Monthly Archives: September, 2021

By: Paul Farrow I have been a part of the conservative movement for my entire life, and I can testify to the old adage that...

We've obtained the 43-page criminal complaint charging Milwaukee Ald. Chantia Lewis with four felonies relating to embezzlement and misuse of campaign finances. Prosecutors say...

"Our children, our choice" - Tomah parent Jennifer Walworth When Tomah parents Jennifer Walworth and Catey Rice, who are both small business owners, learned...

The Franklin suspect had two pending felony cases while he was goofing around on TikTok, showing off his electronic monitoring bracelet. David Marshall, the suspect...

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin charter schools are on the rise despite legal hurdles and widespread myths.

First established in 1993, Wisconsin charter schools now number 235 with 14 schools listed as new since last year. That's a 6% upward trend.

One of the schools listed as new is the Carmen Middle School of Science and Technology South Campus. The school was categorized as new because of a location move.

The school represents a trend allowed under the state’s charter laws. One organization can run multiple schools. Carmen Schools operates three middle schools, three high schools, and an elementary school.

The school’s stated mission is “graduating all students as critical thinkers and self-directed learners who are prepared for success in college, meaningful careers, community involvement and family life.​” U.S. News and World Report honored the high schools in their top category for 2019.

By comparison, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website describes the state’s mission for charter schools: “Wisconsin established charter schools to foster an environment for innovation and parental choice.” The DPI calls them “living laboratories” that impact the overall public school system and demonstrate competition within that system.

One of the ways charter schools demonstrate competition is a standard business concept: failing organizations go defunct when not propped up by government. So standard public schools seldom go out of business regardless of minimal success in improving student outcomes.

Will Flanders, the research director at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, co-directed a study of schools in the Milwaukee area on that failure aspect. The study covered a 12-year period.

Flanders described the results to The Center Square in an email. “The main useful finding is that the rate of closures for charter schools was no different than the rate of closure for private and traditional public schools in Milwaukee” from 2005-2017, he said.

The study also found that the charter schools that went under did not do so because of poor academic results, “My supposition is that this is because charter schools in Milwaukee are unequivocally the best performing sector. There's not that much poor performance to cull.”

What surprises Flanders is how well charter schools are doing in Wisconsin despite the hurdles of the legal environment in the state and general public misconceptions.

For instance, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Wisconsin provides a poor legal environment for charter schools to thrive.

The Alliance’s 2021 annual report ranking U.S. jurisdictions on the freedom of charter schools to expand came out in January. The report puts Wisconsin at number 39 out of 44 states and the District of Columbia.

Neighboring Minnesota, the first state to sanction public charter schools in 1991, came out at number 4 while Indiana was tops with a score of 181 points out of 240 possible. Wisconsin’s scored 109 points.

In addition, Wisconsin citizens face the same myths regarding charter schools as other areas of the nation, according to Flanders. The National Alliance’s Melinda Tolliver recently wrote online two weeks ago on the four common misrepresentations about charter schools.

The first myth she lists is: “Charter schools are not public schools.”

The website of the National Conference of State Legislatures explains, “Charter schools are publicly funded, privately managed and semi-autonomous schools of choice. They do not charge tuition. They must hold to the same academic accountability measures as traditional schools.”

The advantage in potential innovation for charter schools is described by the legislative group, “They have more freedom over their budgets, staffing, curricula and other operations. In exchange for this freedom, they must deliver academic results and there must be enough community demand for them to remain open.”

In other words, they must please parents and students to survive.

The second myth described by Tolliver: “Charter schools are for-profit.”

“All charter schools are nonprofit entities with a mission to put kids first…. Charter schools raise the bar of public education in every community they serve,” she says.

The third myth Tolliver discusses: “Charter schools are not held accountable.”

Tolliver responds, “In fact, charter schools introduce an unprecedented amount of accountability into public education. If a charter school isn’t succeeding for students and families, it can be shut down.”

Moreover, she adds, “Charter schools are also responsible for adhering to the promises laid out in their charter agreement – another layer of accountability.”

Tolliver’s fourth and final myth: “Support for charter schools is dropping.”

Charter school enrollment scaled up by over 60% between 2011 and 2019. “Parents and families believe they work for their children and charter schools have shown that they do,” says Tolliver.

A recent poll found that 58% of parents support charter schools. The amount of support rises to 70% when they understand more about charter schools.

Adult male Afghan evacuees have brought "purported" child brides to Wisconsin's Fort McCoy, according to a report from the Associated Press. That disturbing report comes...

The court system knew Marshall was a problem for years, but the court records in his case reveal an inefficient court system that failed...

Wisconsin Right Now has obtained video, first published on TikTok by user @armandoedgarsanchez, that shows a man with a gun running in the street...

Franklin Walmart shooting reports broke out in Wisconsin. There was a major law enforcement response to a now-defused possible shooting situation at the Franklin,...

"So, we’ve seen the debacle in Afghanistan. It appears the Biden administration is going to double down on it by bringing people who are...

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a new Texas law banning abortions once a heartbeat is detected in a ruling late Wednesday.

The law went into effect Wednesday, making Texas the first state to effectively ban a majority of abortions from being performed in the state.

The justices ruled 5-4 in an unsigned opinion, denying a request for injunctive relief or to vacate stays of the district court proceedings. The majority of justices wrote that the petitioners did not meet the burden required to prove the “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” they raised.

The ruling added that “it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention” and noted that Texas "has said that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly.”

Likewise, it remains unclear if under existing precedent the court could “issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law.”

Roughly 85% of abortions are performed after six weeks of pregnancy, around the time when a baby’s heartbeat can first be detected. The new Texas law requires doctors to determine if a heartbeat can be detected before performing any procedure. If it is detected, abortions and abortion-inducing drugs are prohibited. Penalties carry fines and jail time for abortionists.

The court's ruling added: “We stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

Although the order was unsigned, the majority included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The four dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who each wrote separate statements.

Roberts suggested that the case is not closed. In his statement, he said that while the court denied the emergency relief requested, the ruling is “emphatic in making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the constitutionality of the law at issue.”

The petitioners are continuing with their lawsuit in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in response to the ruling that “No freedom is more precious than life itself. Starting today, every unborn child with a heartbeat will be protected from the ravages of abortion. Texas will always defend the right to life.”

President Joe Biden said in a statement that he's asked the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice to “see what steps the federal government can take to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions as protected by [Roe v. Wade], and what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas' bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties.”

Petitioner Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said, “We are devastated that the Supreme Court has refused to block a law that blatantly violates Roe v. Wade.” She also called on Congress to pass a national law, the Women’s Health Protection Act, to codify abortion rights. Northup said they have the majority of votes needed in the House and 48 votes in the Senate.

“We are devastated by today’s ruling,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. “Our patients are scared and confused and desperately trying to figure out what they can do to get an abortion. We don’t know what will happen next. Our staff and providers are so afraid.”

Texas Right to Life hopes to replicate the Texas law nationwide.

“The Texas Heartbeat Act is the strongest Pro-Life law to take effect since the unjust ruling of Roe v. Wade (1973),” the group said in a statement.

The law is different from laws passed in other states that seek to limit abortions because it prohibits state officials from enforcing the law and relies solely on civil liability. Anyone can attempt to enforce the law by suing abortion providers or anyone who aids someone in getting an abortion in the state after a heartbeat is detected. Doctors and those aiding and abetting them who violate the law can be sued multiple times for a minimum of $10,000 per violation.