Initiative 1240: A Sucker Punch to Public School Kids

Comments

Brendan Williams - defending the status quo since 1860.

on October 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Washington has some great schools but on average, we aren't doing very well. We are 38th in the country for on-time graduation, 41st in eighth-grade algebra (you must take algebra before high school to have sufficient credit for college), 1 in 4 students drop-out, and we are one of the few states where the achievement gap is still growing. Our region is 6th in the nation in terms of jobs that will demand a post-secondary degree but only 18% of students who start ninth grade in WA actually graduate from college within six years of starting. With results like these, we should be open to new approaches.

Just saying on October 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM

If anything, the zillionaires may be trying to recreate their own elementary experience -- smaller, privatish schools -- for the general public, through the funding of charter schools.

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on October 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Jury's still out on 1240's effect on prices there bub

on October 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I'm not planning to vote for I-1240, but this piece is so awful I almost want to vote for it now. Maybe the author should instead focus on *why* charter schools implemented under this proposed law won't succeed in better educating our students rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks against Costco, Texas, Rick Perry and the "super-rich".

decidedlyodd on October 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

@2 - Stupid argument in support of bad ideas. Saying "well, we gotta try something" isn't the same thing as actually finding solutions to the problems. Charter schools have proven themselves to be problematic elsewhere, and will not fix any of the problems you list.

MacCrocodile on October 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I buy my liquor at Metropolitan Market when I do the rest of my grocery shopping. It's much more convenient than having to go to a separate place. There's no big box store monopoly.

Keenan C on October 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM

@2 New approaches that have been fundamentally useless in their implementation everywhere else?

That's like another country looking at our "No child left behind" program and saying "well, it's different than what we've got, I mean, we need to do something, right?

Charter Schools haven't proven to effectively help the public schooling system pretty much anywhere. It wasn't the answer 4 elections ago, and it isn't the answer now.

Pick1 on October 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM

The problem with "new approaches" is they are developed by business' and not be those people who actually fucking teach school for a living.

We used to have a brilliant public school system in most parts of the country and you know why? We didn't try to cut the funding of our schools as a matter of course, we paid our teachers fairly well (not great but better than we do now) and we kept the politicians (and big business) out of the fucking classrooms.

Oh, and when you pay teachers well from the beginning you get good teachers right from the start. And you don't dangle their jobs over their heads by "performance standards" of their students.

Cato the Younger Younger on October 22, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I meant the liquor initiative 1183 @4 obviously

on October 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM

There's no way to pay public service employees well in today's cut-tax-low-revenue economy. The money has to come from somewhere, and since most people seem to believe the corporate claim that low taxes = good, government will be starved. For-profit charter schools won't change anything to the good.

sarah70 on October 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Actually, charter schools have been proven effective. That's why 42 states allow them.

They don't always work, but in many cases they do achieve good results - especially for kids from poor families.

It's clear our public school system is failing. So yes, I want to try something new. It's not a panacea but charters have been shown to work in other states around the country.

And I'm guessing none of the critics above have kids in Washington State public schools.

Or we could just follow the WEA and teach to the test. That seems to be working really well.

Just saying on October 22, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The problem is funding to our existing schools, this initiative does nothing to bring in extra funding. I don't see charter schools making up the difference in funding by contracting out work to for-profit corporations.

Chris Govella on October 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM

First, do no harm. This initiative will harm an already weakened system.

Understand that we have been underfunding our schools for decades. When the Yes side complains about low graduation rates, understand that supports for at-risk students have been shredded. Seattle Schools doesn't have summer school or college/career counselors.

There are NO mandates to serve at-risk students in I-1240. They don't even mandate transportation be provided by charters for even poor students. Where's that commitment to at-risk students that they advertise?

Charters underserve Special Ed, ELL and homeless students. It's easier to look good (and keep your costs down) when you don't have to serve the highest-need, highest-cost students.

Why won't charters succeed? That's easy. Twenty years, 41 states, low academic outcomes across the board. The evidence is just not there to support spending our scarce education dollars this way. And, they create new spending with no new revenue.

As to #12 and that "everyone else is doing it", consider this:

- Washington State voters have considered and voted down charters....three times. NO OTHER STATE has done that, ever.
- 44 states have an income tax. Washington State? No.
- 42 states have some kind of legislative statement against gay marriage. Washington State legislature? Yes on gay marriage.

Whether you agree with all those things, one thing IS clear. Washington State voters are NOT followers. We are independent thinkers and I believe that is a very good thing not to be led by the nose.

Also#12, charters also HAVE TO give state tests. So yes, there will be "teaching to the test" in charters as well.

