Charter School Opponents Grasp in Court

ODDS ARE THE OHIO SUPREME COURT WON’T say that charter schools are unconstitutional. The court majority leans right, and most of the justices are eager to give lawmakers a lot of room to make new laws.

In truth, the complaint about charter schools is political — not constitutional. Teacher unions, the Ohio School Boards Association and the PTA are opposed to charters because they take money from traditional public schools.

(Charter schools are public, meaning they are open to any child and they’re supported by taxpayer money. But they are run by private bodies that get their “charter” to operate from the state. They also don’t have to follow all the state’s rules that apply to traditional public schools.)

Charter schools have taken off since 2001 when the lawsuit was filed. Today there are 250 of them, educating 60,000 children. They receive $444 million in state funds, which is the real crux of the matter. In places like Dayton, traditional public schools have had to close because so many students are choosing to go to charters.

Since charter schools were first allowed in 1997, legislators have learned some lessons. They’ve imposed more oversight, and they’re demanding more accountability of charters. These changes have occurred because some people who are operating charter schools have no business being in the business, and the state has been too slow in shutting them down.

But that’s a failure to manage the situation, not a violation of the constitution.

Critics of charter schools have been an important force in getting Republican lawmakers to deal with the failing charters. Some supporters of charter schools would if they could take a handsoff approach, simply trusting parents to make good choices.

But not all parents are making smart decisions. Some charter school entrepreneurs have taken advantage of the fact that many poor parents in cities where charter schools are concentrated don’t have the time, ability or information to size up their child’s school. So long as state money is going to these schools, the state is obligated to have certain expectations about how they will operate.

Critics of charter schools complain in court that the state has set up a “shadow” school system, and that the charters’ existence violates the constitutional mandate to have a system of efficient schools. And they say charter schools are not accountable to elected local school boards.

In other words, they’re throwing the kitchen sink at the justices, hoping one of their objections will stick. Still, the court would have to stretch to find a prohibition against charters in the constitution.

While the lawsuit was pending, some school districts have moved on. Forty-eight districts have started 66 charter schools of their own, deciding they can offer creative alternative programming to parents, too. Many of these schools would not exist but for the threat of competition.

Putting all of Ohio’s charter schools out of business with one court ruling has been a desperate, last-ditch hope of the critics. The Supreme Court should quickly, and without a lot of fuss, just say that this disagreement is one for elected policy makers, not judges.