Law & Courts

State Courts Side With Charters

By Erik W. Robelen — December 12, 2006 1 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Charter school advocates in Colorado and Ohio recently got some welcome legal news.

A Denver judge has upheld the constitutionality of a statewide body that authorizes the independent but publicly funded schools in Colorado.

In Ohio, plaintiffs who challenged the state’s charter school program said they will end their lawsuit. The Ohio Supreme Court, in striking down key elements of the suit by a vote of 4-3 in October, said the charter program is constitutional.

Three school districts in Colorado filed lawsuits contending that the Colorado Charter School Institute usurps local districts’ authority to open and oversee schools. A 2004 law created the institute. Most Colorado districts have been granted exclusive authority to approve charters within their boundaries, but the three districts that filed lawsuits had been denied that authority. (Since then, one has gained the authority.)

“It was a very strong ruling in our favor,” Randy DeHoff, who heads the charter institute, said of the Dec. 2 decision. Seven institute-approved charters are now in operation.

Jana L. Ley, the board president for Colorado’s 23,000-student Poudre district, a plaintiff, noted that the judge did not rule on the districts’ challenges to the state’s rejection of their applications to become exclusive chartering bodies. No decision has been made on whether to appeal, Ms. Ley said.

In Ohio, a coalition of teachers’ unions and other groups issued a joint statement Dec. 5 announcing their plans to abandon legal action.

“[N]ew opportunities for legislative reforms and new elected officials who are committed to charter school accountability offer more hope for positive change in the near term,” said Mark Hatch, the public-policy director for the Ohio Association of Public School Employees.

The Ohio high court did not rule on certain nonconstitutional questions. For one, the plaintiffs contend that some schools are operating in violation of state law.

Chad A. Readler, a lawyer for about 100 charter schools in the case, said: “The Ohio Supreme Court made clear that these education policy issues are best left to be decided by the legislature, where all voices can be heard.”

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the December 13, 2006 edition of Education Week

Events

School Climate & Safety K-12 Essentials Forum Strengthen Students’ Connections to School
Join this free event to learn how schools are creating the space for students to form strong bonds with each other and trusted adults.
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
Mathematics Webinar
Math for All: Strategies for Inclusive Instruction and Student Success
Looking for ways to make math matter for all your students? Gain strategies that help them make the connection as well as the grade.
Content provided by NMSI
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
Mathematics Webinar
Equity and Access in Mathematics Education: A Deeper Look
Explore the advantages of access in math education, including engagement, improved learning outcomes, and equity.
Content provided by MIND Education

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 Supreme Court Declines to Hear School District's Transgender Restroom Case
The case asked whether federal law protects transgender students on the use of school facilities that correspond to their gender identity.
4 min read
People stand on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 11, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
People stand on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 11, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP
Law & Courts What a Proposed Ban on AI-Assisted ‘Deep Fakes’ Would Mean for Cyberbullying
Students who create AI-generated, intimate images of their classmates would be breaking federal law, if a new bill is enacted.
2 min read
AI Education concept in blue: A robot hand holding a pencil.
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Supreme Court Declines Case on Corporal Punishment for Student With Autism
The justices refused to hear the appeal of an 11-year-old Louisiana student who alleges that two educators slapped her on her wrists.
3 min read
The Supreme Court building is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2023.
The Supreme Court building is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2023.
Patrick Semansky/AP
Law & Courts U.S. Supreme Court Declines Bid to Rename 'Brown v. Board of Education'
Descendants argued that their case, not the one from Topeka, Kan., should have topped the 1954 decision on racial segregation in schools.
3 min read
Linda Brown Smith stands in front of the Sumner School in Topeka, Kan., on May 8, 1964. The refusal of the public school to admit Brown in 1951, then nine years old, because she is black, led to the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the "separate but equal" clause and mandated that schools nationwide must be desegregated.
Linda Brown Smith stands in front of the Sumner School in Topeka, Kan., in 1964, a segregated white school where she had been denied enrollment in 1951, leading to the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the "separate but equal" doctrine in the case that bears her family name, <i>Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.</i> The high court on Jan. 8 turned away an effort by descendants of the litigants in a companion desegregation case from South Carolina to rename the historic decision for their case, <i>Briggs</i> v. <i>Elliott</i>.
AP