New Hope Academy Charter School v. School District of the City of York
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 210
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- New Hope Academy (charter school) operated grades 5–12 under a five‑year charter granted by the School District of the City of York beginning in 2007; PDE PSSA proficiency was the charter’s stated metric for academic goals.
- New Hope’s PSSA proficiency rates (reading and math) were consistently low from 2008–2012, well below Pennsylvania AYP thresholds and below the School District’s average; New Hope failed to make AYP by any permitted method and was placed in Corrective Action II.
- School District issued a nonrenewal notice (Jan/Feb 2012) citing poor academic performance and governance/contracting issues with founder Isiah Anderson’s for‑profit and related entities; School Board held hearings and denied renewal (July 2012).
- The State Charter School Appeal Board (Board) unanimously affirmed (Oct 2013), finding independent grounds for nonrenewal: failure to meet student performance requirements under 22 Pa.Code Chapter 4 (PSSA/proficiency), Ethics Act violations, and breaches of nonprofit fiduciary duties in contracts with Anderson’s companies.
- New Hope appealed to this Court; the Court’s review was limited to errors of law, constitutional claims, or lack of substantial evidence. The Court affirmed the Board, holding academic failure alone justified nonrenewal and that ethics/nonprofit findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonrenewal lawful for poor academic performance under Section 1729‑A(a)(2) | New Hope: Chapter 4 does not set "requirements for student performance," so poor scores cannot alone justify nonrenewal | School District/Board: Chapter 4 uses PSSA/proficiency as the statutory performance measure; consistent failure supports nonrenewal | Court held: Nonrenewal valid—Chapter 4 (PSSA/proficiency) and failure to make AYP support nonrenewal under §1729‑A(a)(2) |
| Whether AYP standards and related accountability measures are encompassed by Chapter 4/regulatory scheme | New Hope: AYP thresholds not in Chapter 4, so cannot be treated as requirements for nonrenewal | Board: Chapter 4 is expressly tied to NCLB/AYP and PDE accountability workbook; those standards are part of the regulatory scheme | Court held: Reasonable to treat AYP/accountability rules as encompassed by Chapter 4; Board’s interpretation entitled to deference |
| Whether comparison to school district performance is improper | New Hope: District performance irrelevant to charter nonrenewal | Board: District results are a legitimate comparison—students source, and closure consequences affect district placement | Court held: Comparison appropriate and relevant to Charter Law and Public School Code purposes; district outperforming charter supports nonrenewal |
| Whether contracts with founder’s businesses violated Ethics Act and Nonprofit Law and whether Board properly reviewed | New Hope: Contracts not subject to Ethics Act and Board failed independent review | Board/School District: Founder acted as administrator/manager; contracts lacked open/public process; trustees failed fiduciary duties | Court held: Board’s findings supported by substantial evidence; founder was subject to Ethics Act and trustees breached duties; Board conducted adequate independent review |
Key Cases Cited
- Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. State Charter School Appeal Board, 56 A.3d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (standards for appellate review and Charter Law interpretation)
- Ronald H. Brown Charter School v. Harrisburg City School District, 928 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (poor PSSA performance can justify nonrenewal)
- McKeesport Area School District v. Propel Charter School—McKeesport, 888 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (deference to Board’s Charter Law interpretations)
- Brackbill v. Ron Brown Charter School, 777 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (Board deference principles)
- Burger v. Board of School Directors of McGuffey School District, 839 A.2d 1055 (Pa. 2003) (Public School Code constitutional purpose—thorough and efficient education)
- School District of Wilkinsburg v. Wilkinsburg Education Association, 667 A.2d 5 (Pa. 1995) (statutory interpretation in light of constitutional education obligations)
- Appeal of Walker, 2 A.2d 770 (Pa. 1938) (public policy priority for improving children’s education)
- United Transportation Union v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 68 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (issue preservation/waiver principles)