Justices’ ruling ignores election

The Washington state Supreme Court on Sept. 4 rule the state’s charter school law as unconstitutional. The justices dug deep to justify their decision, referencing a definition of public schools from a 1909 case, School District 20 vs. Bryan. Instead of citing a particular right spelled out in the U.S. Constitution or Washington state’s constitution, the court based its ruling largely on its own, distinctive interpretation of the term “common schools.”

The ruling essentially claims charter schools are not public schools, which could not be more blatantly false. Charter schools are public schools that have somewhat more autonomy than traditional public schools. Most states now have charter school laws on the books, so Washington’s law was not some kind of weird experiment, but rather right in line with other programs dozens of states and cities have already implemented.

The court ruling is based on the absurd premise that charter schools are not accountable to taxpayers because they are not run by elected school boards. But the state’s 2012 charter law came into being because of a ballot initiative voted on directly by — you guessed it — the taxpayers of Washington state. They gave their approval at that time.

Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are also directly accountable to the parents of the children who attend them. Charter schools typically close within three years if they are not doing a good job. Failing public schools just go on and on, dooming more children to a poor education. The teachers unions and their allies who sued to stop the state’s charter law are forcing those students to remain trapped in their failing schools. Just who is it that’s acting as if they’re not accountable to the taxpayer here?

It was particularly irresponsible for the court to delay making this decision until the school year was about to start, thus leaving hundreds of students in the lurch. Again, just who is it that’s acting as if they’re not accountable here?

Liv Finne, director of education studies at the Washington Policy Center, notes the people of Washington passed the charter school law through the ballot initiative process because they wanted serious educational reform. The court is denying them their right to decide how their schools should be structured.

“Just as schools across Washington open their doors to students, the state Supreme Court placed school reform in serious jeopardy,” Finne said. “For technical reasons, the court struck down the charter school law passed by voters in 2012. The state teachers union — the Washington Education Association, which funded the lawsuit against the charter school law — celebrated the ruling.”

Finne says the state’s teachers unions have undue influence over education policy in Washington. She’s obviously right.

“The ruling has shocked and upset the parents and families of the 1,300 children enrolled in one of Washington’s nine new charter schools,” said Finne. “Questions are now being raised about union influence on the Supreme Court. Public records show seven of the nine Supreme Court judges took maximum contributions from the state teachers union during their election campaigns.”

The technical fixes necessary to correct this ridiculous ruling are simple: either change or remove the term “common schools” from state law or rewrite the definition of the term to include charter schools, which are, as noted earlier, public schools. That just happens to be what the voters of Washington have expressly communicated they want. Since the state’s courts won’t do the right thing for Washington’s children, it’s up to the Legislature to do so.

The court made a disappointing decision in this case, and parents, teachers and taxpayers will all have to stand up and demand more.

Heather Kays is a research fellow with The Heartland Institute and is managing editor of School Reform News. Her email address is hkays@heartland.org.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

February 27, 2024: Alabama Embryo Ruling
Editorial cartoons for Friday, March 1

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A model of a statue of Billy Frank Jr., the Nisqually tribal fishing rights activist, is on display in the lobby of the lieutenant governor's office in the state Capitol. (Jon Bauer / The Herald.
Editorial: Two works in progress to save Columbia Basin salmon

Sculptures of an Indian fishing rights activist will guard commitments to save salmon and honor treaties.

Schwab: Kids’ are all right, if a tad cold; nation’s another matter

Alabama’s IVF ruling shows the dangers in the creep of theocracy into our courts and other institutions.

Choose sources of news carefully to understand world

From what I have seen and heard, there are still many people… Continue reading

GOP wants to run on border crisis, not fix it

Regarding a recent letter to the editor about Herald Columnist Sid Schwab,… Continue reading

Why was $340 million in covid aid given to undocumented immigrants?

I was searching the internet and could not locate any news in… Continue reading

Comment: Without ruling, Supreme Court hands Trump a win

Not taking the immunity case until late April will delay his trials, possibly until after the election.

Comment: Work under way to rebuild reliable ferry system

There are efforts ongoing in the short- and long-term, but there’s a threat in an initiative this fall.

BPA must diversify sources beyond dams

The Bonneville Power Administration was created by an act of congress in… Continue reading

Why was mine allowed near school kids?

I have been following the story of unnecessary staff and student illnesses… Continue reading

Shouldn’t park rangers drive Rangers?

In my opinion, the fact that Everett park staff and Snohomish County… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.