McKEESPORT v. PROPEL CHARTER SCHOOL

Citations: 888 A.2d 912; 2005 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 748

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; December 19, 2005; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reviewed a petition from the McKeesport Area School District against the State Charter School Appeal Board's (CAB) order that reversed the School District's denial of Propel Charter School-McKeesport's application. The CAB mandated the School District to approve and execute the charter for Propel-McKeesport. The School District had previously denied the application on November 13, 2003, citing several reasons, including lack of demonstrated support, inadequate educational quality compared to district programs, insufficient assessment and special needs services, and concerns regarding the proposed facility's location and condition. Propel appealed the denial to the Court of Common Pleas, which deemed the appeal sufficient, leading to a hearing by the CAB. The CAB ultimately upheld Propel's appeal on October 14, 2004, prompting the School District to seek judicial review.

The School District questions Propel's charter school application on three grounds: 1) Propel's failure to provide sufficient evidence of sustainable support, 2) inadequacy in demonstrating the capability to deliver a comprehensive learning experience, and 3) non-compliance with the Charter School Law (CSL) due to not filing a regional charter application. The School District argues that Propel's initial application included only nine letters of support, none from parents, and describes these letters as generic and flawed, lacking substantial evidence of community backing. Additionally, it claims that Propel did not present any support from local stakeholders at the public hearing and failed to pre-register students. However, the Court emphasizes the CAB's role as the ultimate fact-finder and affirms that the CAB can conduct a de novo review of charter denials without needing a new hearing. It cites prior rulings that support evaluating sustainable support in aggregate rather than by individual categories. In contrast, the CAB found that Propel submitted petitions signed by 497 individuals, including 237 parents requesting enrollment information, and additional letters from various community members, indicating substantial support. The CAB also identified 168 pre-enrollment applicants, which it deemed strong evidence of aggregate support. The Court concurs with the CAB's assessment that Propel's overall evidence sufficiently demonstrates sustainable support for its charter school application.

The School District contends that Propel's application lacks evidence of its ability to deliver a comprehensive educational experience. Specific deficiencies cited include: an inadequate student progress assessment program, insufficient academic results in core subjects compared to the School District, a vague special education program, and a proposed budget that does not account for the higher costs associated with educating students with special needs. Additionally, Propel's application fails to outline a discipline policy, address the consequences for expelled students, or provide staff training on discipline issues.

According to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the Charter School Law (CSL), applicants must prove their capability to provide the proposed educational experience. The CSL also mandates that charter school applications include details about the mission, educational goals, curriculum, and methods for assessing student progress (Section 1719-A(5)). The General Assembly's intent behind the CSL includes improving pupil learning and ensuring accountability for measurable academic standards (Sections 1702-A(1), (2), and (6)).

Despite these criticisms, the Charter Approval Board (CAB) found that Propel had effectively assessed student performance, with plans for regular evaluations, parental reporting, and standardized testing. Propel's curriculum was also noted to promote learning and provide additional opportunities without needing to exceed the School District's programs. Furthermore, Propel's financial plan included a detailed four-year budget and evidence of over $1 million in private funding, indicating its capability to meet the CSL's requirements for a comprehensive learning experience.

The court addressed the School District's concerns regarding Propel's financial plan for special education, clarifying that the budget does not need to itemize specific program allocations as long as there is sufficient evidence that the school can meet the Comprehensive Educational Standards (CSL). Previous case law supports this view, noting that a budget's adequacy is determined by the school board's ability to ensure a comprehensive learning experience rather than specific financial line items. 

Section 1719-A(7) of the CSL mandates that charter school applications include suspension and expulsion procedures compliant with the Public School Code, which Propel's application did by outlining the principal's authority to investigate incidents and assign consequences, including suspensions, with appropriate procedural safeguards.

The court rejected the School District's argument that Propel's application lacked the capability to provide the proposed educational experience. Additionally, the School District contended that Propel's failure to file a regional charter school application contravened the CSL, asserting that Propel-McKeesport is part of a network of schools requiring such an application. The CSL defines a regional charter school as one established under a charter from multiple local school boards and operated as a nonprofit, underscoring that Propel's organization must comply with these statutory requirements. The court referenced established precedent regarding the procedures for creating charter schools, noting that applications for single district charter schools must be submitted to the relevant local school board.

