Charter school funding lawsuit could threaten D.C.’s self-governance
By Moriah Costa
Watchdog.org
January 27th, 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A D.C. charter school funding lawsuit that claims the city is in violation of federal law could challenge how the nation’s capital governs itself.
A complaint filed in federal court by the D.C. Association of Public Chartered Public Schools, Eagle Academy and Washington Latin public charter schools contends the city shorted charter school funding by more than $770 million, or $1,600 to $2,600 per pupil, and is a violation of the School Reform Act of 1995.
Passed by Congress, the act overhauled the D.C. public school system, which had performed below the national average for decades. It also established charter schools and mandated the two systems receive the same per-pupil funding.
But some say D.C. has the right under the 1973 Home Rule Act to change federal laws that pertain just to the district, like education. The act gave D.C. the authority to govern itself over local issues, but Congress reviews all laws passed by the council and has final authority over the city’s budget, including education.
Both traditional and charter schools in D.C. are funded by local and federal money.
Former Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan asked the federal court to dismiss the case in October, on the basis the D.C. Council had the right to amend school funding rules under the Home Rule Act. The court has not responded yet.
In recent years, the District has come to a head with Congress over the right to issue its own laws in respect to gun control and marijuana legalization. Some residents, including D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, want the city to become a state.
The case was passed on to newly elected Attorney General Karl Racine. His office did not respond to a request for comment.
Charter schools are public schools, and school choice supporters in D.C and nationally say they should be funded equally.
In an amicus brief filed Jan. 16, several pro-charter organizations said D.C. officials do not have the right to amend the law and if they did, “they would have been free to refuse to create public charter schools, to fund those schools or to reform DC schools altogether.”
D.C. charter and traditional schools are funded on a per-pupil basis that varies by grade and services. However, traditional schools are funded by estimated student enrollment, while charter schools are funded by actual student enrollment, creating a significant difference in funding, the lawsuit claims.
The complaint cited a 2013 city-commissioned study that found the difference in funding is a result of structural differences. Traditional schools are often allocated supplemental funding from other agencies, the study found.
About 44 percent of D.C. students attend a charter school.
Kara Kerwin, president of the Center for Education Reform, which also signed the brief, said the case could have implications for school choice across the country.
“(If the lawsuit is dismissed) it’s going to send shock waves to other areas that we don’t need to treat students equally,” she said.
But Walter Smith, director the DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, said it could have a devastating effect on how D.C. governs itself.
“If the court agrees (with the charter schools), there is risk that the court, in holding for the charters, will be issuing a legal decision, that would apply not to just this case but to lots of other cases that have nothing to do with the fight between the charters and the council,” he said.
He said the best way for charter schools to resolve the funding issue is for them to go to their council representatives.
“We want both the charter schools and the public school to thrive here, but we prefer to have it locally figured out rather than through federal court,” he said.
In an amicus brief filed in support of the motion to dismiss the case, traditional school supporters argued that if the case goes forward, residents “would be deprived of the ability and right to control public education.” They also note the School Reform Act has been amended by the city council in ways that have benefited charter schools and that at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, charter schools had over $200 million in unrestricted cash. The brief also states that nowhere in the complaint does it “allege that the funding for charter schools is inadequate.”
For Ramona Edelin, executive director of the D.C. Association of Public Charter Schools, which filed the lawsuit, the case is about ensuring children in charter schools continue to succeed. She said the schools’ position is “in perfect alignment with the home rule act.”
“Children in charters are doing better than the district schools and that’s gratifying because that’s the whole point,” she said.
