To review, here's what I wrote in my first thread about the ruling:
The Court just recently granted this extension and the due date is October 23rd. To note, Attorney General Bob Ferguson is also asking for a reconsideration. (Want to e-mail him to let him know there are better issues before his office?
This would seem to mean that the Court would allow state funding for all charter schools thru much of October until that reconsideration motion is heard. However, the Court had sent the ruling down to King County Superior County to explain the outcomes and nothing has come from that court yet.
However, from the Yakima Herald:
The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Paul Lawrence, said Tuesday afternoon that they are still considering options, which could include asking a judge to halt the payments. At minimum, he said, they would want assurances that the state has a plan to get the money back.
“It certainly seems appropriate that the state needs to take steps to make sure that it gets repaid assuming the decision stays in place and becomes final,” Lawrence said.
Here is a Q&A between this blog and OSPI:
SSCF: If neither Court - Supreme or King County Superior - send OSPI direction on funding charters, will OSPI go ahead and fund the charter schools?
SSCF: If the money is sent, that will likely be enough to see most charters thru the school year because it's a lump sum per student?
OSPI: Money is apportioned monthly, not yearly – so the answer to the question on its face is no. (That’s the same for public schools as well.) If, for example, the Court rules in December that its order is final and the stay is denied, then funding would cease at that point.
SSCF: If OSPI does fund charter school students but the Supreme Court, in its reconsideration, does not reverse itself, will OSPI ask charters for a pro-rated amount back?
OSPI: That’s an unknown now. When the Supreme Court rules on the motion, we hope they will provide clarity on the apportioned money.
SSCF: Could the Superintendent speak to the issue raised about funding for Running Start being affected by the ruling? Compact tribal schools?
OSPI: That’s an issue we hope the Supreme Court will take up in the reconsideration. Superintendent Dorn is certainly worried about the possible unintended consequences.
Also to note, the reconsideration only applied for the WSCSA and the AG is filing on their own today. The AG is likely to ask for a "stay of the mandate until the end of the school year. "
Superintendent Dorn agrees with that; he has said that he’d like as soft a landing for those students as possible; to that end, he’d prefer that the schools be allowed to operate through the school year, so they don’t have to transfer mid-year. (The transfers also will interrupt the receiving districts, so it affects more than just the charter school students.)Commentary
What do we know now? The charter schools are being funded from the state and probably will be at least until the end of October. If the Court takes its time on the reconsideration (judging from how long it took them to rule in the first place), charters may be funded until the end of December or longer.
One good thing is that. like regular public schools, they get the money on a monthly basis and not in one lump sum.
I think Running Start continues to be a red herring. Running Start students have to get a sign-off from their schools and their schools are overseen by...their local school board.
Again, any upheaval caused to these students and their families is the fault of the writers of the law, the Charter Commission and the schools themselves for not being totally upfront about this issue. To tell taxpayers that they must continue to pay on others' mistakes seems wrong but that's where we are.
I think it would be some work for districts to take these students back in but 1) if the funding had been cut off at the beginning - enforcing the ruling - it would be been 3 weeks and 2) these students would go in various directions and not all of them would likely go back to their public school districts.