Some members of new Charter School Commission may not support charter schools
Government insiders know that a common way to undermine a new program is for its opponents to manage it. The opponents are then in a good position to hamper the program's success or to encourage its failure.
The authors of Initiative 1240, the voter-approved charter school laws, were well aware of this danger. For that reason they included a direction regarding the Charter School Commission under Section 208, now RCW 28A.710.070(3), which says:
"All [commission] members shall have demonstrated an understanding of and commitment to charter schooling as a strategy for strengthening public education."
Last week's announcement of the nine-member commission includes two members who have expressed their opposition to charter schools:
- Kevin Jacka (appointed by Lt. Governor Owen) signed the No on I-1240 petition, here.
- Steve Sundquist (appointed by Governor Inslee) answered "No" to the question, "Do you support charter schools" on the 2011 King County Democrats general election candidate questionnaire.
Sundquist later switched and now says he supports charter schools, but he doesn't have the level of demonstrated commitment of, for example, commissioner Dave Quall, a former Democratic lawmaker who sponsored charter school legislation and worked for its passage.
Some of the worst-performing schools in the state are in Seattle, and parents in south Seattle in particular are desperate to get their kids into good schools. Yet last year the Seattle School Board passed a resolution urging a "no" vote on Initiative 1240, so it is unlikely the Board would take the necessary steps to approve an application to open a charter school for low-income children in the city.
That would leave the state Charter School Commission as the only avenue for reform open to Seattle parents, so the law's requirement that commission members have a demonstrated commitment to charters becomes even more important.
For all these reasons the appointments raise a red flag for charter school supporters, who share a deep concern for ensuring that every child in Washington has access to a good public education. Initiative 1240 is one of the best charter school statutes in the country, and it would be a shame if the cause of helping children should be set back just as the new law is being implemented.
To read more about the commissioner selection process, see Erik Smith's article on the Washington State Wire, here.
Comments
More reason to question the Sundquist appointment
Ms Finne questions the appoint of Steve Sundquist to the charter school commission due to his recent stated opposition to charter schools. I, too, am troubled by this politically convenient flip-flop.
I'm also troubled by Mr. Sundquist's record as a Seattle School Board Director. In that role he had a duty to enforce policy and hold the superintendent accountable, but he never did either. He certainly had the ability and the authority to provide oversight and accountability, but he chose - consciously and deliberately - not to fulfill his duty.
One of the great advantages we are supposed to realize from charter schools is a higher standard of accountability. But that accountability has to come from the Charter School Commission. Mr. Sundquist, with his proven record of refusing to provide accountability, is a poor choice in that role.
One of the Governor's appointees is appointed for just a one-year term. Let's hope it is Mr. Sundquist.
Objectivity is the most important attribute
While Mr. Jacka and Mr. Sundquist may, in some way, not be totally on the charter bandwagon, it is likely for different reasons.
Jacka may worry about his district and rightly so. There is NO denying that when a charter opens in a district, money leaves that particular district's coffers. And, if it's a conversion charter, that means a building and levy dollars.
On the other hand, Sundquist seems a bit more of an opportunist. He runs, along with the other Seattle School Board incumbents at the time, as being against charters. Then, after he was soundly defeated, he turns around, in a matter of months, and is suddenly for them. Confusing to say the least.
As for the 1240 vote count, only the wealthier waterview precincts, along with one precinct in SW Seattle and one in SE Seattle, supported charters. You can look it up - I did. And to say all the schools in SE Seattle aren't good is to use a wide paintbrush. It's not true.
I think the most important think is an open mind and objective thought. That's what I see in Dave Quall, Trish Dziko and a few others and it will serve the Commission well to have people who will NOT rubber-stamp and will consider the best interests of the students in any given district.
Public charter Waldorf and Montessori schools
Last June, outside the Bellingham Co-op, the guy collecting signatures was promising charter Waldorf schools. Although I doubt this will be a reality in my lifetime, the sentiment is nice. But hey, marijuana is legal in WA and CO, so my pessimism for libertarian progress has been proved wrong.
I believe that Waldorf and Montessori schools are a good direction for education to be heading, especially for K thru 6. If people were allowed to choose these, I bet they would capture a good piece of the pie in WA.
As for south Seattle, I wonder if large urban districts don't work. I believe charter schools will only fracture and churn and not improve it in the whole. If one were to break off that area, figure out the city, state, and federal funds which they were do, and then let them redesign a new public or charter school district in its entirety, I think that would be a better system that doesn't leave anyone behind in the process.