Court rejects charter schools' bid for more funding

The judges did not dispute arguments by Cory Langhofer, attorney for the parents of some charter school students, that the formula for aid results in charter schools getting only about 85 percent of what the state would pay if that child were in traditional public schools. But they said the difference between the two types of schools justifies the disparity.

Langhofer said he will take the case to the state Supreme Court. Under Arizona law, charter schools are part of the public schools system.

They are designed to provide an alternative to traditional district-based public schools. But rather than being run by a government agency, they can be operated by private and even for-profit organizations.

Both types of schools get the same basic state aid.

Traditional schools, however, get additional money for everything from the costs of operating their school buses to separate funding for books and computers.

The charter schools do get additional aid. Langhofer said, though, that still leaves them short of what the public schools get. And that, he argued, violates a constitutional provision which requires the Legislature to maintain a “general and uniform public school system.”

But appellate Judge Margaret Downie, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said there’s nothing necessarily illegal about the funding disparity. She said there are differences between the two systems.

“Charter schools are freed from some of the administrative regulations imposed on district public schools,” she wrote.

For example, charter schools need not hire certified teachers. And they are not required to follow the same procedures for hiring and firing.

They also can specialize in certain subject areas or even just certain grades, can give preference in enrollment to siblings of existing students, and can even limit enrollment to a single gender.

Langhofer, however, argued that does not justify the funding difference.

“They passed each of those rules, presumably, because it improved the quality of education for the (traditional) districts,” he said. “They can’t then, on top of that say, ‘To justify the additional burden for this rule, you get additional money for it.’”

But Downie pointed out the challengers never argued their children are not receiving adequate and free public education at the charter schools. Langhofer conceded the point.

“We’re advocates for charter schools,” he said. “Our position definitely is not that charter schools do a bad job educating children.”

But he said that’s not the point.

“Our position is just that if we were getting equal funding with district schools, to which we’re legally entitled, we could do an even better job than we already are,” he said.

The court also rebuffed a separate argument that the different funding amounts to a violation of the requirement that the state treat all similarly situated people equally.

“Appellants conceded their children’s attendance at charter schools is completely voluntary and optional and that they may enroll in district schools at any time,” Downie wrote. And she said there are no allegations that the parents were forced to put their children in charter schools because the district schools are inadequate.

“At any time, they may choose to attend district schools that receive the funding they deem more desirable,” she said.