One size does not fit all. School choice is an important element to provide as many pathways as possible for student success. I could support charter schools that are tied to proper accountability and transparency aimed at preventing the kind of fraud and mismanagement happening with charters in other states.

With that context, I’d like to explain why I voted against a charter school measure this session.

In 2012, the voters narrowly approved an initiative authorizing the creation of up to 40 charter schools in the state. The initiative, however, was flawed and it did not hold up in court.

The charter initiative was first ruled unconstitutional in 2013 before any charter schools had opened. The Supreme Court was asked to review that decision in 2014, and despite the looming uncertainty, later that year several charter schools pushed forward and admitted students.

Many families were not informed of the very real possibility that their school would not be permitted to operate. In the fall of 2015, the Supreme Court ruled against charter schools, throwing the eight existing charter schools into turmoil.

A bill introduced in the state Senate this year attempts to resolve two constitutional issues the Court had trouble with, but completely ignores other likely constitutional problems with the charter schools initiative.

This is why I voted no on Senate Bill 6194. This charter school “fix” will be challenged in court and, in my legal opinion, will lose. Again.

Which means the Legislature will be right back here next year attempting to save charter schools. Again.

An amendment to the charter bill would have allowed the current eight charter schools to continue operating while putting a moratorium on approval of new charter schools until all of the legal challenges had been resolved one way or another.

I supported that amendment, but the majority did not and it failed. Now, the state can allow new charter schools to open and admit even more children while constitutional challenges are still pending. And the education of every charter school kid will be thrown into turmoil if — or as I believe, when — the Court issues another adverse ruling. Again.

This isn’t the last time we will debate charter schools. As I said on the House floor, charter schools are not out of the woods yet.

Moving forward, there are three major issues I believe must be resolved if charters are going to survive legal challenges.

Local control – I have two core values when it comes to using public resources – transparency and accountability. These important values are missing from the charter system now, but must be part of a final solution. Local control is vital to ensuring all schools are transparent and accountable.

Funding – The Supreme Court ruled that charter schools are not “common schools” and therefore cannot receive funding out of the state’s general fund. SB 6194 funds charter schools through a separate account called Opportunity Pathways.

However, as more charter schools open, or as existing ones expand, there will likely not be adequate revenue in the Opportunity Pathways account, which also funds programs like scholarships and grants to low-income students, to keep up with the demand. Funds will eventually be shifted from the general fund to the Opportunity Pathways account, and this co-mingling of funds will either directly or indirectly support charter schools.

Either way, the Supreme Court could find this is nothing more than an end-run around its decision, and that the state is unconstitutionally funding charter schools through the general fund with money earmarked for our other public schools.

“General and Uniform” – Our constitution mandates the Legislature to provide for “a general and uniform system of public schools.” Since charters are exempt from the vast majority of statutes and regulations, district policies, and public oversight, this bill effectively creates a two-tier system, which means education is no longer “uniform” nor equitable.

Ultimately, the only fix that will work, in my legal opinion, is a constitutional amendment. Anything short of that, I believe, will not hold up to legal challenges.

Again, I’m all for school choice. But all choices we offer to students must work within the framework of our constitution. We are a unique state with our “paramount duty” clause. Our constitution requires the state to provide equitable educational opportunities for all kids. Anything less is unacceptable.

Attorney Patty Kuderer is state representative from the 48th Legislative District, which includes Bellevue.