You’re really hooked on that word “contract”, I see. :-)
A CONTRACT is what the state has with the private company running the charter school. Both parties bring something to the table: The state promises payment, and the private company promises to educate students. If either party does not deliver on its promise, the contract becomes void, and the other party is not held to it anymore. For example, if the charter school stopped educating the students, the state could stop payment. Or, if the state stopped payment, the charter school could stop educating students.
Parents of students in any school that is publicly funded are forced to continue supporting the school via taxes. That’s why these cases of dress code in charter schools are being challenged in court as “freedom of expression” cases, and the parents possibly could win.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. You’re pro-charter schools/pro-voucher, and I’m pro-separation school and state. Apparently, homeschoolers can have a difference in opinion, too.
>>A CONTRACT is what the state has with the private company running the charter school<<
Yup. And a contract is what the parents sign and it is binding. A parent would not win after they have signed that contract. Even if the clause was pronounced “stupid”.
You may think that a parent would win in court against this but I’ve seen otherwise in the MI charter schools.