Now, here is an amazing bit of prescience.
Parents Across America, the group formed by parents to support public schools, wrote a letter to the state superintendent in 2013 explaining why charters in Washington State are unconstitutional.
Initiative 1240 is unconstitutional, they argued, for the following reasons:
We therefore urge the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to pursue a legal challenge to I-1240, based on the following grounds:
1. I-1240 would establish a charter school commission comprised of politically appointed members with no election by, or accountability to, the general public. It would allocate authorization and accountability for charter schools to this commission, circumventing state-mandated oversight of our public schools by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and local school boards. (Yet this commission would cost taxpayers an estimated $3 million.)The creation of such a commission would be in violation of state law which requires public oversight of all public schools. (See: Article III, Section 22, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Duties and Salary.“The superintendent of public instruction shall have supervision over all matters pertaining to public schools, and shall perform such specific duties as may be prescribed by law.”)
2. Charter schools would not meet the definition of “common schools.” Since 1909, a “common school” has been defined as “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 a school district.” Sch. Dist. No. 20, Spokane County v. Bryan, 51 Wn. 498, 99 P. 28 (1909). The state constitution also mandates a “general and uniform system of public schools.” Instead, Initiative 1240 would create an unequal subset of schools that would be granted exclusive rights and resources not accorded all schools and all children. These schools would be exempt from public oversight, violating state law that requires all public schools to be “common schools” and part of a “uniform system.” Subsequently, if charter schools are not “common,” then they do not qualify for state funding as stipulated in Article IX, Section 2, which states: “the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.”
3. Initiative 1240 also violates state law as recognized by the McCleary decision of January 5, 2012 (McCleary v. State of Washington), which maintains that the state has a constitutionally mandated (Article IX, section 1) “paramount duty” to fully fund all of its public schools. I-1240 would divert funding from common schools to specific schools with unique rights, creating inequity, and further diluting already inadequate resources from our public (“common”) schools, which is in violation of this law.
On Friday, the Washington Supreme Court (the highest court in the state) ruled that charters are unconstitutional and the Court’s reasoning echoes the points made two years ago by PAA.
Well done, Parents!
This ruling gives hope to parents all across America, who see charter schools draining funding from their public schools, favoring the privileges of the few over the rights of the many.
Sorry, hedge fund managers!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“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.”
— School District 20 vs. Bryan, 1909
Bada bing! Bada boom! Next up? Exploding opt-out and ripping apart the scam that is CCSS and high stakes testing.
Please, let’s hope this blossoms across America. I’m hoping that the Dyett hunger strikers pick up on this.
It’s not applicable to them because Illinois’ constitution is not written like Washington’s. Unfortunately.
That’s what supporters of public schools should do, They should review the language of the state constitution or other laws that define or apply to education to see if there are any grounds for a lawsuit.
I wonder about “unique rights”. Ohio actually put in a law that gives a kind of “right of first refusal” for charter school management companies to purchase unused public schools. We were really surprised when we found out about it because it seems extraordinary to me, that a community can’t transfer or sell public property without an offer to a charter school. It didn’t matter here – we don’t have the kind of market to support a second public system, but it could matter a lot in other places.
In AZ the state constitution states that “The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.”
That didn’t stop our governor from cutting 99K from the three state universities’ budgets .
The courts have ordered the state to pay K-12 $331 million owed. The state ignores it.
Good government does not happen in every state.
Dienne, you’re right. My hopes are dashed.
I’m not an attorney, but unfortunately it looks like Rheeformers have a loophole in Illinois. Here’s what’s in the Illinois Constitution:
ARTICLE X
EDUCATION
SECTION 1. GOAL – FREE SCHOOLS
A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the
educational development of all persons to the limits of their
capacities.
The State shall provide for an efficient system of high
quality public educational institutions and services.
Education in public schools through the secondary level shall
be free. There may be such other free education as the
General Assembly provides by law.
The State has the primary responsibility for financing
the system of public education.
This line “There may be such other free education as the General Assembly provides by law” gives it away. Not good. (Cross-posted)
Yep. But there’s more than one way to skin a cat. We’re starting to make significant inroads in the battle for public opinion – eventually public pressure will force a change.
I wonder too if one could challenge the laws that direct that the lowest-scoring 5% of public schools have to be privatized. Ohio just passed one over 48 hours with no debate or public discussion.
Do those laws apply to low-scoring charter schools? If not, why not? Can the lowest scoring charter schools be taken over by a different contractor or even the public system? They aren’t “districts” so does that exclude them from the 5% laws?
Well, here in NYS, the Governor has no – none, nada, zip – constitutional authority over education but that has not stopped Cuomo from forcing bad laws through the Legislature or from ignoring court orders to provide equitable school funding.
In NY, the Charter School Act requires charters to “focus” on students who are “at risk of academic failure”. Though some do cater to high needs students, most do not, such as Success Academy who cherrypicks by requiring pro-active applications from parents instead of pro-actively recruiting high needs kids from the neighborhood.
The way NY charters skirt the law is by claiming that minority kids in poverty are “at risk of academic failure”. To me this is borderline racist, classist, and blatant contravention of a law originally passed to find solutions for struggling learners so better practices could be replicated across the whole system.
Instead, they have become exclusive clubs for the most responsible, most involved parents in a community, with high rates of suspensions and “counseling out” disruptive students, and then refusing to backfill the resultant vacancies in upper grades.
These charters win the public debate by touting their stats but hiding how they shirk their primary mission. They win by touting the enormous numbers of applicants who would love their child to be in an orderly, disciplined “safe haven”. But they hide crucial truths – charters are like a see-saw, performing well by brain-draining nearby schools. Charters demand unsustainable commitments from staff and so are less conducive for teachers settling down to have kids.
Just because no one in Albany is enforcing ithe law does not mean it doesn’t exist. Charters in NY must cater to high needs kids and they baldly are not.
The biggest insult was Michael Petrilli declaring that charters are not for disruptive kids, saying aloud what we all knew – that they just want to teach well behaved kids and do not give a flying flip about kids without great home support.
Another truth recently revealed is that they have been quietly paying parents for charter “advocacy”, which could mean anything from attending rallies to blogging. In all, it’s a nasty subversion of public education and the idea that all kids should be equitably resourced.
The most important constitutional challenge that needs to occur is the one that challenges the educational standards and standardized testing regimes that reward some students, not by race, gender, sexual orientation but by inherent, just like the three classifications mentioned, mental capabilities with moving on to the next grade, garnering scholarships/preferential treatment and/or graduation and that deny and/or punish other students through inherent mental capabilities by holding back students in grade, not allowing students to take courses they may wish to take, and/or not getting diplomas, awards etc. . . .
As stated in the Missouri Constitution about the purpose of government (of which public schools are a part):
“Article 1
Promotion of general welfare–natural rights of persons–equality under the law–purpose of government.
Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.”
I contend that the rewards and denials as outlined above contravene Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution. I’d bet that most state’s constitutions have similar language. Someone needs to take advantage of the constitutional guarantees like Section 2 and challenge the standards and testing regimes as discriminatory.
I thought I read somewhere that it was the League of Women Voters who initiated this lawsuit against charters. Is that true? If so, good for them! And–have they announced plans for such a lawsuit in other states?
We have a pretty good state Supreme Court in California, and I think it would have a chance here.
Can the US SC overturn decisions of state SCs?
As state legislators are often corrupt and bought off by he wealthy charter industry, and the public can easily be fooled with tons of advertising on ballot initiatives, courts may be the best way to go.