Law & Courts

Shock Waves Reverberate From Wash. State Charter Ruling

By Andrew Ujifusa — September 11, 2015 6 min read
Parents and guardians listen as Adel Sefrioui, founder and executive director of Excel Public Charter School in Kent., Wash., speaks at a community forum Sept. 8. Supporters of charter schools are vowing to find ways to keep the schools funded and running in the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling striking down the state’s charter law.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month holding the state’s charter school law unconstitutional has sent shock waves through Washington’s educational establishment, handed charter critics a high-profile victory, and left the schools’ supporters scrambling to keep the state’s small, relatively young charter school sector alive.

In its 6-3 ruling in League of Women Voters v. Washington, the court found that the law approved by voters through a 2012 ballot measure, Initiative 1240, improperly designated charters as “common schools,” and that the schools were not therefore entitled under the state constitution to certain state funds they presently draw on.

Despite the prominent setback for charters, it might be difficult for skeptics of the autonomous, publicly funded schools to create any momentum outside Washington from the decision. For example, in the majority opinion, the justices relied heavily on state precedent regarding the definition of common schools set down in a 1909 state high court ruling. In addition, translating a victory in one state into other states’ legal and political systems won’t necessarily be easy.

All the same, the court’s Sept. 4 ruling delivered a clear rebuke to the state’s charter law that might provide charter critics elsewhere some ammunition.

And it represents the first time that a state supreme court has invalidated an entire charter school law, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. In a narrower 2011 case, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Gwinnett County School District v. Cox that the state Charter School Commission improperly approved charters over the objections of local school boards. However, Georgia voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2012 subsequently permitting state-backed charters.

Charter supporters argue that there are potential avenues for Washington legislators to provide public funds to the state’s nine charter schools aside from the general fund budget, even as they vow to keep the schools open through other means such as private donations.

There are ways that the supreme court overlooked to constitutionally fund charter schools in Washington state, said Thomas Franta, the executive director of the Washington State Charter School Association. “These are public schools, and we believe they are absolutely entitled to public funding,” he said.

Meanwhile, critics such as the 85,000-member Washington Education Association, which was a party to the court case, said the victory protected taxpayers who pay for charters but lack the power to oversee them appropriately.

“Public schools should truly be public,” said Rich Wood, a WEA spokesman.

Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat who opposed the 2012 ballot initiative to permit charters, so far has resisted calls to convene a special session to work out what’s next for the state’s charters, which serve 1,200 students.

Legal Arguments

The charter ruling is part of a tumultuous political environment for education in the Evergreen State. It’s also the second time in recent years that the court has made big headlines with a ruling about schools. Last month, the court levied a daily $100,000 fine on the state for failing to adequately increase K-12 spending in response to its 2012 ruling in McCleary v. Washington.

See Also

No Special Session to Save Washington State Charters, Gov. Inslee Says

The majority opinion in the charter case, written by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, stated that charters are intended to provide parents with “more options,” then added: “But the new schools came with a trade-off: the loss of local control and local accountability.”

Absent their designation as common schools, charters would lose their funding source from the state’s general budget and therefore no longer be “viable,” Madsen concluded.

“[B]ecause charter schools under 1-1240 are run by an appointed board or nonprofit organization and thus are not subject to local voter control, they cannot qualify as ‘common schools,’” Madsen wrote.

In a partially dissenting opinion, Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote that while she agreed that charter schools were not strictly common schools as set down in state legal precedent, they were still legally eligible to some sort of funding by the state, like other public schools. In addition, charters’ funding source was a separate legal question from the schools’ standing under the state constitution, she argued.

“Nowhere does the act identify a source of funding, it merely states that charter schools must ‘receive funding based on student enrollment just like existing public schools,’” Fairhurst wrote.

The justices returned the case to King County Superior Court to write an order enforcing their ruling by Sept. 26. As of this week, charter backers planned to ask the state supreme court to reconsider its ruling.

Winners and Losers

Those who warned three years ago that the 2012 charter law would distort public education in the state have been vindicated by the ruling, the WEA’s Wood said. Non-traditional public schools that aren’t charters receive public funding, yet are subject to appropriate oversight, he noted.

“The law requires them to be accountable to the voters and the taxpayers who fund them, not just to the small handful of parents who send their children to them,” Wood said.

Last week, the Washington State Charter School Commission decided to explore whether there is a legal remedy to allow charters to remain open for the rest of the school year.

Franta, of the state charter school association, criticized the justices for saying that since charters lacked traditional governance such as elected school boards they were free from meaningful oversight.

