Lehigh Valley Dual Language Charter School v. Bethlehem Area School District
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 373
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Lehigh Valley Dual Language Charter School operates K–7 at one Bethlehem location and sought to amend its charter to add a second site for grades 5–7 due to space constraints.
- The Bethlehem Area School District renewed the charter in March 2013 but denied the June 2013 amendment request to add a second location (Board cited statutory limits, charter terms, and educational concerns).
- Charter School appealed the denial to the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB); District moved to quash, arguing (1) the denial was effectively a new charter application requiring signatures and (2) the Law bars operating multiple locations under one charter except in Philadelphia.
- CAB granted the Motion to Quash, relying on a concurring/dissenting opinion in prior case law and dismissed the appeal; Charter School petitioned for review in this Court.
- This Court held that prior en banc decisions (Northside Urban Pathways and Montessori) permit amendment of material charter terms, including adding a second location, and concluded Section 1722-A(d) (permitting Philadelphia only) does not impliedly prohibit other districts from approving such amendments.
- The Court reversed the CAB, remanded for CAB review of the District’s denial as it would review a revocation/nonrenewal under Section 1729-A(d), and declined to reach other asserted procedural or estoppel claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a charter school amend its charter to add a second location? | Charter School: Law permits amendment of material charter terms, including adding a second location. | District: Law (and §1722-A(d)) precludes operating multiple locations under one charter except Philadelphia. | Held: Yes; this Court follows Northside and Montessori — charter amendments can add a location; §1722-A(d) is permissive for Philadelphia, not prohibitive elsewhere. |
| Was CAB’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction appropriate? | Charter School: CAB has authority to hear appeals of amendment denials (implied authority). | District: CAB lacked jurisdiction; appeal required signatures/court certification as for new charter. | Held: CAB dismissal was erroneous; the denial of an amendment is not a new charter denial requiring signature thresholds and CAB must review on remand. |
| Does §1722‑A(d) prohibit non‑first class districts from approving multiple locations? | Charter School: §1722‑A(d) is a special permissive provision for Philadelphia only, not an implied prohibition elsewhere. | District: Specific authorization for Philadelphia implies exclusion of other districts from permitting multiple locations. | Held: §1722‑A(d) does not implicitly bar other districts from approving amendments to add locations. |
| Should the CAB or common pleas review the District’s denial on remand? | Charter School: CAB should review as in Northside Urban Pathways and treat denial like revocation/nonrenewal. | District: (Some argued) CAB lacks statutory authority; such appeals belong in common pleas. | Held: Remand to CAB to review denial in same manner as revocation/nonrenewal under §1729‑A(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Montessori Regional Charter School v. Millcreek Township School District, 55 A.3d 196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (trial court had jurisdiction; Court affirmed that amendments may not be treated as new charter applications that foreclose expansion)
- Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. State Charter School Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Public School District), 56 A.3d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (CAB has authority to review appeals of amendment denials; charter is amendable and material terms may change)
- Career Connections Charter High School v. School District of Pittsburgh, 91 A.3d 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (reiterating that charter schools must amend charters to change material terms or risk closure)