Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Why the Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Matters | EduShyster

Why the Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Matters | EduShyster:

Why the Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Matters






The origins of a surprisingly simple decision that could have major implications…
By Martha Carey
Something unusual happened in Washington state late last week. Charter schools came out on the losing end of a lawsuit. In fact, charter schools, as they are currently defined, funded and organized, were actually ruled unconstitutional by that state’s Supreme Court.  And the basis of that decision was surprisingly simple. The charter school law that narrowly passed Washington in 2012 was found to be in violation of the state’s constitution precisely because charter schools have private boards.
uncommon historyUncommon Schools ≠ common schools 
The constitution in that state clearly defines public schools as schools that operate via taxpayer funds, and which are *under the control of the qualified voters of the school district.*The Supreme Court just ruled that *because charter schools [under the new charter law] are run by an appointed board of nonprofit organization and thus are not subject to local voter control, they cannot qualify* as public schools as defined in Washington’s constitution. Which means funding them violates the law – as noted in the ruling: *money that is dedicated to common schools is unconstitutionally diverted to charter schools.*
What happens next will be pretty fascinating. Several charter organizations and charter operators are calling for a special session of the state legislature to *fix* this pesky problem. Others, including the Washington State Education Association, are expressing vindication and are urging legislators to address the poor state of public school funding once and for all.
Each state’s charter school laws are distinct, and some are far vaguer than others. In Pennsylvania, where I live, the charter school law put into effect in 1997 allows for charter schools to be run as entirely independent entities within a school district, and allows for those charter schools to receive public funds from the state in order to operate.
Schools-as-franchises
The Pennsylvania model of loose policy regulation of charter schools and essentiallyno oversight by the electorate is in alignment with the language of minnesota-welcome-e1332613731772the earliest charter school law, passed in Minnesota in 1991. The premise there was that public school districts were restricting choice by their stranglehold on schools-as-franchises in the education *market.* And the 1991 law promoted the notion that groups of parents, businesses, cultural organizations, etc. could get together and start schools that would give parents and students more education options, and the state and local districts would, correspondingly, divest themselves of the core responsibilities (and rules and regulations) for these schools, essentially allowing the *franchise* to organize and govern itself.
I first worked with several charters schools in St. Paul in 1996; in the five years Why the Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Matters | EduShyster: