What the Washington State Charter Decision Can Teach Connecticut
(and Rhode Island)
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.”
“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:
- “governed by a charter school board,” which is “appointed or selected . . . to manage and operate the charter school.”
- 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.
- They are “free from many regulations” that govern other schools.
- 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.”