When charter schools run amok
Why have so many charter schools performed poorly across the state? The Ohio Supreme provided insights into the answer in a long-awaited ruling last week. The court majority sided with White Hat Management of Akron, one of the largest private operators of charter schools in the country, in a dispute involving the possession of assets (equipment and supplies) that were purchased initially with public money.
In doing so, the court made plain just how much clout the state legislature, with Republicans in the majority, has ceded to White Hat and other private operators. Writing for a fractured majority, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger adopted a reluctant tone, concluding the court was ruling “narrowly” and all but ordering the legislature to take the responsible path of providing fitting requirements and oversight.
Lawmakers have a prime opportunity. The state Senate has approved strong legislation to hold charter schools more accountable. Unfortunately, the bill has stalled in the House. The court ruling provides a compelling reason to move quickly to enactment.
The dispute stems from the board decisions of 10 former Hope academies and Life Skills Centers to part with White Hat and find a new management company. White Hat argued the boards would need to move, and if they wanted to take the equipment and supplies, they would have to purchase them from White Hat. This seemed an audacious request. Public money flowed to White Hat so it could buy the materials to operate the school. Now the public entity must pay again to get them back?
Justice Lanzinger reluctantly answered yes. Her opinion explains that such were the terms of the contract reached between the boards and the private operator. The law simply does not define the requirements of the operators or the parameters of contracts in any adequate way. Lanzinger pointed to the “laissez-faire attitude” adopted by lawmakers toward charter schools.
Looking for an indicator of how much sway White Hat and others have at the Statehouse, their political money a conspicuous presence? They arranged for the public to pay twice.
Hard not to appreciate the outrage voiced by Justices William O’Neill and Paul Pfeifer, in their separate dissents. O’Neill essentially reminds that White Hat has not fulfilled its side of the contract, failing to turn the public money into a quality education. Pfeifer argues that the contract is so one-sided and unfair “as to be unconscionable.” He concludes, not unreasonably, that the court should refuse to enforce it.
There is one saving element among the opinions. Justice Lanzinger holds for a majority that a private operator has a “fiduciary relationship” with the charter school it runs. Thus, in performing a government function, the operator has a first obligation to serve the public interest. In that way, the door is open to sufficient transparency, regulation and oversight of all charter schools. Of course, that must come in legislation. How long before the House acts to address this embarrassment, charter schools run amok in Ohio?