Charter questions linger despite ruling

It's highly unlikely that the Charleston County School Board's appeal of a circuit judge's decision will give the board what some members say they need the most: guidance on what they are required to provide charter schools.

Instead, that issue is more likely to be resolved on a case-by-case basis with the first court test expected sooner than later.

Last week, a board majority turned down a request for financial help from the start-up Greg Mathis Charter High School. That action came a week after the board agreed to appeal a decision by Circuit Judge Roger Young, who dismissed the board's challenge of the 2005 charter school law.

The law has its roots in local lawmakers' concerns that the school board might send a bill for rent to the county's first charter school conversion -- James Island High. The 2005 law specifically forbids the district from charging rent to charters that convert from existing public schools. It also requires the school district to give charter schools, teachers and students "anything that is otherwise available" to traditional public schools.

The law didn't become a point of serious contention until the creation several years ago of the Charter School for Math and Science, which included a request that the school occupy the vacant Rivers Middle School. Ultimately, bolstered by an attorney general's opinion on the charter law, Math and Science became the first start-up school to be given rent-free district facilities. But the majority of the board also agreed to challenge the legality of the 2005 legislation.

The school board legal team did concede during oral arguments that the Charleston charter law doesn't violate the state "Home Rule" law that bans lawmakers from passing what's known as "local legislation" for individual counties. Courts generally have found that state legislators can still pass local laws on education since, under the S.C. Constitution, education is a state responsibility.

Judge Young also turned aside arguments that the Charleston charter law violates other constitutional and statutory provisions that the board will continue to pursue in an appeal. Basically, he found that the local law is supplemental to rather than inconsistent with the statewide law on charter schools. Further, the special legislation was found to be justified because Charleston's school system is unique in its organization, authority and geography.

While some board members expressed disappointment that the judge didn't provide guidance in implementing the law he upheld, don't look for that result from the appeal. The appeals courts will either uphold Judge Young or the Charleston charter law will be scrapped.

Meanwhile, the charter law's presumed constitutionality has been reinforced by the Young decision. And Larry Kobrovsky, a former board member and attorney for Greg Mathis, now hopes for a court order that would grant his client's request. Last week, the majority of the board turned down Mathis' use of a district-owned facility, payment of its current rent and bus transportation. The start-up school's monthly rent is $6,200, and students must provide their own transportation.

Kobrovsky plans to utilize a legal device known as a writ of mandamus to try to get his client critical financial relief. The mandamus approach was used successfully last year to force Gov. Mark Sanford to accept federal stimulus dollars. It's not clear, however, whether the board's appeal of the Young decision will put a hold on Kobrovsky's courtroom effort.

But even if the board does reach an agreement with Greg Mathis on such basics as transportation and use of available facilities, that won't settle the need to clarify the law, according to board member Gregg Meyers, an attorney. He expects a series of requests "asking for a whole host of things." As one example, he cites the prospect that a charter school might ask for a football stadium. Since the local law says the board "may not deny" a charter school what others have, does that mean "that we don't have the capacity to say no?" Is there, he asks, a blank check for charters with no right to exercise discretion?

But Larry DiCenzo, principal of the conversion Orange Grove Charter Elementary School, doesn't think the issue is all that complicated. Instead, he contends the questions being raised reflect the district's aversion to charter schools in general. Noting that charters are public schools, it's his view the law only intends that the district follow the same basic philosophy and criteria it uses with traditional public schools. There is, he contends, a "lot of misinterpretation going on and a lot of fear."

DiCenzo does say he plans to ask the district to provide transportation funds for his pupils next year since that is a public school basic. Transportation now takes $82,000 out of his school's allocation. He won't ask, however, for funds for utilities and maintenance since he feels that's included in the per pupil allocation he receives.

While district officials point to the number of charter schools that have been and continue to be approved, charter advocates point to what they say is growing hostility. DiCenzo believes that's particularly true with conversion charters such as his where a board and a group of parents have proven they can do the job of educating students and running a multimillion dollar facility while staying in the black. Saying the money should follow the child, he contends the district "doesn't want to lose the power to manipulate the money they have to turn over to us." He says he already sees signs that there will be opposition to Orange Grove recertification next year.

"I would like," he said, to see the situation "more collegial with open arms working together for kids."

Now that's a goal all sides should pursue, and one that should need no clarification.

Barbara S. Williams, editor emeritus of The Post and Courier, may be reached at bwilliams@postandcourier.com.