Note: The following is
testimony concerning SB5012 
, introduced
to the Washington State Senate in the 2003 Legislative Session.
Charters and the Washington State Constitution
By way of introduction,
I have worked for over 30 years for parents' rights in education. I am not a proponent of the current
education reform. Charter schools
are not the remedy, providing no choice and an unconstitutional trap.
Proponents of charter schools state,
"It's a step in the right direction." They don't tell it is a leap that
creates contract schools over which you, the elected legislators, lose all
control. Proponents John Chubb and
Terry Moe perfectly described this in Politics, Markets, and American
Schools, page 218:
Our guiding principle in the design of
a choice system is this: public authority must be put to use in creating a
system that is almost entirely beyond the reach of public authority.
In violation of our Constitution,
Article I § 12, SB5012 grants charter schools immunity from nearly 800
laws and grants privileges of additional funding not available to other
schools. Charter schools are
contract schools. If you, the
legislators, allow them to operate outside those laws, you will have removed
parental rights to view curriculum, to excuse students from objectionable
material, to require teaching patriotism and morality, and removed many
protections educators need. Indeed,
you will have changed our form of government by eliminating elected
representation over taxation. You
will not then be able to legislate protective laws
onto charter schools without risking lawsuits over breach of contract. Further, with ongoing contracting with
schools, both through newly established charter schools, and through the
open-ended conversion of existing schools, there will never be a time, free
from contracts, you can change the law.
Changing Article I § 12 requires placing a constitutional amendment
before the people.
SB5012 removes choice. First, the elected board is no longer
accountable to taxpayers. They are
replaced by a corporate board, who take no oath to
uphold the constitutions, thus are not subject to recall. Next, no election is held to allow
voters to determine the advisability of allowing tax dollars to fund charters
in the district. No election allows
voters to determine whether existing schools will convert. Indeed, after 2005, even districts with
less than 1,000 students can convert, leaving no option for students. Will districts build new schools for
those that desire elected representation and parental rights? What would be the cost of buying out a
charter school contract, if citizens don't like it?
Charter schools must comply with
HB1209, ed reform, and with No Child Left Behind laws,
which will drive the curriculum.
Nor can charter schools be religious, or operated by a religious
organization. No choice there!
Non-profit corporations are to manage
charter schools, but nothing prohibits profit making. The non-profit corporation can contract
out instruction services and other purchases, even to for-profit
corporations. What happens to tax
purchased equipment in the event of bankruptcy, as has happened already in
other states? Does it revert to the
taxpayers, lien-holders, or the non-profit corporation? If a converted charter school fails to
fulfill its contract, and the federal government asks for return of funding,
who assumes the reimbursement, the non-profit corporation or the school
district?
Logic should tell us duplicate services
in a district cannot save money, but so do several studies and the experience
of many charter school districts. A
Twentieth Century Fund Report by three New York University Researchers, Hard
Lessons Public Schools and Privatization, studied these public/private
hybrid experiments dating from 1970's to 1996, and found no dollar savings, and
little improvement in test scores.
In Baltimore, for instance, test scores fell, but per-pupil costs were
11.2% higher. The 1970 experimental
public/private hybrids were so bleak, 20 years passed before experimenting
again. Why not utilize the
provision in SB5012 for a study of charters prior to, not after, legislating
contract charter schools?
In 1998, UCLA researchers found little
accountability for academic performance in 10 California school districts. They also raised questions about
management efficiency of public funding.
September 2002, Brookings Institute
released a study of 376 charter schools in 10 states. Charter schools were found anywhere from
a half year to a full year behind their public school peers on reading and math
tests.
According to The
Cincinnati Enquirer, December 21, 2002, just 16% of the 2,422 charter
school students taking the fourth grade reading test scored proficient or
above.
That is compared to 46% of all Ohio students.
It is common knowledge some of the
biggest for profit charter school corporations have never made a profit, and
have had to cut services to students.
Edison is a prime example of broken promises, community strife, and
uncertainty whether mid-year closure of schools will leave students scrambling
for an education.
Charter schools are an avenue for
School-to-Work to benefit business.
Students are short changed on education to serve the needs of the labor
market. Taxpayers pick up the cost
of training.
Lastly, nothing in SB5012 forbids the
non-profit corporation from contracting with foreign nation corporations to
manage charter schools.
Massachusetts has 2 Sabis Charter Schools,
whose home base is Liechtenstein. Granting
immunity from teaching United States Citizenship and patriotism would certainly
make it easier to teach world citizenship, wouldn't it?
Charter schools do not provide
"choice." They contract
away any authority you, the elected Senators, have over charter schools. They pose taxation without
representation. They cannot be used
for religious schools, which comprise 85% of private schools. They violate the Constitution in several
provisions. I urge you vote no, or
again refer this matter to your constituents.
