2 MORE ON THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CHARTER SCHOOLS

Charters Go "Sleepless in Seattle" While Teachers Strike by Alan Singer | Social studies educator, Hofstra University, my opinions, of course, are my own | Huffington Post | http://huff.to/1Kb07AI

Why the Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Matters Jennifer Berkshire (EduShyster) posted this message on Basecamp. I just posted a piece by writer Martha Carey who explains the origins of the Supreme Court's recent ruling against charter schools. She sums it up this way:

Posted: 09/09/2015 9:57 am EDT Updated: 09/09/2015 9:59 am EDT   ::  The charter school movement just took a big legal hit in Washington State. The state's highest court ruled that a 2012 law establishing charter schools in Washington, approved as the result of a Gates funded referendum campaign, violates the state constitution. According to the state Constitution, public funds can be used only to support "common schools." By a 6 to 3 vote, the court ruled that publicly funded but privately run charter schools are not "common schools" because their governing boards are appointed by the founders of the schools. Voters in the state of Washington rejected charter school in 1996, 2000 and 2004. However a pro-charter referendum narrowly passed in 2012 after it received millions of dollars in financial support from wealthy business-related "charitable" foundations. According to a report in the Seattle Times, Bill Gates "donated" more than $3 million, Alice Walton of the Walmart family "contributed" about $1.7 million, and the parents of Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos kicked in $750,000. Seattle Entrepreneur Nicolas Hanauer with ties to both Microsoft and Amazon added another $1 million. Apparently the judges were not impressed. In the court's opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, the case was not about the merits of charter schools but whether they were eligible for public funds. She cited precedents dating back to 1909 that established they were ineligible because they are run by private nonprofit organizations and not controlled by local voters. The court case was brought by a coalition of civic groups including Washington Education Association, the League of Women Voters of Washington, El Centro de la Raza and the Washington Association of School Administrators. Washington Education Association is a union representing Washington state teachers. Currently there are nine charter schools in Washington and eight new one's were expected to open this year. The court ruling goes into affect at the end of September, so there is still some time for legal maneuvering by charter school advocates. The Washington State Charter Schools Association is requesting the court reconsider its decision and announced place plans to hit up "donors" to keep them in operation for the year. A Seattle Times editorial condemning the court ruling read as a virtual quote from statements made charter school advocates and the newspaper probably should be investigated for bias, if not for plagiarism. The State of Washington is currently embroiled in debate over a fairer school funding system and the newspaper's editorial writers were concerned it would undermine reform efforts. Washington state is being fined $100,000 a day by the state Supreme Court because lawmakers do not adequately pay to educate the state's one million school children. The Seattle Times also published an op-ed by a charter school teacher bemoaning the impact of the decision on the 1,200 children who attend Washington State charter schools. This is a small fraction of the over 1 million children attending public schools in the state. The Washington charter school case may have national repercussions. According to a report distributed by the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder most charter schools in the United States receive public funds and are defined as public schools under federal and state laws. However, ublic schools are subject to transparency laws while charter schools and their private operators frequently refuse to share information and data with the public. In addition, estimates are more than half of students attending charter schools are enrolled in schools owned and operated by private companies. According to the New York State Constitution, "The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated." If federal courts uphold the Washington State definition of "common school," New York charters will be challenged as well. In New York State, the Charter Schools Act of 1998 authorized "a system of charter schools to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently of existing schools and school districts." Charter schools must submit governance guidelines, but according to the law "charter school shall be exempt from all other state and local laws, rules, regulations or policies governing public or private schools, boards of education and school districts, including those relating to school personnel and students, except as specifically provided in the school's charter or in this article." The law mandates that "The school district of residence shall pay directly to the charter school for each student enrolled in the charter school who resides in the school district the charter school basic tuition." Opponents of charter schools argue these provisions leave the charters largely unregulated while sapping resources from public schools Teacher unions are often hostile to charter schools because provisions of the law erode job protection. Employees of a New York State charter school are employees of the "education corporation formed to operate the charter school and not an employee of the local school district in which the charter school is located . . . The board of trustees of a charter school shall employ and contract with necessary teachers, administrators and other school personnel." In addition, "The employees of a charter school that is not a conversion from an existing public school shall not be deemed members of any existing collective bargaining unit representing employees of the school district in which the charter school is located, and the charter school and its employees shall not be subject to any existing collective bargaining agreement between the school district and its employees." Meanwhile, Seattle teachers voted to strike and schools were closed on Wednesday, the nominal first full day of school. While pay is a major issue, the teachers are also demanding reduced high-stakes testing and teacher input in the selection of assessment material.

"But what the case in Washington underscores most is the elemental choice made by charter proponents all those years ago, as they crafted the Minnesota legislation, variations of which are now on the books in 42 states. The choice was: do we work together as a community to best provide the state-mandated education of all our citizens and do so in a way that continues to be overseen by the electorate, which may mean re-allocating resources and (gasp) raising taxes, or do we just let private groups of folks do their own thing, using our taxes, in the name of education?" ___________________________________ September 9, 2015 by edushyster2012 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 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 essentially no oversight by the electorate is in alignment with the language of the 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 between the charter school law passing and then, not only did a cluster of pretty random, curricular-specific charters (arts, music, science) spring up around the Twin Cities, but several quickly developed negative public reputations, mostly due to poor fiscal management. Each state’s approach to charter laws is distinct, but this case seems to make a clear and compelling case about an idea that should be unifying: taxes to fund schools come from taxpayers who elect representatives at the state, local, and district levels who are our proxies in providing oversight and regulation over where those funds go. A unifying idea The case in Washington should give both charter proponents and legislators pause, and hopefully will add fuel to cases now working their way up the legal pipeline. Each state’s approach to charter laws is distinct, but this case seems to make a clear and compelling case about an idea that should be unifying: taxes to fund schools come from taxpayers who elect representatives at the state, local, and district levels who are our proxies in providing oversight and regulation over where those funds go. If the population of taxpayers is not content with that process, they can change the legislators, the funding structure, the tax structure, or all of the above, and this will directly and immediately impact schools. But charter schools are actually exempt from this most democratic of processes, which is amazing when one considers that education is actually a property right (meaning students are both required to have an education and also cannot be denied an education without due process). In most states, charters can put anyone they want to on their boards, can raise funds from anyone they want to, can be housed wherever they want to, can reject students whenever they want to, and can even opt out of giving accurate reporting on the most basic of items – including how many students they actually have – should they choose to. And the taxpayers whose money is being funneled to these charters do not have a say, an option, or a choice once these independently operated entities get up and running. The only hope is that there is some appointed or elected body that periodically reviews and, if they are found to be engaging in fraud, closes down charter schools. And then the students in those schools, of course, re-enter what remains of the public school system. But what the case in Washington underscores most is the elemental choice made by charter proponents all those years ago, as they crafted the Minnesota legislation, variations of which are now on the books in 42 states. And an elemental choice But what the case in Washington underscores most is the elemental choice made by charter proponents all those years ago, as they crafted the Minnesota legislation, variations of which are now on the books in 42 states. The choice was: do we work together as a community to best provide the state-mandated education of all our citizens and do so in a way that continues to be overseen by the electorate, which may mean re-allocating resources and (gasp) raising taxes, or do we just let private groups of folks do their own thing, using our taxes, in the name of education? Martha Hope Carey lives in the Philadelphia area and recently completed her PhD in Urban Education at Temple University. Her dissertation research on urban charter teachers can be found at careythinking.org. Contact Martha at marthahcarey@gmail.com.