Courts have repeatedly ruled that charter schools are not public schools. These rulings have been sought not by charter critics, but by the charters themselves, to enable them to avoid complying with state laws.
Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas warns African American students and their families that charters are not considered public schools by the courts when it comes to discipline policies. Student rights are protected in public schools, but with few exceptions, not in charter schools. On matters of student discipline, the courts have decided that charters are not public schools.
The same is true for state labor laws.
Just a few days ago, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that charter schools are “private entities,” not public schools, and are therefore subject to different requirements when dealing with employees. This means that teachers at charter schools “are now subject to private-sector labor laws, rather than state laws governing public workers.” Charters sought this ruling when two-thirds of the teachers at the Chicago Math and Science Academy voted to unionize. The board said that charters are akin to private contractors that win government contracts. The charter schools view this ruling as a victory because they prefer to be treated as private organizations, not public schools governed by state law. See Valerie Strauss’s report of this decision here.
When charter teachers say they have been treated unfairly and go to court, the courts typically rule that charters are not public schools. This is a link to an article I wrote for my “Bridging Differences” at Education Week. Follow the links in my article and you will see decisions by courts in several states that charter schools are not public schools. These were rulings sought b charter schools, which insisted that they are NOT public schools because they did not want to be covered by the state laws.
“In Chicago and in Philadelphia, charter schools fought efforts by their teachers to unionize on grounds that they were not public schools and thus were not subject to state labor laws. The charter school in Chicago argued in court that it was a private school, not a public school, and thus not subject to the same laws as public schools.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a charter school in Arizona was a private nonprofit corporation, not a state agency, when it was sued by an employee who had been discharged. In this case, a federal court agreed with the charter school that charters are not public schools when it comes to the rights of their employees.”
;
;
;
How are they able to collect taxpayer dollars if they are not public schools?
Same way Lockheed Martin collects taxpayer dollars for their military contracts.
Which tells you exactly the brand of public “oversight” that the corporateers are gunning for as their end game.
That’s military spend but when State constitutions say funding for free public schools, how can they use that money for private corporations. Recently it was ruled that vouchers where in conflict with the state constitution because the money was used by “non-public” schools. They can’t have it both ways!
Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear cut to me! They can not define charters as public for funding and private for anything else.
In just the same way, religious schools are quite content to contend for a one-way barrier between church and state — a kind of fiscal osmosis where public dollars are allowed to flow into a religious school, but the state is required to keep its prying public eyes out of their religious business.
Of course Dienne and Jon are right. But so is Tim. And I think he lays out a course we should be pursuing through our agitation, politics and yes–even litigation.
Actually, the existence of a public version of the enterprise Lockheed Martin would negate the necessity for the government to enter into contract with Lockheed Martin. If there is no public system in place for the service, then private contractors are employed, just like in any other public system. For instance, my public school system does not have a plumber on its payroll so private plumbing contractors are employed as needed. However, public schools do exist–therefore it ought to be a difficult task to justify the use of public funding for what the courts are calling “private” services.
It is not the employment of private contractors. it is the violation of the state constitutions which says for NJ:
” 2. The fund for the support of free public schools, and all money, stock and other property, which may hereafter be appropriated for that purpose, or received into the treasury under the provisions of any law heretofore passed to augment the said fund, shall be securely invested, and remain a perpetual fund; and the income thereof, except so much as it may be judged expedient to apply to an increase of the capital, shall be annually appropriated to the support of free public schools, and for the equal benefit of all the people of the State; and it shall not be competent, except as hereinafter provided, for the Legislature to borrow, appropriate or use the said fund or any part thereof for any other purpose, under any pretense whatever. ”
In NJ these funds are being shared with charter schools which are private schools!
“In NJ these funds are being shared with charter schools which are private schools!”
Time for a lawsuit, methinks.
Louis — this is largely a semantic and strategic battle. In a nutshell, charter school opponents argue that charters are “private” to call attention to the ways in which charter schools are unlike regular public schools, and to argue that charters are improperly taking public funding away from “real” public schools. Charter schools supporters argue that charters are “public” to justify their use of public funds. In reality, and under the law, charter schools are like regular public schools in some ways and unlike them in others. And saying that a charter school is or is not “public” doesn’t have any legal significance unless there’s a very specific issue at stake (e.g., whether the term “public schools” in a given statute applies to charter schools).
Funny the way this breaks down, Flerper.
It’s public in all the ways that are good for the charter lobbyists and their friends– and public in all the ways that are bad for taxpayers, teachers, special ed, LEP, or socially/economically marginalized students.
It’s private in all the ways that break in favor of those hedge fund fat cats, too. And private in all the ways that limit or rescind the rights of regular people like teachers and students.
Funny how that works. More privatizing profit and publicizing risk. Just like the banks.
The nearest charter school to me can kick students out when their parents don’t volunteer in the building. I’d say that allows them to kick out any student who comes from a struggling family (heck, mine couldn’t qualify– we’re too busy) and who is statistically less likely to score high on the all important test!
