Facts of the Case

On April 8, 2005, McKeesport Area School District filed suit seeking a review of the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB) order, which reversed the decision of the McKeesport Area School District’s Board of School Directors denying Propel-McKeesport’s application to establish a charter school.

Propel Schools put in an application to form a charter school in the McKeesport Area on July 21, 2003. On November 13, 2003 the application was unanimously denied after review by the McKeesport Area Board of Directors based on criteria as set forth in 24 P.S. §17-1717-A(e) (2). The board of directors determined that there was not enough community support for the charter school; also the charter school’s educational programs did not meet or exceed those of the school district. Further, Propel-Mckeesport’s assessment program was lacking and the charter school was incapable of providing sufficient education services for both special needs students and behaviorally challenging students. Additionally, Propel-Mckeesport failed to budget for many necessary programs and illogically assigned the same dollar amounts for all pupils including special education pupils. The board of directors also asserted that the charter school’s proposed facility required extensive remodeling and is very close to bars, taverns, and a probation office.

The school districts final allegation was that the charter school obviously intended to become part of a regional concept of education, based in part on information that Propel operated a charter school in a different district. The school board further stated that a regional charter school was not in the best interest of the school district, and in fact, the school district was already a model for surrounding public schools.

Subsequently, Propel obtained the required number of signatures and filed an appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which ordered that the petition was sufficient to be filed with the CAB. On October 14, 2004, the CAB ordered the school district to grant the charter school application.

McKeesport Area School District then filed a petition for review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania raising three questions for consideration. Did Propel fail to meet its burden of presenting evidence of support for its charter school application? Did Propel fail to meet its burden of showing ability to provide a comprehensive learning experience to students? Lastly, did Propel’s failure to file a regional charter school application violate the provisions of the CSL?

The Decision of the Court

On December 20, 2005, The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania acknowledged the role of the CAB as “ultimate fact-finder” in this case.(5) Finding that, the information submitted by Propel was “sufficient to prove demonstrated, sustainable support” for its charter school application. (7) Also, the Court rejected the School District’s contention that Propel’s application did not show that it had the ability to provide the education it proposed. Furthermore, a review of the requirements to be classified as a regional charter school were reviewed and it was established that, although Propel did operate a charter school in a different school district, the two would be acting as separate entities and therefore, the Propel McKeesport Charter School did not need a regional charter school application.

Basis for the Decision

The court held that although, initially, Propel only submitted 9 letters of support, supplemental submissions demonstrated overall support as required by the CSL Section 1717-A(i)(6), 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(i)(6). With regards to the failure to show capability of providing a comprehensive learning experience for the students, Propel’s inadequate proposed budget, and unidentifiable discipline policy the court found that Propel did supply adequate information as provided in Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii)of the CSL, 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(ii) and Section 1719-A(5) of the CSL, 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A(5). The CAB also noted that “the CSL does not require that the charter school ‘go over and above’ the programs of the School District in order to be and appropriate alternative.” As well, according to Section 1719-A(9) of the CSL, 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A(9), the CAB noted that Propel provided satisfactory budget information. Although CAB did not make a specific finding with regards to disciplinary procedures the court found that Propel had provided sufficient disciplinary procedure and sanctions.

On the last point of filing a regional charter school application, the court affirmed the decision of the CAB, which based its decision on statutory language. In Section 1703-A of the CSL the definition of a regional charter school is obtained, and is further explained in West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 760 A.2d 452, 462 (Pa Cmwlth. 2000) which states that it is not necessary to apply for a regional charter school when drawing a student body from more than one district, and that unless the charter school will be located in more than one school district, a regional charter school application is not necessary. Therefore, on all counts the court agreed with the CAB.

Written by Sarah Puderbach (June 2006)