The Tulsa School District filed suit Friday morning seeking to have the statute that permits charter schools declared unconstitutional.
Advertisement
Although officials with the Tulsa School District say the lawsuit's intent is not to shut down the district's three charters, lawyer Doug Mann said charters statewide would be forced to close if the lawsuit succeeds.
"If the (state) Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional, it would shut them all down because there would not be any funding for them,” said Mann, the school district's attorney.
"We are asking that the court hold the statute unconstitutional and prohibit the state Department of Education from issuing any money that would be diverted to the charter schools.
"In other words, that money should be our money.”
The state Education Department, which is listed as the defendant in the lawsuit, has not had time to review the filing, spokeswoman Shelly Hickman said.
The Oklahoma Charter Schools Act of 1999 violates the state constitution because it singles out which school districts are required to allow charter schools, according to the suit, which was filed against the state Education Department in district court in Oklahoma County.
The school districts that share in Tulsa's situation are Bartlesville, Broken Arrow, Edmond, Jenks, Midwest City-Del City, Moore, Mustang, Oklahoma City, Owasso, Putnam City, Sand Springs and Union, according to the state Education Department.
The law was amended this year to allow universities to sponsor charter schools.
Tulsa has three charter schools, and there are about 10 in Oklahoma City.
The lawsuit says "the Tulsa School District is irreparably harmed by its loss of funding that is given to the three charter schools” in the district.
Tulsa School District spokeswoman Tami Marler and Tulsa School Board member Matt Livingood said the objective of the lawsuit is not to shut down charter schools.
"This is not an anti-charter suit,” Livingood said. "We have three charter schools — all performing well. This is not aimed at them.”
The school district just wants all districts in similar situations, like geography and size, to be treated the same, he said.
Charter schools receive per-pupil funding equivalent to that of public schools.
The schools operate under a charter, or contract, with the local school district that allows them to use public funding but operate independently.
What's the precedent?
The Tulsa School District has no particular problem with the state Education Department, Livingood said.
He said Tulsa officials have asked legislators for two years to address their constitutional concerns, and that in lieu of getting any consideration, the board voted unanimously to get the court system to consider the issue. The only way to do that was to sue the state department.
The Tulsa district is relying heavily on a case called City of Enid v. Public Employees Relation Board, said Mann, who works for the firm Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.
In that case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional to discriminate between similarly situated entities — in other words, to create a "special law” that applies only to some places, Mann said.
Throughout the years, lawsuits have challenged various pieces of legislation — not necessarily related to education — on the grounds that the law was such an unconstitutional "special law,” Benson said.
Sometimes the courts have favored the legislation and other times they have stricken the legislation, he said.
"It all depends on the facts.”
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Anne, that's why I separated my argument into two parts. The Enid case is similar to other cases in other states, I don't have citations handy, but it is, take my word for it. In Enid, the state statute set out a population requirement for the municipal bargaining act to apply. In this case, there's a similar population requirement for the charter school act to apply -- a school district with 5,000 or more in daily enrollemnt, located within a county with a population of 500,000 or more. That's what makes it not special. From a public policy standpoint, I think it's fairly easy to acknowledge that the needs of these larger counties, education-wise will be different than smaller counties. I agree that cities such as Lawton ought to have public schools available as well, but as you know, often, legislative compromises are made upon the most arbitrary of grounds. So long as those arbitrary grounds are constitutional (and I think they are), then they're a-ok.
The issue isn't whether charter schools are good or bad. It's whether the Legislature has to comply with Oklahoma's Constitution in establishing the law. The Enid case doesn't control the outcome. It just establishes the test that the law must pass. If you read the case, it says that if the Legislature sets up a class (based on district size or geography, for example), all districts in the class have to be treated the same. If they are not, then the law is a "local" or "special" laqw prohibited by our Constitution. That's the issue, not the wisdom or effectiveness of charters.
If the classification is based on school district size size, then all Oklahoma districts above 5,000 students are not treated the same. If the classification is location, all districts in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties are not treated the same. Either way, the lawsuit raises a valid point. That is what the Enid case says the law must do. The Legislature should do it right, if it is going to have charters.
Arguing whether charter schools are good or bad misses the legal point entirely.
By the way, the "needs" the Charter School Act addresses are set out by the Legislature in the Act itself. I suggest that you read the purposes in the Act and tell me which ones apply only to Oklahoma City and Tulsa. In case you choose not to read the law, I'll tell you. None of the stated purposes apply or even refer to problems exclusive to big districts. Shouldn't parents in Ardmore or Lawton have the same choice to set up charter schools as in Tulsa or Oklahoma counties . . . if only to serve their "different needs"?
All that said, I think this isn't a special law. Such legislation is very common in other states. Enid v. Public Employees Relation Board is controlling here, IMHO. Cities of the size of Oklahoma and Tulsa simply have different needs than cities such as Ardmore and Lawton.
Walter, let's examine both of your points. First, do charter schools "siphon" money off of public schools? Absolutely not. In fact, public school districts receive a pretty significant windfall from students who choose charter schools. When a child decides to go to a charter school, while the school district has to spend nothing to educate that student, the district still receives a portion of what they would have been appropriated for educating that student. That's a windfall. The district doesn't have to lift a finger to get free money. Second, you claim that these schools are being run by "amateurs." That may be from an educational standpoint. Many of the teachers don't have to meet the same certification requirements that they would if they had taught in public schools. The irrefutable fact is, however, while these charter schools are open to all students, unlike magnet schools, almost all of them outperform their similarly situated public schools. Some charter schools, Harding Charter Prep and Dove (both open to anyone who wants to go) in OKC come to mind, actually scored higher than Oklahoma City's (by application only) Classen School of Advanced Studies on their Academic Performance Index -- Dove by a significant margin. If these are amateurs running the show as you say, then we need more of those 'amateurs' in our public school system.
Good! I hope they succeed. Charter schools simply siphon money away from the public school system. If people don't like the public schools, they should get involved in the process instead of having a bunch of amateurs take over the common education of our young future citizens.
According to the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act of 1999, districts are obliged to consider charter schools only if the district has more than 5,000 students.
However, under the original law, Norman and Yukon are exempt, although they have more than 5,000 students.
Norman and Yukon were exempt because their school officials, state senators and representatives did not support the idea of charter schools and worked for them to be excluded, said Loyd Benson, who was House speaker at the time.
Benson said there are not enough students in small districts for charters to succeed.
The law was amended this year to let universities sponsor charters.
5
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
If the classification is based on school district size size, then all Oklahoma districts above 5,000 students are not treated the same. If the classification is location, all districts in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties are not treated the same. Either way, the lawsuit raises a valid point. That is what the Enid case says the law must do. The Legislature should do it right, if it is going to have charters.
Arguing whether charter schools are good or bad misses the legal point entirely.
By the way, the "needs" the Charter School Act addresses are set out by the Legislature in the Act itself. I suggest that you read the purposes in the Act and tell me which ones apply only to Oklahoma City and Tulsa. In case you choose not to read the law, I'll tell you. None of the stated purposes apply or even refer to problems exclusive to big districts. Shouldn't parents in Ardmore or Lawton have the same choice to set up charter schools as in Tulsa or Oklahoma counties . . . if only to serve their "different needs"?