No On 1240, www.no1240.org

westello on October 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM

The folks pushing for charters are the same people pushing for assessing teachers based on tests -- so the "teach to the test" is their fault -- not the WEA's. The teachers in our public schools would love more autonomy -- in fact, many have rated that as more important to them than more pay. The whole "reform" approach to education is not improving it. We could get way better results by calling off the corporate reformers, put more money into classrooms (as the WA supreme courts has rules is necessary), and let teachers and communities have more freedom in improving schools. There is nothing that can be done in a charter school that can't be done in any regular public school -- we already have many examples of alternative models that are succeeding within the system and government support to create more. We don't need MORE bureaucracy by creating another overseeing body for schools that is separate from elected State superintendent and elected local school boards. If so many so-called "high performing" charters exists in other states, then we don't need more models to learn from -- why not start folding those ideas into more schools for more children right now instead of starting a whole new system that will serve few students?

sea-parent on October 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Will the proposed charter schools be forced to administer standardized testing?

Also, that article was idiotic.

Rotten666 on October 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM

If this is the best spokesman No can put forward, they deserve to lose. Congratulations, you can put together a bunch of unconnected ad hominems.

mattluby on October 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The liquor initiative didn't vote in a monopoly, rather it created a cabal.

pragmatic on October 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM

@12: "It's clear our public school system is failing."

We have the highest SAT scores in the nation. The ROI for the money we spend is sensational, particularly when compared to charters. Our graduation rate shows up low because we're actually honest about it; the games they play to inflate the rate in other states are incredible.

Any objective look would say that public schools in general, and in Washington State in particular, are just fine.

TheRain on October 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM

No charter schools for Washington.

Free, Public Education for ALL!

We don't need Profit between the taxpayers and the service. That is getting LESS for MORE.

on October 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM

At least SLOG is putting forth cons to 1240, as opposed to the Blethen Times and its constant "charters will fix everything" mantra.
@12 Charters have NOT been proven effective except in segregating populations, dividing communities, and in having the highest attrition rates. There are very few good peer-reviewed research reports out there on charters; those that are out have shown most charters underperform in comparison to public schools, particularly when they already cherry pick their populations to begin with. Charter schools kick out kids at very high rates - KIPP, for example, might start out a 6th grade cohort with 120 kids. By 8th grade, that cohort is down to 30 kids. Yet then they'll claim 100% of their kids met standard on whatever test is required, meanwhile failing to mention that along the way they weeded out 90 kids.... Yep. Effective alright.
Utah has charters. They're nothing spectacular. They've mostly served to line the pockets of the legislators and their family and friends - one person gets the charter approved, another sells the land for the charter school to be on, another builds the school, and the person with the charter then hires all the remaining family and friends to "work" at the charter. Then they hire themselves some cheap teachers (don't have to have a teaching certificate to start teaching at a charter in Utah) and work them to the bone while they reap the $$$.
There's also those lovely ones like Great Hearts charter chain in Arizona who want $1200 each semester from parents. Sounds like tuition to a public school to me. Or check out Reed Hasting's special school in California - rich kid's school on the public dime. And then there's always this fun one: http://bullischarterscam.org/

Charter schools are a scam wrapped up in the schools suck/parental choice/anti-teacher sentiment that the right-wing has been cultivating for years now, even though the NAEP shows that scores have been going up since the 80's. Charter schools are ideology-based, not research-based. Charter school legislation is coming straight from ALEC, and I-1240 is the worst so far.

StuckInUtah on October 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Here's a good summary and policy analysis of I-1240:

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com…

StuckInUtah on October 22, 2012 at 5:59 PM

@13, you forgot one thing, that little bitch of a child Virginia? She's GIFTED!! Yeah...all kids are gifted these days..apparently.

Cato the Younger Younger on October 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM

#17 - yes, charters have to give state tests
#18 - the Slog has printed other articles on why charters, and particularly 1240, are wrong for our state. Go back and read them all and you will get a complete picture.

Or get full info at www.no1240.org

westello on October 22, 2012 at 6:01 PM

@2 New approaches like funding public schools, as our state constitution directs? That would be a nice approach. Or maybe open pre-school for all. That would be a wonderful use of our state funds.

Oh you want to take money away from our already cash-strapped schools and give it to the payday lenders of the education world? That'll work out.

dirge on October 22, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Public schools aren't "underfunded," they're mismanaged. Arbitrary and compulsory curricula, combined with administrative employment that has increased nearly 100% in the last 40 years, while student population has increased just over 10%. This is a large part of why, in the same period, per-pupil spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) has nearly tripled.

There are lots of middle and lower class families, good liberals all, who thank their lucky stars for their local charter school. They enjoy having the choice not to send their kids to violent, unappealing schools. Strange (though predictable), that so many here would like to cruelly take that choice away in the name of political ideology.

Charter schools are not the answer the problem of schools being so thoroughly unpleasant for so many kids. But reducing choices for poor and middle-class families is the opposite of the liberal position on this.

LJM on October 22, 2012 at 11:14 PM

@12: You say, "Actually, charter schools have been proven effective. That's why 42 states allow them." And then you say, "They don't always work, but in many cases they do achieve good results - especially for kids from poor families."