If I may be of service in providing
documentation for your study, please contact me:
Washington State
There appears to be a mindset disconnect
between the Constitution and provisions of charter school legislation. For example, in considering the simple
majority vote, legislators pass a constitutional amendment to the people as
well as a statute law. This has
never been the case with charter school legislation, yet there have always been
numerous violations of the constitution and/or intent in the proposed
legislation. Consider the
following:
Article I § 1. All political power is inherent in the
people, and governments derive their just power from the consent of the
governed.
An emergency clause is part of SB5012,
preventing a vote of the people.
Next, there never is a vote of the people whether to pay for a new
charter school in the district.
There never is a vote of the people over converting existing schools
into charter schools. Voters cannot
recall those University or College sponsors, because they are not elected, not
subject to recall, but according to SB5012 have no liability. It sets up two systems for the
sponsoring school board. The board
is liable for existing schools, but not liable for charter schools, even though
the charter school receives levy and construction money. The school board could be recalled for
accountability of the existing schools, but not for the charter school.
Article I § 12. No law shall be passed granting to any
citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or
immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens,
or corporations.
Charter schools receive privileges in
additional money. They receive
immunity from approximately 800 laws, including parents
rights, the need to teach patriotism and morality, to teach the Constitutions,
from having elected representation over them, and so forth.
Article III § 22. The superintendent of public instruction
shall have supervision over all matters pertaining to public schools, and shall
perform such specific duties as may be prescribed by law.
The superintendent of public
instruction becomes only a bean counter in SB5012. Prescribing different duties in SB5012
does not repeal the mandate for supervision over all matters pertaining to
public schools, unless these are not public schools.
Article II § 28. The legislature is prohibited from enacting
any private or special laws in the following cases:
(6) For granting
corporate powers or privileges.
(7) For authorizing
the apportionment of any part of the school fund.
(15) Providing for
the management of common schools.
Article II § 37. No act shall ever be revised or amended
by mere reference to its title, but the act revised, or the section amended
shall be set forth at full length.
The nearly 800 laws had previous public
hearings, testimony, and votes by elected representatives. SB5012 simply exempts charter schools
from laws without identifying them, or giving the public the right to public
hearings for that consent.
Article VII § 1. The power of taxation shall never be
suspended, surrendered or contracted away.
Has that intent been by-passed in
SB5012?
Article VIII § 7. No county, city, town or other municipal
corporation shall hereafter give any money, or
property or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any corporation, except
for the support of the poor and infirm.
Is the intent of this provision
by-passed when levy money is filtered back through the school district, but the
elected board has no liability over the charter school?
Article IX § 2. The legislature shall provide for a
general and uniform system of public school.
That is a singular system, not one with
different laws and different types of management. Let me stress here that I think there is
a contradiction in our Constitution.
Article IX does not conform to the Enabling Act, nor does it conform to
Article XXVI § 4, which is the Compact with the United States. This provided for plurality of systems,
and only prevented a domination of schools by one denomination of
religion. It would have allowed any
religion that wanted a school to start one. I personally believe that was the intent
of the Founding Fathers. However,
if the intent is to follow Article IX § 2, charter schools do not qualify.
Article XI § 14. The making of profit out of county,
city, town, or other public money, or using the same for any purpose not authorized
by law, by any officer having the possession or control thereof, shall be a
felony, and shall be prosecuted and punished as prescribed by law.
Nothing in SB5012 prevents the
so-called non-profit corporation from making money, or from contracting with
for-profit corporations for instructional or other services. The control over public money has been
removed. The local school board
each month receives an accounting of the budget, in public meetings. SB5012 requires only a report to the
sponsors and parents once a year.
Remember, please, the sponsors are without liability over charter
schools.
Article XII § 5. ...all corporations shall have the right
to sue and be subject to be sued.
By granting exemption from all those
laws, while providing for 20 new charter schools per year, and unlimited
conversions of existing schools, there will never be a time you can give
protections back to parents, students and taxpayers. To change the laws would be a breach of
contract, and the corporations could sue the state.
SB5012 contains the only mandates to
these contract schools.
Considering the mindset disconnect
between the Constitution and SB5012, would it not be better to stop legislating
the schools, and amend SB5012 into a study, with public hearings before the
legislature on the specifics of Washington State's laws, and not bring in
"experts" from other states?
I well remember an "expert" from a "national model
charter school" from Arizona who addressed the House Education
Committee. About a year later, the school
ceased to exist, leaving students stranded. No more was heard of that failure!
When SSB5953 and HB1209 were passed,
the voters were given no vote.
There were many outside "experts" who came to design the
system. The EALRs,
WASLs and No Child Left Behind are still mandates for
charter schools. Why are most of
those designers also proponents of charter schools?
Why do so many proponents have vested
interest in charter school corporations?
Cris Shardelman is a strong advocate of the
parents' rights in the area of education.
She has worked tirelessly for over thirty years, with state and federal
legislators, legislative aides, parents, teachers, school boards, lobbyists,
activists, organized groups and many others, in the area of education. She has helped write legislation and
testified before the legislature on matters of education. Cris is also a researcher of some note
and has worked with various youth groups.
╪