Dispatch editorial on schools & Ohio Supreme Court reflect the King's Justice (see posting directly below)
Hey Folks,
Below is a letter I sent to a few editors at the Dispatch in response to an outrageously self-serving editorial about the DeRolph school-funding case and its involvement with today's Charter School public-funding case (for the editorial, see fine print below).
I think it fits quite well with the Twain posting (next one down).
- Uke Man
To whom it may concern,
Your December 12 editorial on charter schools and the Supreme Court is surreal. While overflowing with sophistries, the pot accuses the kettle of same.
The editorial board can’t get it through its collective head that one, very important aspect of the judicial system is to determine the constitutionality of laws promulgated by the legislative branch. At least it can’t comprehend that IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR CASE!
You don’t have an editorial hemorrhage EVERY time a court determines constitutionality – only when the court decides in some way you don’t like. In this case since the court didn’t decide in a “common sense” way (according to you), they are “dictating,” “making policy,” legislating from the bench (in THIS instance – not necessarily in others – e.g. Brown v. Board of Ed).
You write (a sophistry): “The legislature declined to meet the court’s mandate and, lacking any recourse, the court ultimately reiterated its demands, then declared the DeRolph case closed.”
Actually, the legislature chose to be IN CONTEMPT of court, and the court was NOT without recourse; they could have ordered the arrest of the legislature; or simply charged them with contempt and ordered them into court, arresting them one at a time if they refused to appear. The Supremes just didn’t have the balls and blinked.
The Dispatch could as easily have taken the legislature to task for its failure to follow a legal order by a duly elected court!
You put forth another sophistry: “Though the Ohio Constitution calls on the legislature to create a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools, it is silent on the meaning of thorough and efficient. The most logical explanation for this is that the framers intended each legislature to decide what is thorough and efficient, with voters capable of changing the legislature if lawmakers’ efforts are inadequate.”
Did it escape you that when one writes words that WORDS have meaning; “thorough and efficient" HAS meaning in itself. If, however, you and I and the legislature have a disagreement over the full meaning of words in the constitution; from almost the start of this country, it has been the role of the courts to settle that dispute.
Your plan (“the framers intended each legislature to decide what is thorough and efficient, with voters capable of changing the legislature if lawmakers’ efforts are inadequate”) is faulty. If the U.S. Supreme Court had left it up to the South to vote out “inadequate,” racist legislators, we’d still have “separate but equal”schools; moreover, what the Ohio Supreme Court was addressing in its DeRolph decisions was a CLASSIST “separate but equal” school system – one you support and which will continue forever if the courts don’t do their job.
Another sophistry: “Pfeifer’s comments are troubling for two reasons. First is the suggestion that a justice might allow his unhappiness with the outcome of the DeRolph case to influence his decision in the charter-school case.”
First of all, Pfeifer isn’t unhappy with the “outcome” of the case. He is unhappy that the legislature showed blatant disregard and contempt for a reasonable order issued by elected judges sitting on the highest bench in the state. The LEGISLATURE (and you) were “unhappy” with the outcome.
Secondly, it seems to me that any judge who has had a recalcitrant, arrogant, loud defendant before his court FOUR times, and that defendant still has stubbornly refused to serve the sentence of the court; it seems to me that such a judge should not be criticized for being leery of the character of that defendant.
Essentially what you are saying is that if the legislature gives the court the finger, the court should pretend it didn’t see it.
Another sophistry: “So the district’s expenses are reduced at the same time that its income is reduced.” That’s like saying that if the “Dispatch” loses a subscriber, it saves money because it needs to print one less paper. Think how much money you could save if you lost half your subscribers!!
It IS true that any given community, if its public school population decreased significantly, COULD, as you say, “save money by closing buildings and reducing staff," but you go on to utter another sophistry- the most hypocritical one of the bunch: “School districts often lack the political will to do this, but that is not the fault of charter schools or of the legislature.”
Well, folks, school districts are reluctant to close and sell off buildings because the community has strong attachments to the buildings where many of them, their parents, and grandparents, as well as their children learned to read and write, do algebra, put on shows, play sports, date, dream, salute the flag, etc.
They are reluctant because closing down these buildings - many of them "neighborhood" elementary schools - will piss off the community, and the school system is dependant on the community for funding – predominantly from property taxes; which takes us back to DeRolph which determined that over-reliance upon local property taxes to fund schools is unconstitutional because it enforces a classist “separate but equal” system of public schools!
I’ve wondered for many years as to the motivation of those who make assertions such as those in your editorial. Is it the result of callous selfishness, or politics, or ignorance, or some sort of moral blindness? In re-reading Mark Twain’s “Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court,” I’ve come across a passage regarding “the King’s Justice” that may apply. I’ve included the pertinent passage below.
Yours - Tom Harker
The Editorial:
********************Innovation on trial
Ohio Supreme Court should avoid overreaching in charter-school challenge
In taking on a case challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s system of charter schools, the Ohio Supreme Court once again may be tempted to dictate education policy, as it did in the DeRolph school-funding case.
