Some people really cannot take a damn hint, even when the hint comes in the form first of a lawsuit being dismissed and second in the form of a massive defeat at the polls. A trio of hotshot Boston lawyers is reviving the zombie corpse of the effort to undermine public education in Massachusetts by lifting the cap on the number of charter schools allowed to open each year. They’re appealing the case to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court after:
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Heidi Brieger dismissed the suit last year, finding that the allegations did not show an “egregious, statewide abandonment of the constitutional duty” required to show a violation of Education Clause of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Also last year, Massachusetts voters defeated a ballot measure attempting to lift the charter cap by a 24-point margin. But senior lawyers at three of Boston’s top law firms forge on, undeterred.
In their pitch to the SJC, attorneys for the children said Brieger applied the wrong standard and that the case shows “severe and egregious deficiencies in the educational opportunities provided” to their clients. They also argue that “an adequate education” is a fundamental right in Massachusetts that is being violated by the charter cap and that the case should not have been dismissed.
They’ve got nerve, you have to give them credit for that. Well, give credit for having nerve or observe that some people are so wrapped up in believing that being hotshot lawyers for some of America’s top corporations means they’re knowledgeable about education and inequality.
First of all, let’s note that this lawsuit—premised on the notion that public schools are egregiously deficient hellholes—is taking place in a state that consistently ranks among the highest in the nation on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, considered the gold standard of standardized tests. Second, let’s note that while educational achievement can certainly vary within a state, a vast body of research tells us that educational outcomes are linked to class, and that poverty is mysteriously linked with bad schools. (It’s not mysterious.) So if you really want to improve education, you tackle poverty.
But while these lawyers are outraged at the quality of education they think is available to students in poor areas of Boston, they aren’t arguing for improved educational funding or for anti-poverty initiatives. No, they’re arguing for a supposed remedy that would siphon funds out of public schools, hurting the majority of students.
Third, Boston—where the lawyers’ five unnamed clients reside—voted against lifting the charter cap at roughly the same rate as the rest of the state, 62 percent to 38 percent. Just 18 out of 351 cities and towns voted to lift the cap. Fourth, the supposed best evidence that Boston charter schools outperform public schools is methodologically flawed and deeply suspect. (You can’t compare the five best charter schools in Boston to the average public school and claim it’s a fair comparison. You can’t claim you’ve matched charter school students to otherwise similar public school students when one group contains 8 percent English Language Learners and the other group contains 30 percent English Language Learners.) And fifth, to the extent that Massachusetts charter schools are better than charter schools in other states, it is in part because of the charter cap, which has at least prevented the kind of widespread corruption we see among charter schools in states where they’ve been allowed to spread unchecked.
The good news is that this lawsuit’s chances of success are low. The bad news is that this is the story of education in America today. The evidence may be against them, public opinion may be against them, but the wealthy and the powerful are on a crusade against public education, and they have the resources to return to attack again and again.