District Hopes S.C. Justices Will Settle School Funding Issues (SC)

January 10, 2011

The long-awaited hearing on a case that could decide whether Charleston charter schools receive millions more each year will happen later this month.

&#x 0D;
The state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Charleston County School District’s lawsuit against the state on Jan. 18. The district sued the state on the constitutionality of Act 189, a piece of legislation applicable only to Charleston County that prohibits the district from denying a charter school anything that is otherwise available to a public school.

The district contended the law was special legislation that conflicted with and superseded the state’s charter school law, but Circuit Court Judge Roger Young ruled in January 2010 that the law was valid. A 2007 state attorney general’s opinion also held that the local law was valid.

District leaders want the courts to say whether the law is constitutional and, if so, what specifically they owe to charter schools. The wording of the legislation is relatively simple, but interpreting its meaning isn’t, county school board Chairman Chris Fraser said. And a ruling that Act 189 is constitutional still may not resolve the funding questions surrounding it, he said.

"Clarity is what we’d like," he said.

Statewide law calls for charter schools to pay their bills, such as teachers’ salaries, rent and transportation, with an amount of money determined by formula; charter schools receive the average of what the district receives per student.

The local law, Act 189, says the district can’t deny anything to a charter school that is available to a public school. Because the district doesn’t charge traditional neighborhood schools for its buildings and transportation, some think Act 189 means the district must pay for charter schools’ building and transportation costs in addition to giving them the amount required by formula.

If the court takes that position , the district could owe charter schools millions, which would leave less to divide among the district’s remaining schools.

Fraser fears the courts won’t say what the district must give to charter schools, and the board will continue to struggle to interpret the law. For example, if a charter school leases a non-district-owned building at a rate that’s above market value, Fraser questioned whether the district would have to pay for the space.

"Where do you draw the line, and can anyone who wants (the money) have it?" he said.

In addition to the case before the Supreme Court, two charter schools have filed separate lawsuits demanding building and transportation money from the district, and they cite Act 189.

During the Jan. 18 state Supreme Court hearing, the district and state will present their case, and the court’s justices will have the opportunity to ask questions. It likely will be several months before the court issues a decision.

The district hired the Derfner, Altman & Wilborn law firm to handle the case. District attorney John Emerson said the firm has expertise in constitutional law, and Emerson often doesn’t do trial work because of the time commitment involved.