This posting and the reply by Bridgeport Advocate state succinctly what I would have taken far longer to express.
All props.
A lot of people these days don’t understand the meaning of the word private. Among other things, it means that a private entity can defend a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. That is to say, it can defend that right if it is a big enough corporate “person” with expensive enough corporate lawyers. This puts a severe restriction on all those loudly-touted-before-the-sale claims to “accountability” and “transparency”.
See Thom Hartmann’s Unequal Protection for more detail.
So glad you posted this Diane. Thank you for picking this up; it has been on my mind as each of these decisions have rolled in. At the very least, we need to make sure that our state and local policymakers–legislators and school board members alike– understand the implications here: that they are handing over their (and ours) oversight/accountability as they hand over our tax dollars. For those of us already working in organized capacities in support of public education this needs to become a feature of our political involvement,lobbying and candidate education, selection and endorsement/support. This means very hard-nosed politics and we must be willing and able to go there.
Even more importantly, at the same time, we must explain this clearly with specific examples, using all means, to both parents and potential employees…they may still opt for private charters, but we must attack the ignorance about what’s going on and strip away the veneer that these are in any way public institutions.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
Tim is probably not aware that the politicians in this, er, politco-private partnership are fully cognizant of the constitutional barriers to their agenda, and have been working to erode them for several decades now. We are way past the days of pretty please …
“We are way past the days of pretty please…” You are so right, Jon.
So why are we calling them public schools and why are we funding them are the questions if the courts say they are not public schools? This is total fraud. You are either one or the other. Even they do not want to be called a public school, when it pleases them and adds to their bottom line which is what it is all about.
This idea may play out strongly here in Washington State as the Teacher’s Union has filed suit against the state and voters against the recently passed charter school initiative 1240. The Washington State constitution says the superintendent, an independently elected official, “shall have supervision over all matters pertaining to public schools.” The charter school initiative builds a new public system outside of the public school system. It is housed in the governor’s office. I believe 1240 oppornents wil be able to show hat circumvents the constitution. To amend the state’s constitution it takes a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a 50% vote of the public.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/state-teachers-union-to-challenge-charter-school-measure-but-what-about-dorn/
Charter Schools: they’re “public” whenever they want to plunder public money, but perniciously private all the rest of the time.
I have taught in private religious, charter, and public schools in Delaware, and can tell you that these issues are relavant and real. I have seen “behavior problems” both expelled and “counseled out” of a prominent charter school. I have seen this same school wear parents out with repeated meetings due to matters related to conduct, so much so they eagerly run to the nearest regular public school.
In this charter school, students who are in danger of not being promoted to the next grade level (and they don’t fudge on this one), are likely to be offered the opportunity for promotion if they transfer to their designated regular public school.
These practices work in favor of the charter – problem students are off their hands, and low performers are driven out. Of course, this school outscores its regular public counterparts on state tests.
Teachers at this school are awarded a one year contract each year. Early on an example was made of one strong and independent minded teacher who dared to speak out on particular issues. She was called in for her annual evaluation on the first day of Teacher Appreciation Week in May and told she was not being offered a contract for the next year. It was devastating to her at the time, but two years later, she was named Teacher of the Year at a regular public school.
You can bet teachers at the charter keep this teacher in mind if ever a question arises in their minds, and they are tempted to speak.
4equity2, I live in DE and have been following our state’s chartering shenanigans closely over the past year (including via the blogosphere, e.g. Kilroy). Would you be willing to provide the name of the school that you describe above? Does it happen to be in Newark, or Wilmington?
Newark. K-8. Soon to include high school.
Thanks, 4equity–that’s what I suspected. That school seems to be quite a menace to local public education. Thanks for the info.
Aren’t charter schools also exempt from public school evaluation metrics? If they are exempt, that should change because they accept public funding.
In some states–Louisiana is one, Arizona too, I believe–charter teachers need not be certified.
In some states, and I can’t name them, they are exempt form the evaluations.
In Illinois, at least 75% of teachers at a charter have to be certified.
Dr. Ravitch, I think you had an earlier post asking this very question about charter schools being required to administer state tests. The post can be found here: https://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/28/i-need-your-help/
I would volunteer to put the results of the posts, at least in response to question 2, into a table.
not in maryland. just saying
Thank you for this informative post, Diane.
Thanks for this post Diane – this is interesting and helpful information.
For decades, my public school district subcontracted services to private child care centers for a state sponsored public PreK program for children at-risk. This was implemented primarily in private child care centers because public schools don’t typically offer preschool programs.
When my state established universal preschool for all families with 3 and 4 year olds wanting to attend, it was decided by the state that this would be combined with the other PreK program and it, too, would be primarily situated in existing private child care centers.
