Discovery Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia
166 A.3d 304
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Discovery Charter School operated under a 2008 five-year charter with a 620-student cap and a clause requiring any amendment be by written agreement of all parties.
- Discovery requested an amendment to increase maximum enrollment to 1,050 and to relocate to a new facility; the School Reform Commission (SRC)/Philadelphia School District did not approve or formally act on the amendment and conditioned renewal on retaining the 620 cap.
- Discovery appealed to the Charter School Appeal Board (CAB), which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Charter School Law (CSL) expressly authorizes CAB review only of initial-application denials and revocation/nonrenewal decisions.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, relying on its prior precedents (Northside Urban Pathways and progeny) that the CAB has implied jurisdiction over charter amendments and that prolonged inaction by a district can be a "deemed denial" appealable to the CAB using the revocation/nonrenewal standard.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and held that the CSL contains no statutory procedure, substantive standard, or CAB jurisdiction for amendments of material charter terms and that the courts may not judicially create such a regime; it vacated the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the CAB's quashal.
Issues
| Issue | Discovery's Argument | District/SRC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSL authorizes a judicially-created procedure for amending material charter terms | CSL implies a right to seek amendments; CAB has jurisdiction to review denials or inaction; use revocation/nonrenewal standard | CSL contains no amendment procedure, standard, or appellate route; courts may not supply legislative omissions | Held: CSL does not authorize a judicially-created amendment procedure; courts cannot rewrite statute |
| Standard for evaluating material amendments (new-charter criteria v. revocation/nonrenewal criteria) | CAB should apply revocation/nonrenewal standard (less restrictive) when reviewing amendment requests | Material changes should be evaluated under the initial-charter application criteria or by seeking a new charter | Held: Legislature set distinct standards for initial applications and for revocation/nonrenewal; revocation standard is not a substitute for initial-application criteria and CSL does not authorize judicial substitution |
| Whether a district’s prolonged inaction on an amendment request is a "deemed denial" appealable to the CAB | Protracted inaction that effectively blocks expansion should be treated as a denial and be appealable to CAB | CSL provides a deemed-denial rule only for initial charter applications; no similar rule for amendments; CAB lacks jurisdiction | Held: Inaction on amendment requests is not a deemed denial under the CSL; CAB lacks jurisdiction over such appeals |
| Effect of parties’ written charter terms (e.g., clause requiring written agreement to amend) | CAB review is necessary despite charter terms; doctrine of implied CAB jurisdiction protects charter growth | The parties’ binding written charter terms cannot be overridden by a judicially-created amendment process | Held: The written charter terms are binding; courts may not ignore them by creating a substitute amendment process |
Key Cases Cited
- Northside Urban Pathways Charter Sch. v. State Charter Sch. Appeal Bd., 56 A.3d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (held CAB has implied jurisdiction over charter amendments)
- Montessori Regional Charter Sch. v. Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist., 55 A.3d 196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (applied Northside reasoning to permit CAB review of amendment disputes)
- Lehigh Valley Dual Language Charter Sch. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 97 A.3d 401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (held charter may be amended to add location; remanded for CAB review)
- Community Academy of Philadelphia Charter Sch. v. Philadelphia Sch. Dist. Reform Comm’n, 65 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (held district inaction on renewal is not necessarily final, appealable action)
- Burger v. Bd. of Sch. Directors of McGuffey Sch. Dist., 839 A.2d 1055 (Pa. 2003) (recognized implied authority in administrative contexts; relied upon by Commonwealth Court in earlier decisions)