Facts of the Case

In April 2000, the Carbondale Area School District decided to close the Fell Elementary School and move all the District’s elementary students into a large elementary school building in Carbondale, Pennsylvania. Some of the residents opposed the loss of their neighborhood elementary school building and attempted to convince the district to renovate the Fell Elementary School building. When the school district refused, the residents decided to establish a charter school in Fell Township. The residents entered into an agreement with Mosaica Education, Inc., a for-profit management company to provide management services at the charter school. On March 30, 2001, a charter application was submitted to the school board requesting a charter for a school to begin operating in the 2002-2003 school year. On July 9, 2001, the school district denied the charter application and issued a written decision on September 11, 2001. Fell appealed the district’s decision to the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB) on December 3, 2001. On April 10, 2002, the CAB sustained Fell’s appeal and ordered the Carbondale Area School District Board of Directors to grant Fell’s charter application and to sign the charter. A written decision was issued on May 2, 2002.

The Carbondale Area School District then appealed the CAB decision on several points:

1) The District argued that the CAB had not properly applied the de novo standard of review in considering and reviewing the decision of the School Board, and that the CAB had erroneously substituted its own finding of facts and conclusion of law in place of those of the school board.

2) The District argued that even if the CAB can exercise de novo review, the decision of the CAB was not supported by substantial evidence.

3) The District argued that the CAB improperly allowed documents into the record at the time of oral argument.

4) The District argued that the CAB erred in finding that Fell proved sufficient support for the Charter School plan by community members, parents, teachers, and students as required by the Charter School Law.

5) The District argued that the CAB erred in finding and concluding that Fell’s charter application satisfied the requirements of Section 1719-A of the CSL, 24 P.S. §17-1719-A, and pointed out several specific issues regarding management, facility, curriculum, professional development, and insurance coverage.

Decision of the Court

The review was limited to whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed, or the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. On July 23, 2003, the CAB affirmed the State Charter School Appeal Board’s decision and ordered the Carbondale Area School District’s Board of Directors to grant Fell’s charter application and to sign Fell’s charter.

Basis for the Decision

The court disagreed with each of the Carbondale School Board’s arguments as follows:

1) The court cited the West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 760 A.2d 452 (Pa Cmwlth, 2000), affirmed, 571 Pa. 503, 812 A.2d 1172 (2002) decision where the same question was posed and it was determined that under the CSL, the CAB has a de novo standard of review.

2) The court cited York Terrace/Beverly Enterprises v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Lucas), 591 A.2d 762, 764 n. 5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991), and found that the CAB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

3) The court noted that the CAB introduced the evidence in question itself.

4) The court cited Section 17-1717-A(e)(2)(i) and Brackbill v. Ron Brown Charter School, 777 A.2d 131, 138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), and agreed that Fell had demonstrated sustainable support for the Charter School.

5) The court reviewed each of these issues individually and found that Fell had indeed satisfied the requirement of Section 1719-A of the CSL, 24 P.S. §17-1719-A in its application for the Charter School.

Prepared by Sandra Mattocks and Abbe Satteson, June 30, 2004.