Under section 1718-A of the Charter School Law (CSL), a multi-district regional charter school can be established, allowing school districts to jointly process applications for such schools. An applicant must submit a charter application to the school district where the charter school is located. The Supreme Court affirmed in Collegium I that an applicant is not obligated to apply for a regional charter solely based on drawing students from multiple school districts. The Court recognized that this may lead to financial obligations for non-chartering districts without giving them decision-making power. It emphasized that the CSL directs applicants to file in the district of the facility and grants accountability to the chartering district only. The Court reiterated that unless a charter school spans multiple districts, there is no requirement to apply as a regional charter. Consequently, the Charter Appeal Board (CAB) rejected the School District's claim that Propel was required to pursue a regional charter, noting no evidence of Propel's plans for such an application. Propel's executive director, Jeremy Resnick, clarified that Propel Charter School operates independently of other Propel schools and is establishing itself as a separate nonprofit entity. Resnick confirmed that Propel does not currently have plans for additional charter applications in other districts but aims to create a network of schools.

Resnick indicated that some board members from Propel Charter School Homestead will also serve on the Propel Charter School McKeesport board. He clarified that the directors of McKeesport will consist of individuals from the existing organization and those advocating for McKeesport's establishment. Propel Schools, which received the charter for operation in the Steel Valley School District, is also submitting the school application for McKeesport. To address concerns regarding separate governance, a distinct nonprofit organization will be established to operate Propel Charter School McKeesport, ensuring compliance with the requirement that each charter school has its own board.

The grant of a charter necessitates the organization of the school as a nonprofit governed by a board of trustees with authority over school operations, as stipulated by the Charter School Law (CSL). The CSL does not prohibit shared board membership across charter schools or prevent individuals from applying for multiple charters. However, it does restrict local school board members from serving on the boards of trustees for charter schools in their district and prohibits a school board from serving as the trustee board for a converted charter school.

Resnick's testimony about shared board membership is deemed irrelevant, as Propel plans to establish separate nonprofit entities for each school district without intending to create a regional charter school, which would require a different application process. Consequently, the order of the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB) is affirmed.

Section 1717-A(c)(2) of the Charter School Law (CSL), 24 P.S. 17-1717-A(e)(2), outlines the evaluation criteria for charter school applications by local school boards. Key evaluation factors include: demonstrated support from the community, the applicant's capability to deliver comprehensive educational experiences, adherence to application content requirements and legislative intent, and the potential of the charter school to serve as a model for other public schools. Section 1719-A specifies that charter school applications must include details such as the applicant's identity, proposed school name, governance structure, admission policies, student discipline procedures, financial plans, facility information, faculty plans, and background checks for individuals in direct contact with students.

The Charter Appeal Board (CAB) conducts exclusive reviews of local school board decisions to deny charter applications. The CAB's decisions are upheld unless found to violate the law or lack substantial evidence, as noted in Souderton Area Sch. Dist. v. Souderton Charter Sch. Collaborative. The School District did not contest the number of supporting signatures for Propel-McKeesport's charter school at the hearing, indicating community enthusiasm for the proposal.

The CAB has discretion under Section 1717-A(i)(6) to allow the supplementation of the record by the local board and charter applicant if the new information was previously unavailable. Propel's school design prospectus claims that certified teachers will meet the needs of Individualized Education Programs, with mainstreaming for students as feasible.

Regarding student discipline, principals or teachers may temporarily suspend students for misconduct, with the requirement to notify the district superintendent. The board may conduct hearings to determine further actions, including suspension or expulsion, and can delegate these hearings to a qualified committee or examiner, subject to board approval.

The decision affirms the Commonwealth Accountability Board's (CAB) interpretation of its governing statute, which warrants significant deference. The Charter School Law (CSL) does not differentiate between regional and single-district charter schools post-approval, indicating that their funding and operations are largely similar. Propel sought separate approvals for each charter school from the relevant district rather than a single approval for multiple campuses across districts. Although the McKeesport Area School District's decision on the charter application was overturned by the CAB, it raises questions about whether McKeesport suffered any harm from the lack of required votes from other districts on the charter, especially since other districts may have approved additional Propel schools.