Discovery Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia
111 A.3d 248
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Discovery Charter School held a five-year charter (renewed in 2008) with a 620-student cap it had agreed to in writing; it sought an amendment to increase enrollment to 1,050 over four years and to relocate to a nearby larger facility.
- Discovery filed its renewal and a charter-amendment request on December 17, 2012, before the School District’s application deadline for the 2013–14 year. Discovery had a substantial waiting list and strong recent academic performance.
- The School District (via the SRC) drafted a renewal that preserved the 620 cap; Discovery refused to sign because it sought the larger enrollment.
- The SRC/School District did not act on Discovery’s amendment request (and announced it would not vote on seat expansions for 2013–14), and conditioned any action on Discovery signing a charter with the 620 cap.
- Discovery appealed to the State Charter School Appeal Board; the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding there was no final denial. Discovery petitioned this Court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a school district's failure to act on a charter amendment request constitutes a denial appealable to the State Charter School Appeal Board | Discovery: Inaction that prevents an amendment from taking effect (filed timely) operates as a denial and is appealable; otherwise districts could evade review. | School District: Under Community Academy, failure to act is not a denial and thus not appealable; no statutory deadline for amendments. | Court held inaction on a timely amendment request can constitute a denial; Board has jurisdiction and must review the denial as it would a nonrenewal/revocation decision. |
| Whether Community Academy (failure to act on renewal is not appealable) controls amendment appeals | Discovery: Distinguishes renewal from amendment — renewal inaction lets the school continue under its existing charter; amendment inaction prevents the school from operating under the proposed change. | School District/Board: Argues Community Academy’s logic should apply equally to amendments. | Court held Community Academy is distinguishable; procedural protections for nonrenewal/revocation make renewal-inaction different; amendment-inaction can be treated as denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. State Charter School Appeal Board, 56 A.3d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (Board has jurisdiction to review denials of charter amendments to prevent local veto over charter growth)
- Lehigh Valley Dual Language Charter School v. Bethlehem Area School District, 97 A.3d 401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (confirms right to seek charter amendments and Board review)
- Community Academy of Philadelphia Charter School v. Philadelphia School District School Reform Commission, 65 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (holdings on renewal-inaction: failure to act on renewal is not a denial; school continues to operate under existing charter)
- Montessori Regional Charter School v. Millcreek Township School District, 55 A.3d 196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (refusal to act that leaves no forum constitutes an appealable decision)