麻豆精品

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

A North Carolina charter school is weighing whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a Tuesday ruling that clarified such schools are public and subject to equal protection laws.

In , 10 of the 16 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that Charter Day School in Leland, North Carolina 鈥� just like any other public school 鈥� was acting on behalf of the state when it adopted a dress code requiring girls to wear skirts, and, therefore, violated their constitutional rights. 

The school鈥檚 board in Peltier v. Charter Day School Inc., maintained that because it鈥檚 a nonprofit organization, it should have flexibility over its educational approach, which includes strict expectations on student behavior and appearance.

鈥淲ere we to adopt [Charter Day School鈥檚] position, North Carolina could outsource its educational obligation to charter school operators, and later ignore blatant, unconstitutional discrimination committed by those schools,鈥� wrote Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, an Obama appointee. 鈥淲e need look no further than the shameful history of state-sponsored racial discrimination in this country to reject an application of the Equal Protection Clause that would allow North Carolina to abdicate its duty to treat public schoolchildren equally.鈥�

The case is the first time a federal appeals court has considered whether charter school students deserve the same constitutional rights as their peers in traditional schools. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the school on behalf of three families who argued the skirt rule was discriminatory. But the school鈥檚 argument threw the status of charters into question. Charter advocates and authorizers argued that their existence as public schools was never a matter of debate, while some school choice supporters suggested they operate more like private schools and could even be run by religious organizations.

Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, said the ruling should come as no surprise because states created charters to be part of the public education system. 

鈥淭he court held that the Constitution applies to schools that operate under the state鈥檚 name and with the public鈥檚 money,鈥� he said. 鈥淵et, this obvious point has escaped several other courts. Hopefully, this case will go a long way in setting an example for others.鈥�

In a joint statement, Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 鈥� which filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs 鈥� and Rhonda Dillingham, executive director of the North Carolina Association for Public Charter Schools, said the ruling gives charter schools clarity over their status and obligations to protect students鈥� civil rights.

鈥淭he North Carolina charter statute not only compels this outcome but the statute mirrors the substantive provisions in charter statutes around the country,鈥� they said, adding that the 鈥渄ecision crosses state lines 鈥� inside and beyond the 4th Circuit.鈥� 

Judge Keenan wrote that charter schools are not merely alternative models like private schools or homeschooling, and putting them in the same category 鈥渋gnores both the 鈥榝ree, universal鈥� nature of this education and the statutory framework chosen by North Carolina in establishing this type of public school.鈥�

But in the minority鈥檚 dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., a Trump appointee, said the majority 鈥渂reaks new ground鈥� and ignores Supreme Court precedent. 

Quattlebaum鈥檚 earlier opinion 鈥� which the new ruling overturns 鈥� leaned on a 1982 case, , in which the Supreme Court ruled that a private school receiving state funds for educating 鈥渕aladjusted鈥� high school students was not acting under the 鈥渃olor of state law鈥� when it fired a counselor and five teachers. 

The implications of Tuesday鈥檚 opinion go far beyond whether a charter school can require girls to wear skirts, he wrote in his dissent Tuesday.

鈥淭he majority significantly broadens the scope of what it means for the actions of a private party to be attributed to the state,鈥� he wrote.

Aaron Streett, an attorney representing the nonprofit organization that founded the school and its board members, said the decision restricts parents鈥� ability to choose the kind of education they want for their children.

鈥淸Charter Day School] will continue to provide an excellent education to its students,鈥� he said, 鈥渆ven as it evaluates the next steps in challenging this mistaken and harmful ruling.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 麻豆精品鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.