District to sue state over charter school law
The Charleston County School District plans to sue the state on the grounds that a state charter school law applicable only to Charleston County is unconstitutional.
The county school board gave district staff the go-ahead a couple of weeks ago to ask the courts to interpret seemingly conflicting laws on the district's obligation to charter schools.
State law requires charter schools to pay their bills with a set sum of money from the district. But a state law applicable only to Charleston County requires the district to give charter schools anything it would provide to any other public school, which means the district could have to give charter schools more money than the state charter school law requires.
Previous story
Courts could decide rent issue, published 10/14/08
School board members have disagreed for years about which law should be followed, and the unresolved issue continues to arise and divide the board.
John Emerson, the district's in-house attorney, researched ways to ask the court for an opinion without engaging an adversary, but the courts require a live controversy, he said. The most efficient and cleanest way to obtain a decision was to bring a lawsuit against the state and allege that the local law was unconstitutional, he said.
The school board agreed on Monday to move forward with a lawsuit to obtain a judicial ruling.
The state would take the position that the law is constitutional, which is why the district needs to take the opposing position, Emerson said.
The district's main argument is that the local law is unconstitutional because it purports to address a state statute that already covers that issue, he said. The local law also overlaps and conflicts with the broader state charter school law, he said. He expected to file the lawsuit within the next few weeks.
Board members, regardless of their position on the law, supported the district pursuing a lawsuit against the state. An interpretation from the state attorney general held that the local law was valid, but some members contend that's just an opinion and don't agree with it.
Board Chairman Hillery Douglas falls into that category. He said the board simply wants the question answered. It's unfair for the state to put this burden on the district without providing the money, he said. If the state were to provide the money, that's "a horse of a different color," he said.
But the state has passed a law that hurts the school district, costs quite a bit of money and leaves less money for other traditional, neighborhood schools, he said.
"I look at it as an unfair law against Charleston County, and I don't think the General Assembly wants to single out a school district like Charleston County has been singled out," he said.
Board member Arthur Ravenel Jr. said the school district has been in violation of the law by not providing rent money to charter schools. He hoped a charter school "suffering" because of the district would challenge the district's position, but that hasn't happened, he said. Ravenel was prepared to file a lawsuit against the district if it denied paying the building costs of the new Charleston Charter School for Math & Science, but the board agreed to pay those costs so the lawsuit was unnecessary, he said.
He didn't mind the district taking a position in opposition to his.
"I'm happy that the district is going to do it," he said. "I want it to be settled."
Reach Diette Courrégé at 937-5546 or dcourrege@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 8 comment(s)
Posted by karmann on October 30, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Traditional school," have not properly educated our students. CCSD needs to become aware of the dissatisfaction there is their ability to produce a product, a student who can compete in the word. I still applaud Mt.Pleasant for wanting to have their own school district. CCSD just does not seem to get it.
Posted by lou9 on October 30, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great, they're going to waste more taxpayer money suing the state for more taxpayer money, which the state will have to spend taxpayer money to defend itself. These school board educrats are so stupid they just don't get it. The real reason they don't like the charter school law is because charter schools are proving that they (the school board) can't provide a decent education with the resources they have and the charter schools can. Once again they are only interested in protecting their turf and not utilizing all available tools in giving children a quality education.
Posted by commonsence on October 30, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I still say MP best option is to put all of it's schools into a "charter district" under one board and then demand to be funded under the charter formula. They would gain significant additional funds, be out from under most of the district's mandates and have more local autonomy over educational decisions. I wish one local lawmaker would propose this change to the charter legislation. Maybe other parts of the County would want to group schools together under a single Board and effectively dismantle the Central Board using the charter legislation.
Posted by District20Dad on October 30, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Right! Since 1992, enrollment in District 20 (downtown Charleston) has plummetted from 6000 to 3000. In 2001 Rivers served 750 students. By 2005 the number had dropped to 350. Then those students were moved to Burke; and Rivers stood virtually empty.
Why shouldn't charter schools get free access to empty public school buildings - like Rivers? Charter schools are public schools. Why should the district charge them rent when they don't charge Wando, Buist or the Orange Grove Charter Elementary, a conversion charter. They are all public schools! They should all be treated equally! That's what the law says, the law that the Charleston County School Board is challenging. According to Act 189, the McConnell-Campsen ammendment to the 1967 School Consolidation Act, the district cannot deny charter schools anything that it provides to any other public schools, including facilities. They are all public schools.
Fortunately for the 180 students now making good use of the Rivers campus, the SC Attorney General and 5 members of the Charleston County School Board understood the law and provided the Charleston Charter School for Math and Science with this facility. One of those 5 is up for re-election, David Engeleman. He needs to be reelected.
One of four who voted to charge Math & Science up to $320,000 to use Rivers, Toya Hampton Green, is also up for reelection and is opposed by someone who really does support charter schools, Marvin Stewart. Go Marvin!
Posted by Draconian on October 30, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Choice is essential for parents to make decisions in the best interest of their children and not mandated by one board telling parents what they can and can't do. The state takes the icing when it comes to mandates that charters still are required to follow if not granted permission to be different. The joke of accountability under the states failed system of quanity based standards and one size fits all diplomas will continue to produce an increasing drop out rate. As a service industry public education is out of business except it is a protected union. Chris Fraser is anti charters and supports CCSD as the only choice. Just say no to this candidate.
Posted by eyfigueroa on October 30, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Choice is essential for parents to make decisions in the best interest of their children and not mandated by one board telling parents what they can and can't do."
The best quote of the day!
Posted by mlm on October 30, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I wish one local lawmaker would propose this change..." to create charter school districts.
This is certain: if the Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors and Mayor Riley's pick for the school board are elected, there will be no change in our schools…and charter schools will continue to be targeted as the enemy. Instead we'll get a lot more of the same old cheerleading in the wake of a lot more CCSD failures.
Chris Fraser is opposed to charter schools. He’s not saying why, but he is saying he wants to close and sell as many as one out of every four public schools we currently have. Ann Oplinger is still swooning over how nice the superintendent is. She's obviously forgotten how Memminger school downtown was given the short end for years as a dumping ground to hide CCSD’s problems.
The best solution for our schools is to attract parent support for educational programs that work in the schools we have. The administration and its preferred candidates ignore the obvious. Good schools attract good parents. Higher enrollments mean CCSD's share of state and federal educational funds increase. It's simple math.
As a member of the board’s current majority, Toya Green is as bad as it gets. Though she wants us to reelect her, she's made it clear she's not representing her downtown district. She finds constituent service annoying because it interferes with her privacy. Why then is she running for public office? She does represent someone. Possibly the mayor, the superintendent and a back room group of real estate developers.
She isn't even curious about basic details. She likes to say the school district is making progress without providing much in the way of specifics. Never mind CCSD's overall enrollment turnaround, the first after decades of steady decline, is due largely to the success of the new charter schools. Fuzzy numbers allow her to say that somehow a 49% dropout rate for minority students is an improvement. She's either kidding herself or she doesn't care that we have dozens of high school students in the same school who can't read their own discipline report, 9th graders who can't make change at the corner store not far from her law office and parents who are ignored or threatened when they attempt to exercise school choices allowed by law.
Posted by mlm on October 30, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors want us to rubber stamp their candidates for the school board with our votes next Tuesday. They dearly hope to remain in charge of our most expensive public enterprise with a half billion dollar annual purse. Keep in mind these organizations are private professional clubs with a private agenda. They are not open to public participation. Our schools belong to us in spite of the temptation to involve these institutions and their properties in quiet deals made by the mayor and selected businessmen. They can't seriously think we still believe CCSD is "all about the children", not with the track record they have. Likewise, Toya Green can't be in it for our good if her only stated objective as a board member is to keep things quiet. In other words, stifle public participation and debate. That means she's not open to seriously considering or discussing charter schools. With Toya Green, if the administration is against it, then so is she.
Chris Fraser and Toya Green are totally out of touch with what works. David Engelman and Marvin Stewart among the candidates are much better prepared to represent the public. Unlike their opponents, Engelman and Stewart have raised thoughtful questions and proposed alternatives. If that's too much conflict for Green and the Chamber of Commerce, then why have a school board at all? Just let the superintendent, the mayor and a few businessmen run the schools the way they want...which is how they are being run now.
Change is possible...but only if the voters choose candidates for the board who are open it. This includes new and innovative ideas like charter schools. Engelman and Stewart are two candidates more than willing to consider charter schools and whatever else the public wants to know about our schools. That’s far more than Green has done or Fraser has proposed.