So, it’s both cities and states that have decided to contract out to private programs. A requirement of the contract is accountability to the school district in a variety of ways, such as in regard to lesson plans and regular PreK teacher attendance at professional development activities provided specifically for them by the district.
Bottom line is, as Nancy Grace says, “Unleash the lawyers!” We are beginning to see this happening, and it’s none too soon.
The sham of shams. This is a reason for all teachers to avoid charters like the plague. You will get no respect and be used and abused. Does this mean the charter unions really don’t have any power. I’m curious. What a scam.
Charter unions? Think the word “charter” at a prominent DE k-8 charter, and you are out of a job.
“Real” public school unions? Neutered, at best. Their major concern seems to be “membership”, not members.
It would be clearer if we used accurate nomenclature to call government schools what they are. Charters and government schools are different forms of publicly funded schools.
That said, if the NJ constitution says public then it must be defined. Or the wording of the constitution changed.
I never liked the term ” government Schools” simply because of the negative political implications. Shame, really, since the government is the state and the state is the public, AKA the people. Why “the people” should be viewed negatively shows how far we’ve veered from reality when it comes to social definitions.
Many charter schools may accept public funding but many don’t accept the whole public. As has been stated here time and again, the “pick and choose” methods of student selection practiced by many charter operators do very little to contribute to the education of the public. Time for a lawsuit in every state with “selective” charters.
Over time, I have come to believe that charters are private contractors that receive public funding. They are not public schools. The federal courts now describe them as “private entities,” and so does the NLRB. They are akin to a “construction contractor” who builds a public highway for a fee with public funds. They are not public schools.
By the way, I learned that it is the far-right that refers to public schools as “government schools.” That is meant as a term of derision.
Our public schools are our community schools.
“They are akin to a ‘construction contractor’ who builds a public highway for a fee with public funds.” If there is no public road-building entity, then I have no issues with private contractors getting government contracts. There ARE public schools, however.
But should there be publicly owned road building companies? Arguments that say public funds should never be given to private firms to produce public goods suggest that we have been doing road construction, among other things, incorrectly.
“But should there be publicly owned road building companies? Arguments that say public funds should never be given to private firms to produce public goods suggest that we have been doing road construction, among other things, incorrectly.”
Those arguments are extremist, and I am not attempting to take that position at all. Should there be publicly run road building companies? Maybe? Maybe not? Aren’t there public road building crews already in the form of the state DOT?
There are instances where public funding is appropriated for goods and services outside of the utilization of a particular public system. For instance, public school boards of education are not building contractors, yet districts oversee new construction. Of course, companies that are not publicly run will be contracted to do the work (unfortunately, often it’s the lowest bidder who gets the job, and corners are cut).
However, if districts provided their own construction services every step of the way from the moment blueprints are drawn to the day buildings are inhabited by students, it would be a misappropriation of public funding to hire private companies to do the same construction work in which the district already engages.
Also school districts do not manufacture office supplies, so they use private contractors for such. Obviously, the government, overseen by the people, does not engage in every single possible line of work that affects public lives–if it did, wouldn’t that be communism?
It may be extreme, but it is commonly used as a reason to object to charter schools on this blog.
All you in Arizona and all other states read the latest DOE OIG report on the total lack of accountability in charter schools at every level in Florida, Arizona and California. This audit is DOE-OIG/A02L0002. You will see that the same conditions exist in your states also. This is a good tool to counter the privatizers and corporatizers.
Hence the term “public charter school” is an oxymoron. If they can take taxpayer dollars, they should be subjected to the same rules. Even now the NYS evaluation rules do not apply to charter schools. Something is seriously wrong. I really feel as time goes on, charter schools will create a even deeper economic scandal than the prime rate did for mortgages that were bundled. We are already seeing greed trump students. And it’s no wonder why more charter school teachers are turning to unions for help. I am so grateful that our NYS Comptroller audits these schools. If these rulings continue, then it should also be illegal for taxpayer dollars to pay for what is really a private school.
Are the rules uniform across all district in a state? I know that some schools within some districts have special admission requirements, but I am unsure about the uniformity across districts.
They can get away with this because the public has allowed this to become a lawless country when you look at the reality of the situation. If there were any law or norms charter schools would not be allowed because they are not really public and they do not perform. What else do you need unless there is another agenda and there is.
As a teacher in a charter school, I know this too well. It’s basically a license for charters to take advantage of their teachers and get more work for less pay and definitely less dignity. My principal didn’t appreciate when I pointed this out…
It seems to me that some people simply do not believe in any significant role for a public sector and simply do not grasp that fact that other people have any other sort of meaning in their lives that does not reduce to a monetary interest as its ultimate be-all end-all. I find it rather futile trying to have meaningful conversations with such people. Heaven help us if they come to control an essential function of civilized life like education.
The large charter school corporation in Arizona specifically states in a job posting for a headmaster position on its website that “certifications and licenses are not preferred.”
The exact wording is as follows: “professional degrees or certificates in education or administration are not preferred.”