Neshaminy School District v. MaST-Neshaminy Charter School
52 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- MaST-Neshaminy applied (Oct. 2012) to Neshaminy School District for a K–12 STEM charter; the Board denied the application citing lack of sustainable support, no suitable facility, and failure to be a model for other schools.
- MaST filed a signature petition; Bucks County Common Pleas found the petition sufficient and permitted an appeal to the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB).
- CAB heard the appeal, accepted supplemental facility submissions (four alternate sites) after two original sites became unavailable, and granted the charter on January 6, 2016 conditioned on construction of a legally compliant facility approved by the District.
- District appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing CAB erred on three statutory issues: (1) suitable facility under 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A(11); (2) demonstrated sustainable support under 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(i); and (3) ability to serve as a model under 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(iv).
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether CAB committed legal error or abused discretion and affirmed CAB’s order granting the charter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (District) | Defendant's Argument (MaST-Neshaminy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suitable facility under §1719-A(11) | Two pages of documents and an intent-to-lease letter to a third party were insufficient; no direct lease/purchase agreement with MaST | Submitted address, ownership info, owner’s letter to developer, MOU with developer (who will buy/develop/lease), and conceptual drawings; additional detail not statutorily required | CAB reasonably found statutory submissions adequate and conditioned charter on final facility compliance and District inspection; affirmed |
| Demonstrated sustainable support under §1717-A(e)(2)(i) | Only eight community supporters at hearings and no teacher/administrator support; aggregate support insufficient | Hundreds of pre-enrollments and petition signatures plus hearing testimony (ten+ supporters), including teachers/parents and founding members | CAB’s aggregate-testimony approach was reasonable; record supported finding of sufficient community support; affirmed |
| Ability to serve as a model under §1717-A(e)(2)(iv) | Program does not meaningfully expand curriculum choices vs. District schools | Program offers distinct, innovative STEM-focused methods, technology, learning environments, teacher opportunities — could serve as a model | CAB’s finding that MaST’s program is innovative and may serve as a model was supported by substantial evidence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carbondale Area School Dist. v. Fell Charter Sch., 829 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (applicant need not have executed lease or purchase agreement before charter grant; statutory list of facility information controls)
- Brackbill v. Ron Brown Charter Sch., 777 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (board members may testify; community support measured in the aggregate under §1717-A(e)(2)(i))
- Montour Sch. Dist. v. Propel Charter Sch.-Montour, 889 A.2d 682 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (proposed facility must be presented for approval before school opens; district may ensure final facility complies with applicable laws)
- Cmty. Serv. Leadership Dev. Charter Sch. v. Pittsburgh Sch. Dist., 34 A.3d 919 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (CAB’s review of facility information and statutory compliance; substantial-evidence standard applies)