WEAC’s war against real parents and students in virtual schools

On December 5th, 2007, a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision fell like a virtual bomb on the more than 3,000 students enrolled in virtual charter schools in our state. The parents and students now find themselves in a political limbo as their digital connection to the virtual classrooms they rely on faces termination.

This unfortunate outcome, in my view, is primarily the fault of WEAC, Wisconsin’s Superintendent of Public Instruction and Governor Doyle. The teachers union sought to maintain their monopoly on teaching by pushing aside parents who want to participate in their child’s education. WEAC also disregarded the significant role that licensed union teachers play in the virtual school education model.

Superintendent Burmaster, despite being a defendant, assisted WEAC’s case against the parent’s role in educating their children while refusing to defend her own department’s interpretation of the law as it relates to charter schools and open enrollment – the other two central questions in the case.

The case was filed by WEAC in 2004 and in March, 2006, the circuit court ruled in favor of the virtual charter schools. As the opinion was pending, the legislature sought to address the statutory issues raised in the case by passing AB 1060. Doyle, siding with the teacher’s union, vetoed the bill. With a legislative remedy safely quashed, Burmaster joined WEAC in filing an appeal seeking to reverse the circuit court decision.

As a conservative, I appreciate the careful reading of the law that the court used in delivering its opinion. Even if we do not like the outcome, our courts should uphold their limited role of interpreting the law. The people elect a legislature to write the laws. As the court noted in this case:

“[T]hese statutes prohibit a school district from operating a charter school located outside the district, require that open-enrollment students attend a school in the district, and require that teachers in all public schools, including charter schools, be state-certified. For each statute, the District presents a creative reading allowing WIVA to continue its present operations, but our job is not to bend the statutory framework to fit WIVA. If, as its proponents claim (and its opponents dispute), WIVA has hit upon a bold new educational model that educates pupils in a way equal to traditional school at a fraction of the cost, then the legislature may well choose to change the law to accommodate WIVA and other schools like it. However, as the law presently stands, the charter school, open-enrollment, and teacher certification statutes are clear and unambiguous, and the District is not in compliance with any of them.”

The court concluded the opinion by again emphasizing this point:

“It is for the citizens of this state, through their elected representatives in the legislature, to decide whether and how their tax money is going to be spent. If the citizenry wants tax money spent on virtual schools like WIVA, that is fine. Let the citizens debate it and set the parameters, not the courts.”

The statutes were clearly not written in a way that favorably accommodates this innovative form of education. Having said that, judges do not bring suits into their courts hoping to find technical violations of the law. As I have said, the blame for this sad outcome lies solely in the hands of those who brought the case and a governor who refused to address the problems with the law.

The virtual charter schools could appeal this decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court – a court that as of late has demonstrated a willingness towards judicial activism – but I think we all know how that would work out.

The solution will be found in the legislature, but even then, we have two very different ways of approaching the problem.

Senate Democrats, led by Sen. John Lehman has introduced his own “fix” which would effectively kill the virtual charter school movement. Lehman’s pro-WEAC legislation would cut the per-pupil funding, vastly expand the number or hours a teacher spends instructing students, limit enrollment and prohibit the creation of any new virtual charter schools.

Assembly Republicans have introduced a bill that addresses the three issues at the heart of the court decision: 1. The bill would clarify the meaning of the location of a charter school, allowing teachers using the internet to teach – even if they are not physically teaching from the school district.  2. The bill also permits students to use the open enrollment program to enroll in a virtual charter school in another school district. 3. And finally, the bill makes it clear that a teacher means a paid faculty member of the charter school.

On the last issue - of parents and licensure – a commenter in a previous post wants to know my thoughts on how this legislation affects homeschoolers. I support the Assembly bill and I am a co-sponsor (in other words: this Bill supports that bill). I also support the rights of homeschoolers. The bill has a very limited scope and it applies only to virtual charter schools. The bill limits licensure to paid staff members of the virtual charter schools, and then goes beyond that by specifying those who do not require a license, specifically: “any person providing educational services to the pupil in the pupil’s home, other than staff of the virtual charter school, is not required to hold a license or permit.”

I have heard from school officials and parents in my own district that support AB 697 over Sen. Lehman’s legislation.  Waukesha’s iQ Academy has been a success and proven to be very effective in reaching non-traditional students.  Parents of children who attend iQ Academy have told me time and again how thankful they are for having access to the school.  And officials with the school district have flat out said that without a legislative fix like AB 697, iQ Academy would be forced to close its virtual doors.

This legislation does not in any way infringe or threaten to infringe on the rights of homeschoolers. Nevertheless, the homeschool association does not have much use for the competing virtual charter school movement or the combination of some elements of home-schooling and organized education with licensed teachers who lay out lesson plans, correct homework, and issue grades.

In my view, the preferences of homeschool parents is no more or less valid than the preferences of virtual charter school parents or the preferences of parents who send their children to public and private schools. They all deserve our support and they should all be free to choose the education method that works for them.

Finally, let me share one more thought to this long-winded post. It may be due to being a freshman in the legislature or it may be wishful thinking, but I am optimistic that the Governor will work with Assembly Republicans to forge a compromise. Charter schools have received a lot of bipartisan support. Even rank-and-file union teachers have expressed support for online learning and other innovations offered in the charter schools.

This educational approach should be allowed to continue – who knows, a public school student may be able to find customized advanced-placement courses online that a district would not be able to offer in a traditional “brick-and-mortar” school.

 

Posted by Bill Kramer at 0951 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin