School board members recruited to oppose I-1240, the charter school reform initiative
I was disappointed to hear that this week opponents of Initiative 1240, the charter school initiative, are trying to recruit school board members to sign a petition in opposition to the initiative.
This effort attempts to draw school board members into a larger political dispute which does not concern most of them. School board members are volunteers who stand for election in order to serve their schools and local communities. The vast majority of the 295 school districts in Washington will be unaffected by Initiative 1240 because this measure allows only 8 charter schools a year and a total of just 40 over five years, a tiny fraction of Washington’s 2,345 schools. Initiative 1240 says preference must be given to charter schools that serve at-risk students, so charter schools are likely to be limited to the few urban districts which serve large numbers of poor and minority children.
School board members are likely to avoid getting involved in Initiative 1240 for two reasons: 1) Initiative 1240 is a strong school reform measure, and 2) Washington state voters are likely to pass this measure. School board members will not enjoy being characterized as opposed to school reform at their next election for school board.
Polls show that voters across Washington recognize that Initiative 1240 is good for children because it will allow at-risk inner-city children the chance to attend a high-performing charter school.
Comments
Recruiting
I am a school board member and the only people that have tried to recruit me have been Stand For Children. They offered several of our board members all expenses paid trips to visit charter schools across the country.
FYI- As elected officials, any legislation about schools should concern every school board director in the state. I would NEVER avoid speaking out about any legislation I saw that was not good for our school system just to be safe at election time. When you really study I-1240, anyone can see how poorly written it is. This is not about being opposed to charter schools or innovation in our existing schools; it is about a piece of legislation that has too many holes that open the door to communities losing their voice about their own schools. I-1240 doesn't just affect a few districts, but affects the whole state. The added bureaucracy of another state department, to the tune of several million dollars a year at a time when there isn't enough money to fully fund the education system we already have is ill-responsible.
Loss of Local Control Is a Bad Idea
Well, first: Which polls show that? Go ahead and enumerate.
Anyway, the "tiny fraction" is a red herring. Figuratively speaking, 40 schools is the camel's nose. The next logical argument we'll hear is that 40 just isn't enough. I'm told that's what has happened elsewhere.
But the problem in I-1240 is the framework it establishes which can revoke local voter control over a school's policies, and distort the disposition of voted levies. I hope every elected school board member will recognize that I-1240 sets up a legal framework that could take schools away from their care, while leaving a huge chunk of the facilities costs in their laps.
The problem with this framework is that it permits any $30 "non profit" shell corporation with good political connections to get or coerce the assent of half the teachers and thus convert a school, using standards developed by the NACSA, an entity not accountable to Washington voters. That's employees rejecting employers, and in my view that's a recipe for chaos.
The lack of language in I-1240 restricting authorizers, the missing language targeting the establishment of those 40 charters to these at-risk students except in the most nebulous of terms, and the permission given to any authorizer to convert any school makes things so that it ought to sound like anathema to any locally elected official, in my view.
We ought to have the option to open up charter schools. But this is the wrong way. No one in my circles, once learning about section 203 of I-1240, or the composition of the proposed charter schools commission, decides to vote "yes".
Charters
Thanks for you input Rob. You said the following: "I hope every elected school board member will recognize that I-1240 sets up a legal framework that could take schools away from their care, while leaving a huge chunk of the facilities costs in their laps." and "and thus convert a school, using standards developed by the NACSA, an entity not accountable to Washington voters."
Do you understand that what you are describing is exactly what the state legislature and OSPI did by adopting the Common Core State Standards and taking the away the rights of Washington citizens to control their own schools. We are left holding the financial bag while outsiders dictate to us what our kids will be taught. I fear that far more than any problem with in-state charter schools where the legislature can fix the problems. The legislature gave away their authority to control state education standards. What will we get in return? Chaos!!!!
Local Control and the Employee Relationship
Bob, I have no doubt you're a marvelous teacher with long experience in the classroom. We should double your salary (I really believe that!) no matter what else you might think.
I understand two things.
One, as a teacher employed in my school district, you are accountable to voters through the School Board. They have afforded you marvelous opportunities to innovate in your teaching and I support that framework. Even so, it remains that we, through that Board, may absolutely tell you "what to teach, how to teach, when to teach and now even how [you] will grade." Those are the terms of your employment; a teaching credential is not a policy making credential. We voters, through that Board, award the high school diploma, and its standards are higher than that of OSPI.
If you convert to a charter, I-1240 style, we lose that accountability. I oppose that, not the establishment of charter schools in general.
Two, I've read through the Common Core Standards and don't object to the content there; it's adoption and implementation is under the direction of Mr. Dorn and the SBE and it's very similar to the previous OSPI standards set. I can vote for or against Mr. Dorn, and he can bring pressure to bear on the SBE.
Under I-1240 I can't vote for conversion of a public school to a charter if half the teachers there decide to sign the petition and shop for an authorizer. That part has nothing to do with the efficacy of a charter school or the advantages for teachers it might impart.
But bringing CCS up is a red herring anyway, and incoherent at that, as though the solution to one revocation of local control would be to erect another one.
Charters
Rob, thanks for being willing to serve on a local school board. I am totally for local control and I have no problem understanding who I work for. I was an employer for 17 years and I fully understand the relationship between employer and employee and have no problem with that relationship. I fully support my local board and have had numerous conversations with our board members. They have never been anything but supportive of me and I respect and support them back. That being said, I have never talked about charter schools with them but it wouldn't be relevant because I'm only expressing my personal opinion.
I disagree that the comparison with ccss is not relevant. You seem to be okay with giving up control of what is taught in your school to people outside of this state but you object to seeing that control go to people who you know right here. I find that inconsistent.
However, we are only talking hypothetical because I can't imagine a group of teachers voting to overthrow their local board and superintendent so they could give up their security and run their own school unless the situation was totally intolerable. If that were the case, the school district would probably be facing massive failure and losing their best teachers anyway. In general, teachers already have their hands full just doing their jobs.
The bottom line is that 41 other states have allowed charter schools. It's time for Washington to join the 21st century. In this age of technology, charter schools are only one small part of the massive changes that are going to take place in education over the next couple of decades.
Y
Charters
I support local control 100%. Many of our problems have been caused by trying to put one size solutions on all school districts. Local board members would enhance their control and involvement by promoting charter schools and school choice. At the present, most school board members only get information as it is filtered through the district office. School board members need unfiltered information and seeing direct results from charters would give them objective information by which to compare what is really happening in a school district. It is in the best interests of local boards to promote charters not stick with the filtered status quo...
School Board member recruited to oppose I-1240.
Ms. Finne - As a school board member, I find your latest blog to be at the least insulting and at the most an attempt to intimidate me and the other school board members in Washington. In my nearly nine years serving as a school board member I did not realize my ability to take a position on any issue has been compromised as you would suggest. Whether ot not I agree with I-1240 is not the issue here. Your quote "School board members will not enjoy being characterized as opposed to school reform at their next elections for school board" sounds like an effort to intimidate those who don't agree with your position on this issue. I firmly believe my constituents vote for me based on my service to our district, not how I vote on one narrow issue. We have so many opportunites to provide great educational opportunities to the students of Washington stands and statements like yours are not at all helpful to the process.