Union to file lawsuit to overturn charter school initiative

January 2, 2013

Over the holidays, Washington Education Association executives decided to sue voters over Initiative 1240, the people’s charter school initiative, according to a posting on Facebook. I-1240 gives priority to new charter schools that serve at-risk students from low-performing traditional public schools. Here is the union’s statement:

“Though our candidates won, we are disappointed that corporate interests with their $11 million were able to pass the charter school initiative. Looking forward, your board of directors has decided to fund a legal challenge against the new charters law and, as we did with McCleary, are seeking partners and developing an approach and timeline for this effort.  More details about this will come.”

The union has a communications network which distributes political messages to teachers, school employees and parents. The union also has an annual budget of $33 million of taxpayer dollars taken as dues from teachers' paychecks.

The union faces a costly, uphill battle. A lot of information about successful charter schools in other states is now available. New research about charter schools shows they are a successful option for students within the public school system. Editorial boards of all Washington’s major newspapers endorsed Initiative 1240. By a clear majority, voters ignored union opposition and passed I-1240, demonstrating that voters want charter schools in Washington state.

The union’s lawsuit is based on shaky legal reasoning. Initiative 1240 is clearly constitutional. The lawsuit may delay Washington’s charter schools, but it will not stop them. The lawsuit scheme provides additional evidence the union is a reactionary force determined to block change. Union executives want to protect their monopoly power and influence within the system, regardless of the cost to disadvantaged children trapped in failing public schools in Washington state.


WEA filing suit against Charter School Initiative

Liv, Thank you so much for keeping us up to date on this information. I really appreciate it. We will work down here, in Clark County, any way we can to maintain the integrity of that election. Thanks, again, Debbie Peterson 360.254.8785

Challange to unconstitutional 1240 completely appropriate.

There is plenty of research and news showing that many, many charter schools are closed, or need to be closed. There is ample evidence that many charlatans rip off public money with charters. Charters are divisive. They are a distraction. And as we all know, the WA constitution places the power over public schools under the Superintendent, not under some unaccountable, unelected, obsure board, a board that 1240 stipulates must be composed of charter supporters, rather than a balanced group.
1240 is a disaster. The sooner it is overturned, the better.

A "clear majority of voters"? 1.5%? Wow, you guys have some skewed thinkin' over there. It barely passed.

AND it only passed because a very few wealthy individuals bought the election to the tune of 11 million dollars....

Let's get it to court. Our students need our focus in public schools, not in these privatized, unaccountable profit generators.

If true, good for the WEA

First, those "dues" are required of the police union and firefighters union and yet WPC always goes after the WEA about this issue. Why is that?

Second, the court case will NOT be about the efficacy of charters (or lack thereof). It is based on the constitutional and the WPC saying it IS constitutional will not mean much to the court. They will decide and, if there is a case and they do take it, that would mean they are willing to look at the issue.

Third, clear majority? Less than 42K votes won this thing in a statewide vote. That's not a clear majority, it's a bare majority.

The union is reactionary? You should read your own post for something reactionary.

This could get interesting.

" according to a posting on

" according to a posting on Facebook. "

....which was posted by you.

"The union’s lawsuit is based on shaky legal reasoning."

.....none of which can be found in the picture you yourself posted.

This is a silly post.