CA Appeals Court Rules Charter School Kids Deserve Equal Treatment Under Law; In Unanimous Ruling, Court Affirms That Districts May Not Discriminate Against Charter School Students.

FRESNO, Calif. -- The Fifth District Court of Appeals this week ruled unanimously that charter school students are district students, and that school districts may not discriminate against charter school students when it comes to providing facilities. At issue in the ruling was Proposition 39, a law passed by California voters in 2000, which mandates that school districts share public school facilities fairly among all public school students, including those attending charter schools.

The Court's unanimous ruling has important implications for how school districts allocate resources to charter school students in other areas, such as special education and general funding equity.

The unanimous ruling overturned a lower court decision brought by Ridgecrest Charter School (Ridgecrest), against Sierra Sands Unified School District (Sierra Sands) for not providing contiguous, "reasonably equivalent facilities" as the law requires. Sierra Sands offered Ridgecrest, which serves 223 students in a community east of Bakersfield, roughly 10 classrooms at five separate facilities separated geographically by 65 miles. Ridgecrest maintained that since Sierra Sands had several different school sites that could accommodate all its students on one campus, Ridgecrest should get access to one of those sites. When Sierra Sands denied their request, Ridgecrest was forced to turn to the courts.

California state law requires that charter school students be offered facilities "reasonably equivalent" to those in which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other schools in the district. The law also requires that the facility be "contiguous," or on a single site, or sites that are next to one another when there is not a single school site that can accommodate all of the charter school students. (Education Code section 47614)

Calling Sierra Sands' failure to demonstrate why it could not accommodate Ridgecrest's students on a single site, "an abuse of discretion," the Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 in favor of the charter school, stating, "...to the maximum extent practicable, the needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools..." The court also ruled that "all else being equal, a charter school should be housed at a single school site if one exists with the capacity to handle all the schools students."

"As a parent of a charter school student, I was very pleased with the verdict because it shows that my child, along with all public charter school students, should be treated just like any other public school student," said Elsa Hennings, a parent of a seventh grade Ridgecrest student and President of the Ridgecrest Board of Directors. "School districts should realize that parents need public school choices, and that charter schools are here to help improve the public school system. This week's ruling validates my right to enroll my child in a high-quality public school."

"The barriers preventing public charter schools from providing the best possible public school education are quickly coming down," said Caprice Young, President and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, which provided support for the Ridgecrest lawsuit. "Charter schools are continuing to improve student achievement, and the court's decision affirms the right of all charter school students to expect fair treatment by the school districts."

Since charter school law was enacted in California in 1992, the largest single impediment to the creation and growth of high-quality charter schools has been the lack of adequate facilities. Many charter schools have waiting lists of up to thousands of students that cannot be accommodated due to ongoing facilities constraints. Proposition 39, passed by California voters in 2000, was intended to guarantee that charter school students receive equitable treatment with regard to facilities.

This ruling is the second major precedent-setting case with regard to charter schools and their right to adequate facilities. In 2002, Sequoia Union High School District in Northern California filed suit in an attempt to prevent Aurora High School from obtaining a facility. Aurora was victorious in a lower court and on appeal.

About the California Charter Schools Association

The California Charter Schools Association is the membership and professional organization serving over 500 public charter schools serving approximately 180,000 charter school students in the State of California. The Association's mission is to increase student achievement by strengthening and expanding public charter schools throughout California.