Nerditorial: Senator Ericksen's Connection to ALEC, Revisited

Doug Ericksen introduced Senate Bill 5792 recently for the purpose of establishing Innovation Schools in Washington State

This legislation is substantially similar to legislation passed in 2008 in Colorado.

This legislation appears to have been based on so-called "model legislation" originally drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC drafted model legislation on which the controversial Arizona immigration reform bill was based.

ALEC also drafted model legislation on which the controversial Wisconsin union busting legislation was based.

In that light, I am suspicious of any legislation emanating from such a conservative think tank. Particularly a think tank so keen to work from the shadows.

I suspect that Senator Ericksen is a member of ALEC. But there is no way for me to be sure.

Since detailed information on ALEC is only available to members, and since annual membership dues for non-legislators starts in the thousands of dollars, I have no way of directly verifying whether or not Senator Ericksen is affiliated with ALEC or is currently a member in good standing of ALEC.

There is some evidence to support my suspicion that Senator Ericksen is a member of this very exclusive and very un-transparent organization.

Senator Ericksen has been published in the July 2010 issue of the organization's newsletter Inside ALEC. Link here.

Senator Ericksen is sponsoring legislation for so-called "Innovation Schools". This legislation has language that is substantially similar to that passed with the support of ALEC in Colorado in 2008.

Senator Ericksen's access to ALEC resources like model legislation and his contributions to Inside ALEC are consistent with that of a member of the organization itself.

Take a look at the Innovation Schools legislation from Senator Ericksen and from Colorado, and decide for yourself...

Section 1 (Ericksen's bill)

(1) The legislature finds that:
(a) To further the goals of high quality public education throughout the state, each school district board of directors should have the authority to grant schools of the district maximum possible flexibility to meet the needs of students and the communities in which they live; and
(b) Particularly in schools and communities that are struggling to improve student academic outcomes and close the achievement gap, there is a critical need for innovative models of public education that are tailored to the unique circumstances and needs of the students in those schools and communities.
(2) Therefore, the legislature intends to:
(a) Grant school districts and schools greater flexibility to meet the educational needs of a diverse student population;
(b) Improve educational performance through greater individual school autonomy and managerial flexibility;
(c) Implement evidence-based practices proven to be effective in reducing demographic disparities in student achievement; and
(d) Encourage innovation in education by providing local school communities and principals with greater control over staffing, personnel selection and evaluation, scheduling, and educational programming.

Colorado Legislation Section 1

... EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THE MAXIMUM DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY POSSIBLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS AND THE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH THEY LIVE; AND
(e) WHILE THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTROLLING THE INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONTINUES TO LIE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EACH PUBLIC SCHOOL, EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO DELEGATE TO EACH PUBLIC SCHOOL A HIGH DEGREE OF AUTONOMY IN IMPLEMENTING CURRICULUM, MAKING PERSONNEL DECISIONS, ORGANIZING THE SCHOOL DAY, DETERMINING THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCES, AND GENERALLY ORGANIZING THE DELIVERY OF HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, THEREBY EMPOWERING EACH PUBLIC SCHOOL TO TAILOR ITS SERVICES MOST EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE POPULATION OF STUDENTS IT SERVES.
(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THEREFORE FINDS THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO TO ENACT THE "INNOVATION SCHOOLS ACT OF 2008" TO ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
(a) TO GRANT TO COLORADO'S SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS GREATER ABILITY TO MEET THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF A DIVERSE AND CONSTANTLY CHANGING STUDENT POPULATION;
(b) TO ENCOURAGE INTENTIONALLY DIVERSE APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND EDUCATION WITHIN INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS;
(c) TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH GREATER INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL AUTONOMY AND MANAGERIAL FLEXIBILITY;
(d) TO ENCOURAGE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE, TO CREATE AND MANAGE A PORTFOLIO OF SCHOOLS THAT MEET A VARIETY OF EDUCATION NEEDS, INCLUDING IDENTIFYING ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE OR UNIOR HIGH, AND HIGH SCHOOLS TO COLLECTIVELY OPERATE AS A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED INNOVATION ZONE OF SCHOOLS;
(e) TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATION IN EDUCATION BY PROVIDING LOCAL SCHOOL COMMUNITIES AND PRINCIPALS WITH GREATER CONTROL OVER LEVELS OF STAFFING, PERSONNEL SELECTION AND EVALUATION, SCHEDULING, AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING WITH THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING IMPROVED STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT;

Well, that seems benign enough. Added flexibility... innovation... autonomy... good stuff right?

But how does an innovation school achieve such things, I wonder?

Collective Bargaining (Ericksen bill)

(1) Any collective bargaining agreement entered into, extended, amended, or renewed after the effective date of this section between a school district employer and employees under this chapter must contain a provision that allows employees of a school district who are assigned to an innovation school or a school within an innovation zone endorsed by the state board of education under section 6 of this act to elect to be removed from the bargaining unit and the collective bargaining agreement as provided under this section.
(2) Employees under this section may elect, by means of a secret ballot approved by a majority of the employees under this chapter assigned to the school, to be removed from their bargaining unit and collective bargaining agreement. In the case of schools within an innovation zone, the election must be conducted separately for each school within the zone.
(3) Removal of employees of an innovation school or a school within an innovation zone from bargaining units and collective bargaining agreements under this section must continue so long as the school remains an innovation school or within an innovation zone.

Collective Bargaining (Colorado Bill)

...ON AND AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE STATE BOARD DESIGNATES A SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A DISTRICT OF INNOVATION, ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT INITIALLY ENTERED INTO OR RENEWED BY THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD OF THE DISTRICT OF INNOVATION SHALL INCLUDE A TERM THAT ALLOWS EACH INNOVATION SCHOOL AND EACH INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
(b) FOR AN INNOVATION SCHOOL, REMOVAL FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT SHALL BE BASED ON OBTAINING THE APPROVAL BY MEANS OF A SECRET BALLOT VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE PERSONNEL WHO ARE EMPLOYED AT THE INNOVATION SCHOOL.
(c) FOR AN INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE, REMOVAL FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT SHALL BE BASED ON OBTAINING AT EACH SCHOOL INCLUDED IN THE INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE PERSONNEL WHO ARE EMPLOYED AT THE SCHOOL. THE INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE SHALL SEEK TO OBTAIN MAJORITY APPROVAL THROUGH A SECRET BALLOT VOTE OF THE PERSONNEL AT EACH SCHOOL INCLUDED IN THE INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE. THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE MAY CHOOSE TO REVISE THE PLAN FOR CREATING AN INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE TO REMOVE FROM THE ZONE ANY SCHOOL IN WHICH A MAJORITY OF THE PERSONNEL DO NOT VOTE TO REMOVE THE SCHOOL FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
(d) REMOVAL OF AN INNOVATION SCHOOL OR OF AN INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE FROM A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (1) SHALL CONTINUE SO LONG AS THE SCHOOL REMAINS AN INNOVATION SCHOOL OR THE INNOVATION SCHOOL ZONE CONTINUES TO EXIST.

That's looking a lot less benign all of a sudden.

That flexibility and autonomy is achieved by making it easier to fire personnel.

Like teachers.

There is a divide and conquer strategy built into this system, using secret ballots to erode support for collective bargaining contracts. And once an Innovation School loses its collective bargaining contracts, they are gone for the duration of that school's participation in the Innovation School program. After a school faculty votes away its collective bargaining rights in an Innovation School, there is no mechanism for getting those rights back.

This bill may not be the naked, absurd power grab indulged in by the GOP in Wisconsin, nonetheless it does appear to pose a direct threat to the collective bargaining rights of an entire school.

And remember, this model legislation was drafted by the same folks who worked the legislative magic you are seeing happening in Wisconsin right now. So, if you are a teacher in the Washington school system (or you know such a teacher) you might want to scrutinize this legislation before it becomes law.

The Colorado bill was introduced by a Democrat, so this bill has enough of a bipartisan veneer to appeal to otherwise vigilant public servants.

ALEC has been doing its thing for a long long time. Since 1973. ALEC is well-coined, well organized, and well hidden. It is as averse to public transparency as is a vampire to the light of day. I don't trust this organization any further than I could throw a fit.

Who do you trust?

In the light of what has been happening in the midwest to unions this year, if you trust Republicans like Senator Ericksen, you may find yourself coping with the same overwhelming Buyer's Remorse that is occuring in placed like Wisconsin.