HAVING IT BOTH WAYS: HOW CHARTER SCHOOLS TRY TO OBTAIN FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE AUTONOMY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS

• Published in: Emory law journal Vol. 63; no. 2; p. 303
• Main Authors: Green, Preston C, Baker, Bruce D, Oluwole, Joseph O
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Atlanta Emory University, School of Law 01.01.2013
• Subjects: Charter schools; Constitutional law; Constitutions; Public schools; State court decisions; Washington DC
• ISSN: 0094-4076; 2163-324X

"33 First, the authorizing body could revoke a charter when it had a reasonable ground for revocation, such as the school's failure to comply with the terms of its charter or with all applicable law.34 Second, authorizing bodies, which were public institutions, exercised control over charter schools through the application approval process.35 Third, the state set the qualifications for determining whether charter schools were eligible for funding.36 Finally, other sections of the school code applied to charter schools.37 The Michigan Supreme Court rejected the argument that charter schools were unconstitutionally funded private schools because they were not under the control of the qualified voters of the school district.\n306 In Newark, the suspension rate for charter schools was ten percent, while the suspension rate of traditional schools was three percent.307 In Washington, D.C., only 3 students were expelled from the city's 45,000-student system, while 227 students were expelled from the city's 35,000-student charter school system.308 Several urban school districts have responded to these disproportionately high disciplinary rates by considering changes to the policies governing discipline in charter school districts.