So which is it? They're effective? They don't always work?

Both can be said for public schools, which don't waste tax money on profits to corporations.

sarah70 on October 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Wow. It just shows you how much money these billionaires have:

They could afford to purchase the ballot access for this I-1240 thing by spending $6 per signature.

Then they could afford gorgeous websites and the support of the ersatz, Astroturf groups, like "Stand For Children", "League of Education Voters", "Students First", and the most bullshit name of them all, "DEMOCRATS" (yeah, right) for Education Reform". (DFER has one, just ONE person in the entire state, on a website that no one is allowed to comment on. But it's rumored that she's getting a barrel full of money for the pretense/sellout.)

And ALL of the above Astroturf groups are supported by the same small handful of funders behind I-1240.

Then, they could afford constant Internet banner ads, chasing you wherever you go if you ever type in the word "education" or "school", and unceasing TV spots that are on as often as flies on dung.

And, then they can afford to pay trolls like "LJM", "mattluby", "Just saying" who have software that "lights up and rings a bell" every time somebody comments on "ed reform", "charters" or "1240"...like the good paid shills they undoubtedly are; they come running, like the Right-Wing Calvary, whenever someone speaks the truth against the Privatization of our schools.

Good doggies! Good sellouts!

Pissed in the 36th! on October 23, 2012 at 1:11 AM

I voted for charter schools as revenge on the school board, corruption, poor performance, the teacher's union, and the "families and education" levy. If we fork over as much money as we do to the schools, they should be doing better. But they're not, so let's try partial privatization. That ought to at least wipe the smug grins off some faces.

Mister G on October 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

#12, Charters do better than only 17% of public schools while 37% of public schools do better. The rest remain the same. This initiative will only allow UP TO 1% of children but costs us 300 million to set up and 100 million every year! No accountability to us, the ones paying the bill. You want options, try a school that has a library, music and art programs. Charters do not (because those investors DON'T CARE about anything but that bottom line).
If you would like to see what the trigger in this damned thing can accomplish, look up Delphi Charter School in Louisiana and the teens being pregnancy tested and kicked off campus just this year! All it takes is 51% wacko parents and the other 49% pay the price. No accountability to us, the ones paying the bill while neglecting to fund the schools accountable to us. VOTE NO!

1motorpsycho on October 24, 2012 at 11:03 PM

#20>>We have the highest SAT scores in the nation.

What are you talking about? WA ranks #25 on Combined SATs in 2011, and doesn't lead any individual category. Where are you getting this stuff?

#31 300M to set up? Where are you getting this math? It says right on the state voter guide "Known state agency implementation costs are estimated at $3,090,700 over 5yrs. That's 3M, not 300M and ony $600k/yr.

Jivewire on October 28, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Jivewire on October 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Bill and Melinda Gates support public charter schools not because they're elitist rich people, but because they had the opportunity to see some top performing charter schools in areas with less than 70% graduation rates sending kids off at more than 90%, and more than 90% of the graduated kids heading off to college. Top performing public schools are typically (not always) limited to areas of largely affluent-ish, non-minority citizens. No so with charter schools, because teachers are free to design a curriculum the lessen the achievement gap more successfully than regular public school teachers (that doesn't mean they will, thought still has to be put into it, but they can, at least). These charter schools serve the poor/minority/generally under served, as many charter schools do. Hence the trotting about of brown kids. Charter schools (at least under our initiative) are not private, or even private-ish. They're public schools. Regular schools have the option to convert to charter schools (where they then get 96% public funding insead of whatever they get now, which is typically less-although what you do with the funding is important). Schools that are already under enrolled aren't going to fill to capacity by preventing charter schools from opening. There is accountability in the form of the State Charter Commission or the local school district ( a lot of people seem to be under the impression that there is no accountability). I could go on.

In general, the WA charter school law, if passed, is better than most other state charter school laws, which vary widely (and have a lot to do with how the schools are structured and whether it's conducive to success). Do I agree we should fix the public schools? Yep. But that's an often and long-time refrain that's proven about as valuable as time spent by republicans repeatedly voting to repeal the healthcare act...

@31--and anyone who wishes to quote the CREDO study about 17% and 37%: it is deeply flawed, starting with the fact that the charter schools were not compared to REAL schools, but "virtual" (that is, simulated) schools of what the researchers assumed regular school demographics to be. Simulation in statistics can be good, but in this case...no. Assuming one example to be representative to all is called an unrecognized bias (an example is, "I met a bitchy gay guy, so all gay guys are bitchy). Not a good way to determine the good or bad of anything. Just my seven cents.

on November 2, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Initiative 1240: A Sucker Punch to Public School Kids

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Sleeping with Strangers

Seattle Is the Anti-Fashion Capital of the World

How Gay Are the Muppets?

The Hunger Games of Housing

Council Candidate Tanya Woo Did Not Vote in a Local Election Until 2021

What Will They Do with His Garden?

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!