Though the Ohio Constitution calls on the legislature to create a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools, it is silent on the meaning of thorough and efficient. The most logical explanation for this is that the framers intended each legislature to decide what is thorough and efficient, with voters capable of changing the legislature if lawmakers’ efforts are inadequate.
But instead of taking this commonsense approach in the DeRolph case, the court went beyond its constitutional charge by trying to dictate to lawmakers how they should tax and spend for education.
The legislature declined to meet the court’s mandate and, lacking any recourse, the court ultimately reiterated its demands, then declared the DeRolph case closed.
Since the charter-school case hangs largely on the same thorough-and-efficient provision of the constitution, the court should beware of making the DeRolph mistake again.
The makeup of the court today is substantially different from the one that issued four DeRolph rulings, and the current panel may be less inclined to delve into policy-making.
But in oral arguments before the court on Nov. 29, the DeRolph case still loomed large, at least to Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, who participated in all four DeRolph decisions.
In comments to those defending charter schools, Pfeifer asserted that the state is "standing in a deep hole from which it has not yet extricated itself," because of its failure to overhaul school funding in the way prescribed by the court.
He said charter schools compound the school-funding problem because the legislature is taking $422 million from conventional public schools and giving it to charter schools, increasing the financial distress of conventional districts.
Pfeifer’s comments are troubling for two reasons. First is the suggestion that a justice might allow his unhappiness with the outcome of the DeRolph case to influence his decision in the charter-school case.
Second is that Pfeifer is repeating a half-truth about the funding of charter schools. When a student opts to leave a conventional public school and enroll in a charter school, the conventional school district loses the state support it received to educate that student.
But the other half of the equation is that the conventional school also no longer incurs the expense of educating that student. So the district’s expenses are reduced at the same time that its income is reduced.
This point is especially valid when a conventional district loses not just a handful of students, but thousands of them, to charters, creating the opportunity to save money by closing buildings and reducing staff.
School districts often lack the political will to do this, but that is not the fault of charter schools or of the legislature.
To put it another way, if those departing students simply were moving to another school district, their original district would lose the state funding for them, just as if they had gone to a charter school. But in such a case the original district never would bring a lawsuit claiming that the neighboring school district was causing the original district’s financial distress.
So the argument that charters cause financial distress is sophistry.
In considering the meaning of thorough and efficient, the court should consider whether the framers intended future generations of Ohioans to be locked forever into a rigid and unvarying system of public instruction or if they expected lawmakers to adjust public education as circumstances change.
To find the charter-school experiment unconstitutional would put a damper on all innovative attempts to reform or challenge conventional public education, a system whose manifest shortcomings already have driven more than 60,000 students and their parents to try charter schools.
Below is a letter I sent to a few editors at the Dispatch in response to an outrageously self-serving editorial about the DeRolph school-funding case and its involvement with today's Charter School public-funding case (for the editorial, see fine print below).
I think it fits quite well with the Twain posting (next one down).
- Uke Man
To whom it may concern,
Your December 12 editorial on charter schools and the Supreme Court is surreal. While overflowing with sophistries, the pot accuses the kettle of same.
The editorial board can’t get it through its collective head that one, very important aspect of the judicial system is to determine the constitutionality of laws promulgated by the legislative branch. At least it can’t comprehend that IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR CASE!
You don’t have an editorial hemorrhage EVERY time a court determines constitutionality – only when the court decides in some way you don’t like. In this case since the court didn’t decide in a “common sense” way (according to you), they are “dictating,” “making policy,” legislating from the bench (in THIS instance – not necessarily in others – e.g. Brown v. Board of Ed).
You write (a sophistry): “The legislature declined to meet the court’s mandate and, lacking any recourse, the court ultimately reiterated its demands, then declared the DeRolph case closed.”
Actually, the legislature chose to be IN CONTEMPT of court, and the court was NOT without recourse; they could have ordered the arrest of the legislature; or simply charged them with contempt and ordered them into court, arresting them one at a time if they refused to appear. The Supremes just didn’t have the balls and blinked.
The Dispatch could as easily have taken the legislature to task for its failure to follow a legal order by a duly elected court!
You put forth another sophistry: “Though the Ohio Constitution calls on the legislature to create a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools, it is silent on the meaning of thorough and efficient. The most logical explanation for this is that the framers intended each legislature to decide what is thorough and efficient, with voters capable of changing the legislature if lawmakers’ efforts are inadequate.”
Did it escape you that when one writes words that WORDS have meaning; “thorough and efficient" HAS meaning in itself. If, however, you and I and the legislature have a disagreement over the full meaning of words in the constitution; from almost the start of this country, it has been the role of the courts to settle that dispute.
Your plan (“the framers intended each legislature to decide what is thorough and efficient, with voters capable of changing the legislature if lawmakers’ efforts are inadequate”) is faulty. If the U.S. Supreme Court had left it up to the South to vote out “inadequate,” racist legislators, we’d still have “separate but equal”schools; moreover, what the Ohio Supreme Court was addressing in its DeRolph decisions was a CLASSIST “separate but equal” school system – one you support and which will continue forever if the courts don’t do their job.
Another sophistry: “Pfeifer’s comments are troubling for two reasons. First is the suggestion that a justice might allow his unhappiness with the outcome of the DeRolph case to influence his decision in the charter-school case.”
First of all, Pfeifer isn’t unhappy with the “outcome” of the case. He is unhappy that the legislature showed blatant disregard and contempt for a reasonable order issued by elected judges sitting on the highest bench in the state. The LEGISLATURE (and you) were “unhappy” with the outcome.
Secondly, it seems to me that any judge who has had a recalcitrant, arrogant, loud defendant before his court FOUR times, and that defendant still has stubbornly refused to serve the sentence of the court; it seems to me that such a judge should not be criticized for being leery of the character of that defendant.
Essentially what you are saying is that if the legislature gives the court the finger, the court should pretend it didn’t see it.
Another sophistry: “So the district’s expenses are reduced at the same time that its income is reduced.” That’s like saying that if the “Dispatch” loses a subscriber, it saves money because it needs to print one less paper. Think how much money you could save if you lost half your subscribers!!
It IS true that any given community, if its public school population decreased significantly, COULD, as you say, “save money by closing buildings and reducing staff," but you go on to utter another sophistry- the most hypocritical one of the bunch: “School districts often lack the political will to do this, but that is not the fault of charter schools or of the legislature.”
Well, folks, school districts are reluctant to close and sell off buildings because the community has strong attachments to the buildings where many of them, their parents, and grandparents, as well as their children learned to read and write, do algebra, put on shows, play sports, date, dream, salute the flag, etc.
They are reluctant because closing down these buildings - many of them "neighborhood" elementary schools - will piss off the community, and the school system is dependant on the community for funding – predominantly from property taxes; which takes us back to DeRolph which determined that over-reliance upon local property taxes to fund schools is unconstitutional because it enforces a classist “separate but equal” system of public schools!
I’ve wondered for many years as to the motivation of those who make assertions such as those in your editorial. Is it the result of callous selfishness, or politics, or ignorance, or some sort of moral blindness? In re-reading Mark Twain’s “Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court,” I’ve come across a passage regarding “the King’s Justice” that may apply. I’ve included the pertinent passage below.
Yours - Tom Harker
The Editorial:
********************Innovation on trial
Ohio Supreme Court should avoid overreaching in charter-school challenge
In taking on a case challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s system of charter schools, the Ohio Supreme Court once again may be tempted to dictate education policy, as it did in the DeRolph school-funding case.
Though the Ohio Constitution calls on the legislature to create a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools, it is silent on the meaning of thorough and efficient. The most logical explanation for this is that the framers intended each legislature to decide what is thorough and efficient, with voters capable of changing the legislature if lawmakers’ efforts are inadequate.
But instead of taking this commonsense approach in the DeRolph case, the court went beyond its constitutional charge by trying to dictate to lawmakers how they should tax and spend for education.
The legislature declined to meet the court’s mandate and, lacking any recourse, the court ultimately reiterated its demands, then declared the DeRolph case closed.
Since the charter-school case hangs largely on the same thorough-and-efficient provision of the constitution, the court should beware of making the DeRolph mistake again.
The makeup of the court today is substantially different from the one that issued four DeRolph rulings, and the current panel may be less inclined to delve into policy-making.
But in oral arguments before the court on Nov. 29, the DeRolph case still loomed large, at least to Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, who participated in all four DeRolph decisions.
In comments to those defending charter schools, Pfeifer asserted that the state is "standing in a deep hole from which it has not yet extricated itself," because of its failure to overhaul school funding in the way prescribed by the court.
He said charter schools compound the school-funding problem because the legislature is taking $422 million from conventional public schools and giving it to charter schools, increasing the financial distress of conventional districts.
Pfeifer’s comments are troubling for two reasons. First is the suggestion that a justice might allow his unhappiness with the outcome of the DeRolph case to influence his decision in the charter-school case.
Second is that Pfeifer is repeating a half-truth about the funding of charter schools. When a student opts to leave a conventional public school and enroll in a charter school, the conventional school district loses the state support it received to educate that student.
But the other half of the equation is that the conventional school also no longer incurs the expense of educating that student. So the district’s expenses are reduced at the same time that its income is reduced.
This point is especially valid when a conventional district loses not just a handful of students, but thousands of them, to charters, creating the opportunity to save money by closing buildings and reducing staff.
School districts often lack the political will to do this, but that is not the fault of charter schools or of the legislature.
To put it another way, if those departing students simply were moving to another school district, their original district would lose the state funding for them, just as if they had gone to a charter school. But in such a case the original district never would bring a lawsuit claiming that the neighboring school district was causing the original district’s financial distress.
So the argument that charters cause financial distress is sophistry.
In considering the meaning of thorough and efficient, the court should consider whether the framers intended future generations of Ohioans to be locked forever into a rigid and unvarying system of public instruction or if they expected lawmakers to adjust public education as circumstances change.
To find the charter-school experiment unconstitutional would put a damper on all innovative attempts to reform or challenge conventional public education, a system whose manifest shortcomings already have driven more than 60,000 students and their parents to try charter schools.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home