Readers of this blog have noticed that many states spend far more time legislating about school Choice than about the public schools that enroll most students. Once charters and vouchers are introduced, public schools seem to become an afterthought, despite the fact that most students attend them.
Derek Black, a Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina, asks whether there are limits to the preference that states show to school choice programs over public schools.
Here is an abstract of his paper:
“Rapidly expanding charter and voucher programs are establishing a new education paradigm in which access to traditional public schools is no longer guaranteed. In some areas, charter and voucher programs are on a trajectory to phase out traditional public schools altogether. This Article argues that this trend and its effects violate the constitutional right to public education embedded in all fifty state constitutions.
“Importantly, this Article departs from past constitutional arguments against charter and voucher programs. Past arguments have attempted to prohibit such programs entirely and have assumed, with little evidentiary support, that they endanger statewide education systems. Unsurprisingly, litigation and scholarship based on a flawed premise have thus far failed to slow the growth of charter and voucher programs. Without a reframed theory, several recently filed lawsuits are likely to suffer the same fate.
“This Article does not challenge the general constitutionality of choice programs. Instead, the Article identifies two limitations that state constitutional rights to education place on choice policy. The first limitation is that states cannot preference private choice programs over public education. This conclusion flows from the fact that most state constitutions mandate public education as a first-order right for their citizens. Thus, while states may establish choice programs, they cannot systematically advantage choice programs over public education. This Article demonstrates that some states have crossed this line.
“The second limitation that state constitutions place on choice programs is that their practical effect cannot impede educational opportunities in public schools. Education clauses in state constitutions obligate the state to provide adequate and equitable public schools. Any state policy that deprives students of access to those opportunities is therefore unconstitutional. Often-overlooked district level data reveals that choice programs are reducing public education funding, stratifying opportunity, and intensifying segregation in large urban centers. Each of these effects represents a distinct constitutional violation.”
The full article is here.

Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
Cross-posted at https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Is-There-a-Limit-to-How-Mu-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch_Public-Actions_Public-Education_Public-Education-171107-712.html#comment678581
LikeLike
Ed reformers won’t worry about it. They give absolutely no thought to public school families when designing contractor and voucher schemes.
Public schools (and public school families) aren’t even mentioned, let alone anyone worrying about the systemic impact.
Often representatives from public schools are not even INVITED to these conventions and roundtables and meetings of experts.
They’re “reinventing public education” without 90% of families and 90% of schools. It will be a disaster because of that. They have a fundamental, bedrock problem in this “movement” that all the rhetoric and political campaigns cover, but don’t cure. They’ve excluded the public from “reinventing” public schools. It will never, ever work.
Consent of the governed isn’t optional- it isn’t a touchy-feely add-on that can be dispensed with in the interest of efficiency. It’s essential and substantive- ed reform would be BETTER if public schools had been invited inside this exclusive club.
LikeLike
Late, I know – issed this election-day article.
Much as I share the feelings you express here & below, I think this law review article offers something other than researched opinion which ed-reformers will ignore. This is a basis on which to bring suit against charter law/ policies. It examines why such suits have failed, and suggests a basis on which future suits could succeed.
LikeLike
[“I missed”]
Chiara guess what Ohio shows up 1st example in part I “Preferencing Choice by Law.”
“…Ohio charter schools received substantial funding increases every year between 2008 and 2015—ranging anywhere from two to more than ten times the rate of increase in traditional public schools.
“These funding practices produced even deeper disparities when the method of charter funding is examined. Ohio filters charter money through districts, which sometimes must transfer more to charters than they actually receive per pupil from the state. In 2013–14, the base per-pupil grant to districts was $3890, but the transfer to charters exceeded that amount and meant that statewide districts lost $256 for every student that enrolled in a charter.
“In a number of districts, the loss was much larger. In nine districts, the loss amounted to a 20% to 65% cut in per-pupil state funding for traditional public schools. At the same time, the state funding per charter school students was $7189 per pupil— twice the state support for traditional public-school students.”
LikeLike
“what to do about those pesky public schools that are getting in our way” is just now being discussed in ed reform.
It’s all loss for public school families. Not only do they not actually “improve” public schools they don’t even consider public school families a constituency they have to appeal to. I blows me away in Ohio because we have every fad and gimmick and option these people have come up and it’s STILL 90% in public schools. We’re now well into Decade Two of our entire state apparatus serving the 10% of families in ‘choice” programs, exclusively.
They add NO value to public schools- none.
LikeLike
This is a pretty typical ed reform piece on “public schools”:
“Martin Lueken of EdChoice and Benjamin Scafidi of Kennesaw State University sit down with Paul E. Peterson to discuss their reasearch on the effect of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program on school district resources.”
So 15 years after they started this they are JUST NOW considering the impact of their programs on public school families.
That’s what a low priority you and your children are in this “movement”. They jammed thru every choice program they could think of with NO regard for what it did to public school families.
Public schools are an afterthought. Reluctantly addressed only AFTER the top priorities are taken care of- charters and vouchers. Would public schools take a hit as a result of ed reforms? They were more than willing to roll the dice because they never valued your kid’s school in the first place.
