single one of them solves. Districts will lose money and for a small district, it could be devastating.

I write for the Seattle education blog, Seattle Schools Community Forum at saveseattleschools.blogspot.com. If you have more questions, visit the site or write to me at sss.westbrook.gmail
I am happy to answer any and all questions.

That is not an offer you will get from any levy supporter.

Note to Self, keep in mind one thing - this is no pilot project. Many want to "try" charters. Nope, once here, they will only expand and if they are not good, well, then you have many more less-than-good or even bad schools.

Yes, the CREDO study out of Stanford was based on test scores. I know that disappoints many but I can only say, have you not heard of NCLB? This ed reform disaster (now being quietly dismantled) brought mega-testing on all 50 states and that, my friends, is all that counts. Not if you have the arts in school or recess (obesity, remember) or anything else. It's a test score that counts.

I will say that the CREDO stats do NOT say that the 17% were the best or the 37% were the worst; they just performed better or worse on tests. So take that for what you will.

I will also say that it is hard for me to fathom how anyone could vote for this particular initiative even if you like the idea. It is vague and doesn't have near the accountability it should (and I don't get that because it's an alleged selling point). And, it several very dangerous sections.

Number one with a bullet; allowing a charter to take over ANY existing school, failing or not, with a simple majority of signatures by either parents OR teachers. This would be the most severe "trigger" law in the country; no other state has anything like it. You might ask yourself, "why would teachers do that?"

Well, if you hated your principal and you had a CMO (charter management organization) whispering in your ear about how great it will be if they are in charge, you just might sign up.

So if an elementary school has 30 teachers, 16 of them could change the lives of an entire school community and take a neighborhood school off-line, building and all. (Charters are rarely neighborhood schools as they have to take kids from anywhere. A Seattle kid could go to a charter in Bellevue, for example.)

Where is the good or value to that?

And why, you might ask, would a charter go after a good or high-performing school? I'll repeat what the LA Times said - when you takeover an existing school, a charter has to take any and all existing students who remain. If you already have a school with students who do well (and that likely signals on-board parents), well, you already are ahead of the game. The LA Times pointed out that well, no charter really wants a whole school that is failing so that's why the "trigger" isn't being tried out as much in California.

It's also the Charter Commission created by this initiative which is appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate (not much politics there). After that, it's hands-off because they have zero oversight and no mechanism to remove a poor performer. And, they DON'T have to follow the authorization process that school boards do. Why not? I can't say but it's explicitly in the initiative that they don't.

It goes on and on.
-School charter boards don't have to have any qualifications (nor get a background check which all adults have to have in regular schools to work around children),
-charters can force districts to sell closed schools for less than they are worth,
-nothing specific to make SURE that at-risk students get served,
-a backdoor for religion teaching (through ethnically "themed" schools),
-for-profit companies contracting for every service but management of the school.

Like charters if you must but this initiative is the wrong vehicle. The bad far, far outweighs any good.

I don't have a child in this fight so for me this is about protecting our existing schools and students. I have no affiliation with the union - they can fight their own fight.

This is about Washington - for the fourth time - saying no. We are the ONLY state in the union to have ever fought back at the ballot box and that strong independent spirit speaks volumes about our ability to see what works and what doesn't.

If we turn this down, in 3-5 years,we are going to look across the educational landscape of this country and thank ourselves for being so smart.