Founding Fathers v. Asbcs
1 CA-CV 15-0664
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Jefferson Academy (a K–12 charter school in Show Low) is operated by Founding Fathers Academies; Board for Charter Schools was the charter sponsor. The School had ~150 students and began in 2003.
- ADE assigned the School a D grade for 2010–11 and 2011–12 and an F for 2012–13; receipt of an F required the sponsor to either restore performance or revoke the charter under A.R.S. § 15-241(U).
- The Board evaluated the School under its Academic Performance Framework, requested a Demonstration of Sufficient Progress (DSP), conducted a site visit, and scored Founding Fathers as “Not Acceptable” on all measures.
- The Board voted (Dec. 9, 2013) to revoke the charter based on the F grade, failure to meet Framework standards, and the DSP results; an ALJ after a four-day hearing recommended revocation and the Board adopted the report with a minor factual correction.
- The superior court affirmed the Board’s revocation and Founding Fathers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board usurped the Superintendent’s authority by revoking the charter | Founding Fathers: Board improperly exercised powers vested in Superintendent under § 15-182(E)(7) | Board: as sponsor it has statutory authority to adopt Framework and revoke charters under § 15-183(I)(3)(a) | Held: Board action lawful; § 15-183 specifically authorizes sponsor revocation and controls over generalized delegation language |
| Whether Board was required to consult with Department before revocation | Founding Fathers: Board had duty to consult Department and pursue remediation options before recommending revocation | Board: statute requires immediate sponsor action after F; Board complied by evaluating DSP and visiting school | Held: No separate consultation required; Board fulfilled statutory duties and considered remediation options |
| Whether the Framework is discriminatory or fails to adjust for poverty/SPED/ELL populations | Founding Fathers: Framework should adjust more for poverty/SPED/ELL; without adjustments revocation is unfair | Board: Framework compares subgroups to statewide subgroup averages and measures growth; other high-FRL schools succeed under it | Held: Framework accounts for population characteristics; record supports that School performed below comparable subgroup benchmarks |
| Whether Board relied solely on test scores or acted arbitrarily/capriciously | Founding Fathers: revocation based only on test results; arbitrary | Board: considered multiple non-test factors (curriculum alignment, lesson plans, teacher evaluations, data use) and DSP/site visit evidence | Held: Revocation was supported by substantial evidence on multiple grounds and was not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Shorey v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 238 Ariz. 253 (App. 2015) (standard of review for agency decisions)
- Baca v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 191 Ariz. 43 (App. 1998) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations)
- Chaurasia v. Gen. Motors Corp., 212 Ariz. 18 (App. 2006) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Cicoria v. Cole, 222 Ariz. 428 (App. 2009) (statutes on same subject read together)
- Pima Cty. v. Heinfeld, 134 Ariz. 133 (1982) (more specific statute controls when statutes overlap)
- DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331 (App. 1984) (courts will not substitute judicial judgment for agency expertise)
- U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210 (App. 1989) (judicial deference to administrative agencies)
- State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48 (App. 2000) (courts will not consider new arguments raised only in reply brief)