It could be you, if you can establish a legal standing for your dispute with the constitutionality of charter school initiative I-1240. It could be Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn. “Dorn says he’s weighing a court challenge and has an inquiry about it in to the state attorney general’s office,” reports KPLU’s Gabriel Spitzer.
You’d think the person heading up Washington State’s public schools would have control over charter schools, too, given that they rely wholly on public education funding.
But as I wrote elsewhere, I-1240 creates “a nine-member state charter school commission that is to act like a school district’s board of directors. Its members are appointed (not elected) by the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House–each of whom get to pick three–to four-year terms.” One reason for that separate commission is to allow the formation of a charter school even if a local school board refuses; charter school proponents have learned that they can’t rely solely on the kindness of local school district officials.
Between the commission and the radical autonomy granted to charter schools (each of which is permitted to form its own board), Dorn doesn’t have much to say to them. They’re supposed to meet the performance standards set by the state, but it’s the commission that oversees what happens if the charter schools fail to perform.
The popular vote provides no clear mandate. As of this moment, about 45,000 votes separate Yes on 1240 from No on 1240, statewide, and the Secretary of State estimates there are at least 237,000 votes yet to count. 20 counties are rejecting 1240, with 19 passing it. 1240 is most popular in Mason, Lewis, and Pierce counties, where it’s won 55 to 56 percent approval. In King County it’s being voted down by three percent.
Another question is whether charter schools are in fact “common schools” (i.e., public schools), as required by the Washington State constitution if they are to receive public funds:
The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.
I-1240 simply states that charter schools are public schools. But that’s precisely what’s at issue with the debate over charter schools versus public schools. Are they? Is it still a “general and uniform system” if charter schools are granted the freedom with curriculum they’ve been granted, and are overseen by non-elected school boards? University of Washington law professor Hugh Spitzer argues that the State Supreme Court has already set a precedent in how common schools are defined–they must be under the control of voters in a school district, which charter schools are not.
Op-ed portion: There doesn’t seem to be an easy way to square the entrepreneurial drive behind charter schools with the requirements of uniformity mandated in the constitution. When 37 percent of charter schools nationally perform worse than “virtual twin” public schools, that’s a lot of young lives being given over to experiment. You don’t get a refund for not having learned anything that year, or three.
Contrast this with the fact that 56 percent of Washington voters upheld a prohibition regarding “investment of public monies of the University of Washington and Washington State University in private stocks and bonds.” Presumably, it seemed too risky to gamble with education monies when it was clear that that was what was happening. Yet charter schools represent a bet not just with education monies, but a bet with the education of students too young to vote. In the competitive, private-enterprise model that charters adopt, the non-performing are supposed to fail. But they fail the students in them most. That’s perhaps not something graduates of Lakeside know about.