“There is more accountability in this public charter school sector than exists anywhere else in the state of Washington,” said Franta, adding that “there is no greater evidence of local control” than where parents choose to send their children to school.

Franta pledged that whether the legislature finds a new way to provide charters with public funds, or if his group has to raise the $14 million needed to operate the charters this school year from private donors, the schools will remain open.

In addition, he suggested that legislators could find avenues in the budget outside the general fund, such as a separate trust fund, to create a state revenue stream for charters that falls outside the court’s ruling.

Wider Ramifications

The ruling’s unique status across the K-12 legal landscape has also raised questions about its implications beyond the state and for the charter sector in general.

The WEA’s Wood cautioned that other states simply don’t have the kind of constitutional language regarding education that would play a factor in Washington. For example, Article IX, Section 2 of the state’s constitution, which the high court says the 2012 law violates, specifies the requirement for common schools and their funding source.

Still, Wood said that to the extent the court’s ruling stressed the need for proper governance and oversight of state school spending, “I would think [charter opponents elsewhere] could draw inspiration from it.”

He added that the union would have no qualms if charter schools turned to private funds to stay open.

But the court’s blinkered insistence on a century-old model of elected local school boards as the key to proper governance actually makes the ruling narrow and unhelpful to charter foes generally, said Todd Ziebarth, the senior vice president for state advocacy at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

“The circumstances are unique with its constitution and an elected court in a blue state,” Ziebarth said.

Asked for his views on enlisting private donations to keep charters open, Ziebarth said he supported it, but only as a short-term tactic.

A version of this article appeared in the September 16, 2015 edition of Education Week as Shock Waves From Ruling on Charters

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
The Future of the Science of Reading
Join us for a discussion on the future of the Science of Reading and how to support every student’s path to literacy.
Content provided by HMH
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
College & Workforce Readiness Webinar
From Classrooms to Careers: How Schools and Districts Can Prepare Students for a Changing Workforce
Real careers start in school. Learn how Alton High built student-centered, job-aligned pathways.
Content provided by TNTP
Mathematics K-12 Essentials Forum Helping Students Succeed in Math

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Trump Admin. Can Proceed With Ed. Dept. Layoffs, Supreme Court Rules
The Trump administration asked the justices to set aside an injunction blocking its layoffs of 1,400 Education Department employees.
6 min read
Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon outside of the West Wing following a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 11, 2025 in Washington.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outside of the West Wing following a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 11, 2025, in Washington. McMahon is carrying out a Trump administration plan to lay off roughly 1,400 Education Department employees, a move critics say is aimed at dismantling the agency.
Lenin Nolly/NurPhoto via AP
Law & Courts Opinion How the Supreme Court Is Making Public Education Itself Unconstitutional
In a recent ruling, the high court took a step toward effectively outlawing public schools.
Johann Neem
5 min read
Photo illustration of Supreme Court building and U.S. Constitution.
Education Week + Getty
Law & Courts Supreme Court to Weigh State Laws Barring Transgender Athletes in Girls' Sports
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up transgender sports laws from Idaho and West Virginia, among the 27 states that have such laws.
5 min read
This artist sketch depicts Justice Amy Coney Barrett, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Justices announce opinions at the Supreme Court in Washington, on June 27, 2025.
An artist sketch depicting Justice Amy Coney Barrett, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Justices announce opinions at the Supreme Court in Washington, on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court on July 3, 2025, announced it will hear cases challenging Idaho and West Virginia laws that bar transgender students from participating in girls’ or women’s school sports, stepping into a high-profile legal battle over transgender rights in schools.
Dana Verkouteren via AP
Law & Courts Appeals Court Backs Fla. Law Barring Transgender Teacher's Use of Her Pronouns
A federal court upheld Florida’s ban on K-12 teachers using pronouns that differ from their sex assigned at birth when speaking to students.
4 min read
A new billboard welcoming visitors to "Florida: The Sunshine 'Don't Say Gay or Trans' State," is seen on April 21, 2022, in Orlando, Fla. Florida's state government and LGBTQ+ advocates have settled a lawsuit challenging a law that bars teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools.
A billboard welcoming visitors to "Florida: The Sunshine 'Don't Say Gay or Trans' State," is seen on April 21, 2022, in Orlando. The billboard was a commentary by an LGBTQ+ rights group on a controversial law backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis regarding the teaching of certain topics. A federal appeals court on July 2 refused to block a related law, one barring teachers from using pronouns or titles that don't match their sex assigned at birth.
John Raoux/AP