State court rules charter schools are unconstitutional

What the Washington State Charter Decision Can Teach Connecticut (and Rhode Island)

By Diane Ravitch

Jonathan Pelto has covered the charter school scams and scandals in Connecticut and often pointed out that the charters with the highest scores don’t accept the lowest performing students. That was the original purpose of charters. 

Ironically, the same cast of characters and hedge fund managers can be found pushing privatization of public schools across the nation.

In this post, Pekto draws attention to an excellent article on this subject by Sarah Darer Littman.

Littman analyzes the Washington state court decision and connects its relevance to Connecticut.

Jonathan writes:

“In her latest piece, Littman challenges Connecticut legislators to pay “close attention to several interesting legal developments on the West Coast, which could have significant implications here in the Nutmeg State.”

Sarah Darer Littman writes,

“The first came Sept. 5, when the state Supreme Court in Washington ruled 6-3 that charter schools don’t qualify as “common” schools under the state’s constitution, and therefore can’t receive public funding intended for traditional public schools.

“Our inquiry is not concerned with the merits or demerits of charter schools,” Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the majority opinion. “Whether charter schools would enhance our state’s public school system or appropriately address perceived shortcomings of that system are issues for the legislature and the voters. The issue for this court is what are the requirements of the constitution.”

Littman writes:

“Charter schools have always tried to play the public/private issue both ways. The acts of calling themselves “public” when it comes to claiming funds from the public purse, yet immediately claiming to be private entities the minute accountability and FOIA matters are raised, have created several interesting conundrums, as we have observed right here in our own backyard. (See FUSE, ConnCAN)

In the Washington State case this play it both ways strategy finally went pear-shaped:

[The Washington court writes:]

“The words ‘common school’ must measure up to every requirement of the constitution . . . and whenever by any subterfuge it is sought to qualify or enlarge their meaning beyond the intent and spirit of the constitution, the attempt must fail . . . Bryan established the rule that a common school, within the meaning of our constitution, is one that is common to all children of proper age and capacity, free, and subject to and under the control of the qualified voters of the school district. The complete control of the schools is a most important feature, for it carries with it the right of the voters, through their chosen agents, to select qualified teachers, with powers to discharge them if they are incompetent.”

Littman writes:

“The court listed all the ways charters fail to meet these qualifications. Namely, they are:

1. “governed by a charter school board,” which is “appointed or selected . . . to manage and operate the charter school.”
2. The charter school board has the power to hire and discharge charter school employees and may contract with nonprofit organizations to manage the charter school.
3. They are “free from many regulations” that govern other schools.
4. Charter schools are “exempt from all school district policies,” as well as “all . . . state statutes and rules applicable to school districts” except those listed in I-1240 section 204(2) and those made applicable in the school’s charter contract.”

Littman writes:

“In other words the Washington state court finally issued a ruling confirming what many of us here in Connecticut have been saying for years: charters are siphoning off taxpayer money from the public school system without sufficient (if any) accountability. Calling them “public schools” is merely convenient political fiction.”