For those of you who keep an eye on how charter schools are funded in the U.S., an interesting decision was handed down recently in Arizona in Craven v. Huppenthal. According to an analysis by the Education Law Center, an Arizona appellate court ruled that a different funding system for regular public schools than for public charter schools does not violate the state’s constitution. The plaintiffs had sued, as have others in other states, claiming that the different funding schemes violated the state’s own general and uniform education clause, as well as the equal protection clause. Both of those claims were rejected.
Interestingly, the court cited that the simple fact that the funding methods are different was not a violation because charter schools are free from many state regulations as well as statutes governing human resource management, are able to raise money in other ways that regular public schools cannot (e.g., additional state funding, grants, donations, etc.), and have access to other methods for raising revenues toward facilities.
Plus, since the children are attending the charter school voluntarily and have the “unabridged right” to return to a regular public school that is funded through the traditional means, they were not being deprived of any rights.
In short, the Education Law Center noted, “this ruling makes clear that the very nature of charters, as voluntary alternatives to public schools and free from some of the regulations constraining public schools, permits the state to treat charters differently than public schools in matters of funding.” They predict that the reasoning in this case could be applied in future cases around the country.