House Bill 2428, “An act relating to establishing alternative forms of governance for certain public schools”.

That’s a very long way of saying “publicly funded, privately operated charter schools” or the privatization of our public school system.

Before I go through this bill line by line, I would recommend listening to a radio show that was on KPFK a while back titled Deception 101: Charter Schools. It is interesting because the people being interviewed talk about charter schools in California, which have been around for a few years now, specifically the topic of co-housing with other schools. This is a subject that is not addressed in this bill but is a huge issue everywhere that charter schools exist. The question becomes “Where will we put these schools?” and ultimately they get co-housed with existing public school programs. There have been real estate deals made where new buildings are built or bought but because of the cost, most charters schools choose not to go that route and instead push aside existing programs in existing buildings and many times ultimately take the school building over. When a charter school is co-housed with a public school, there are different schedules, accommodations must be made in terms of shared facilities and sometimes high schools will be co-located with middle schools or elementary schools. All to save a buck.

To follow are pieces of the bill that I have chosen to focus on and respond to. There is a lot to this bill and because of that, others will be posting as well on different aspects of this bill.

I’m going to start at the beginning of this proposed bill and work my way through it. The phrases that are in italics are the text of the bill.

So let us begin.

The legislature further finds compelling evidence from studies it commissioned that there is a persistent educational opportunity gap disproportionately affecting particular populations of students that must be addressed on an urgent basis.

I thought that’s what the Innovative Schools bill was to do. We haven’t even gotten that program off the ground and now certain individuals are proposing another legislative bill that will only add more expense to a budget that needs to be cut? So far, according to early numbers that were produced by OSPI, the cost of this bill is at $33M per biennium. Also, what about that class size bill that was passed in 2000? That would assist in providing students with more opportunity to interact with their teachers which is what ALL students need.

And, if we focus on adequate funding of education in our state, there would be additional services and resources to support students academically and in other ways as necessary.

See:

Washington gets an ‘F’ in education spending, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Report-Wash-gets-an-F-in-education-spending-2496018.php

Superintendent Dorn on Education Reform, http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/PressReleases2012/EdReform.aspx

Superintendent Dorn on the new Quality Counts Report, http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/PressReleases2012/StatementQualityCountsReport.aspx

While we are on the subject of “opportunity gaps” and the silver bullet to rid our districts of what is a society driven set of circumstances, there is a peer reviewed paper that was issued last year just on this subject and it is regarding KIPP, Inc. and their claims of closing this “achievement gap”. The title is “Is Choice a Panacea? An Analysis of Black Secondary Student Attrition from KIPP, Other Private Charters, and Urban Districts”.

Here is the abstract:

Public concern about pervasive inequalities in traditional public schools, combined with growing political, parental, and corporate support, has created the expectation that charter schools are the solution for educating minorities, particularly Black youth. There is a paucity of research on the educational attainment of Black youth in privately operated charters, particularly on the issue of attrition. This paper finds that on average peer urban districts in Texas show lower incidence of Black student dropouts and leavers relative to charters. The data also show that despite the claims that 88-90% of the children attending KIPP charters go on to college, their attrition rate for Black secondary students surpasses that of their peer urban districts. And this is in spite of KIPP spending 30–60% more per pupil than comparable urban districts. The analyses also show that the vast majority of privately operated charter districts in Texas serve very few Black students.

And the conclusion:

The history of unequal, even discriminatory, schooling for Black students in Texas over the past century has created structural inequities that call for structural remedies. We conclude this piece on a hopeful note with a discussion of the great potential of other policies that target Black youth. That students of color year after year achieve at a level far below that of their White and Asian peers is an indicator, not that the children cannot learn, but that our state and our communities have not provided every child with an academically rich education. We have failed to provide well-resourced classrooms taught by teachers who are highly educated in their subjects, knowledgeable about children and learning, and well compensated and valued. There are, of course, many talented and dedicated teachers and many public schools that serve their children well, launching students into productive, even exciting, futures. There exists in the extant literature within the profession a rich repertoire of instructional approaches, curricular resources, and ways of organizing the life of the school, which could provide a foundation for the improvement of all schools. Furthermore, there is a reservoir of good will and interest among makers and shapers of policy and the public to establish traditional public schools as incredible places of teaching and learning, places where children flourish, discover, and develop their capabilities. At this intersection of great need for our youth and exceptional capacity, as evidenced in the state’s leadership in so many areas of science, commerce, and the arts, it appears to be the prime moment for a serious, sustained effort to improve public education and make it more equitable. The somber economic times in Texas and the rest of the country call for a watershed moment. In our educational system lies the pivotal opportunity for an uplifting investment, comparable to that which created the world’s largest medical center in Houston or the constellation of arts organizations linking the state’s largest cities with the most remote rural outposts. The key barrier in this scenario is investment. And the missing operational concept is sustained. When the Texas legislature’s $4 billion cut to education for the 2011-2013 biennium is considered in conjunction with the Lone Star State’s abysmal national rankings in student academic performance, graduation rates, enrollment in higher education, and numerous other indicators of educational attainment, current decisions on public education funding are properly read as a value statement. It is not an accident or anomaly. Texas continues to lag the nation in teacher pay and per pupil spending, and lacks a plan to remedy the historical deficits of unequal support for public schooling. Structural solutions are not as politically popular or media-catchy as charters, but would yield over time the educational quality and attainment our collective future requires. We raise the larger question, how should the public direct its investments in the education of the public’s children? In a time of scarcity, is it reasonable to shift public tax dollars to privately operated entities? Shifting tax dollars into charters turns out, despite the publicity, not to be a panacea for Black students, but an apparent diversion of tax dollars and public attention away from the real possibilities

Now, getting back to the bill.



“Applicant” means a nonprofit corporation that has submitted an application to a sponsor or has filed an appeal with the superintendent of public instruction to obtain approval to operate a charter school.

This is how KIPP, Inc., one of the charter chains being mentioned in our state, and a non-profit corporation, was spending their money a few years ago, “Bronx charter school spent thousands on staff retreats, audit shows”.

And for being a “non-profit”, KIPP, Inc. is doing pretty well with revenues in 2010 of over $200M and that was before the $50M that was granted to the “non-profit” corporation by the Department of Education. You can go to the Urban Institute National Center for Charitable Statistics website and look that up along with many other “non-profits’” profits.

Also, see On the Wal-Mart Money Trail,

Would KIPP, Inc.be willing to provide their financial information publicly?

Here is an excerpt from Why most charter schools should be called private schools not public schools:

The best known charter schools such as the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) are incorporated as private non-profit organizations. The private charters are publicly funded, and thus free to any student who attends, and that seems to be their claim to being public schools. But they are not publicly governed. The private charter schools are governed by boards often made up of wealthy benefactors from the business community. Given the private charters answer to a very narrow segment of the community, their leaders act differently from public school leaders. The founders of KIPP–Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin–endorsed George W. Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention in order to please their funders. They placed students on the convention stage that night, which would have been illegal in a public school.

OK. Now back to the bill.

“Authorizer” means an entity approved under section 109 of this act to review, approve, or reject charter school applications; enter into, renew, or revoke charter contracts with applicants; and oversee the charter schools the entity has authorized.

An “authorizer” meaning an additional layer of bureaucracy in terms of authorization and oversight. And the cost of that?

(A charter school) Is a public school to which parents choose to send their children;

Actually it is a school that is publicly funded and privately run. Listen to the program on KPFK regarding charter schools in California titled Deception 101: Charter Schools.

“Charter school” means a public school governed by a charter school board and operated according to the terms of a charter contract executed under this chapter and includes a new charter school and a conversion charter school.

“Charter school board” means the board of directors appointed or selected under the terms of a charter application to manage and operate the charter school.

What this means is that, as is typical of a charter school, there will be no oversight by the elected school board. The charter school board is made up of individuals who are selected by the charter school CEO.

“Conversion charter school” means a charter school created by converting an existing noncharter public school in its entirety to a charter school under this chapter.

Therefore, there is no need to be concerned about finding classroom space. Just take the entire school over! And then what happens to the students who don’t want to attend this school? What “choice” do they have?

And what happens to the furniture and equipment that is part of the school district? Does that go to the charter school as well?

“New charter school” means any charter school established under this chapter that is not a conversion charter school.

And continuing in the vein of space for these charter schools, where would this “new charter school” be housed?

Well, we’ve just gotten through the definitions and I’m already at 1,872 words and counting. In the days ahead we will provide you with additional information on this bill and the subject of charter schools as well as information on the teacher evaluation bill that the SFC and LEV folks are trying to push through.

Happy Friday and stay safe Seattle.

Dora