LikeLike
Can anyone in Ohio name ONE ed reform initiative that has “improved” any public school, anywhere?
No, they cannot because the fact is Ohio’s public education SYSTEM has declined each and every year these folks have been in power. Not only have they not added any actual value system-wide, they’ve harmed the existing system they didn’t build and don’t support.
LikeLike
The most interesting statistic I read in the paper is that about one in five charters outperform their local public school and almost two in five underperform.” Public schools are outperforming charters at a rate of two to one. This begs the question why are we forcing “choice” on people when it underperforms. For vouchers, we already know the results are dismal. Choice is a product of politics, corporations and the wealthy. In most communities people are not clamoring for more choice.
Since state laws vary so much and are open to interpretation, it is difficult plaintiffs to make a case in a court of law. However, the paper suggests that when choice systems are given an unfair advantage in the laws being written, there may be some legitimate ways to challenge these laws in the courts. If public schools are hindered from doing their jobs due to funding flowing to choice options, there may be grounds to file a lawsuit in most states, but once again state laws and judges will vary from state to state.
While the courts may be helpful in curbing some run away choice options, the best strategy for handling run away choice is to target complicit representatives during election cycles. Supporters of public schools need to remain vigilant and increasingly politically savvy to work against all the wealthy individuals and crooked politicians promoting and profiting from “choice.”
LikeLike
If you think the courts are going to provide any relief to the current expansion of school choice programs, and the additional funding by states to non-public schools, you are sadly mistaken.
See Trinity Lutheran School District v. Pauley (2017). The bigoted “Blaine” amendments in several state constitutions, are all unconstitutional.
LikeLike
Wrong.
LikeLike
According to the fifty or so pages I read in this study, it depends on the state constitution and who is interpreting it.
LikeLike
The decision specifically excludes tuition.
LikeLike
@retired teacher. True, the state constitutions vary in their wording. The Trinity case applied to Missouri, but other states have similar amendments. The case was about providing safety equipment to non-public schools, and did not touch on providing tuition assistance. (School costs and vouchers, are covered in the Zelman case).
Nevertheless, money is “fungible”. When a non-public school can get financial support from government, to purchase safety equipment, or other non-educational supplies, it enables the non-public school to spend their existing resources on other things, like tuition. The law of unintended consequences.
LikeLike
Taking funding away from public schools, which enroll 90% of children, to send money to religious schools is a terrible idea. It will hurt our children and our society and our future. But you don’t care about that. Sad.
LikeLike
If you think I don’t care about states sending financial resources to non-public schools, you are wrong. I think it is terrific.
States send people who are on Medicaid, to hospitals run by religious organizations.
As long as the individual gets the necessary treatment, or education, or whatever service the non-public entity can provide, then great.
LikeLike
We will check back with you in 20 years when all the religious schools have been required by government inspectors to remove crosses and any other overt sign of their religion.
What you want is to end religious liberty.
LikeLike
You are mistaken, if you think that I want to end religious liberty. I support the 1st amendment, as well as the 2d (and the remainder of the constitution and the bill of rights). I have lived in a communist dictatorship (the communists forbid religion) and in an Islamic Kingdom (the only legal religion is Islam). The religion I practice, has been subject to persecution, and many of our adherents were killed. So, just let any idea, that I want to end religious liberty, just die.
In our nation, public tax money flows in torrents, to all types of non-religious activities, sponsored by religious organizations. Public money goes to hospitals, universities, food pantries, women’s shelters, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. all entirely legally, and with no constitutional objection.
No religious university, which accepts public funding has been required to remove their crosses, menorahs, or crescents.
LikeLike
Charles,
That is not true. In New York State, religious institutions that took public nomes were required to remove religious symbols. Some may have survived. Most did not.
LikeLike
What you are describing could happen. see https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/towering-cross-shaped-monument-on-public-land-is-unconstitutional-court-rules/2017/10/18/b26e4afe-5b47-11e7-9b7d-14576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.ba4f1360fb28
LikeLike
Here is a public college, that is facing this issue. https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/30/college-reverses-course-wont-remove-cross-atop-60-year-old-chapel-after-complaint-at-least-not-yet/
LikeLike
“While the courts may be helpful in curbing some run away choice options, the best strategy for handling run away choice is to target complicit representatives during election cycles.”
I don’t think the suit basis described here is necessarily narrow, i.e., restricted to ‘run away choice options.” It is limited only in the sense that it in many places, it can’t be used yet– there needs to be evidence of the harm being done to the public school system, in terms of constitutionally-required uniform accessability to adequate free education. But there are places where such evidence exists now, where suits could be brought. If such suits are won, news travels fast in legal/ state policy circles, & will have a ripple effect.
I agree it is important to continuously round up & apply pressure on complicit elected officials, that goes without saying, & needs to be ongoing. But it is not a ‘better’ strategy, given the many complicit unelected govt actors & their deep-pocketed backers imposing & implementing anti-public-school choice policy.
LikeLike
Does the same limit apply to cities? New Orleans is, I believe now, 100% charters.
LikeLike