Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School v. SD of Philadelphia and School Reform Commission
123 A.3d 1101
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Five Philadelphia charter schools (Richard Allen, Delaware Valley, Walter D. Palmer, Wakisha, Folk Arts–Cultural Treasures) refused 2010 renewal charters that reimposed enrollment caps and added operational conditions; they sued for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The School District (governed by the School Reform Commission because Philadelphia is a distressed district) adopted resolutions authorizing caps and other conditions and threatened to withhold funding for over‑enrollment.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the charter schools: it enjoined unilateral caps, withholding of funds for over‑enrollment, and certain insurance and unsecured‑debt provisions, but allowed many operational conditions.
- The School District appealed, arguing the School Reform Commission may “suspend” statutory requirements (24 P.S. § 6‑696(i)(3)) and therefore could nullify the Charter School Law’s ban on enrollment caps (24 P.S. § 17‑1723‑A(d)); charter schools cross‑appealed some allowed conditions.
- The appellate court affirmed that the School District lacked authority to impose or enforce enrollment caps or withhold funding where caps weren’t agreed to, and invalidated insurance‑coverage mandates; it upheld several operational requirements (assessment, personnel employment status, use of district systems) but reversed others (expanded annual report content, mandatory SCN formatting, advance lottery notice requirement as drafted, and a Chapter 14 citation for Child Find).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose enrollment caps | Charter schools: Act 61 (§ 17‑1723‑A(d)) specifically prohibits any governing authority from capping enrollment absent charter agreement | School District: § 6‑696(i)(3) empowers School Reform Commission to suspend requirements of the School Code, so it may suspend § 17‑1723‑A(d) | Held: Act 61 (specific statute) prevails; School District cannot unilaterally cap enrollment or suspend § 17‑1723‑A(d) |
| Withholding funding for students enrolled above a cap | Charter schools: District may not deny funding where cap not agreed | School District: may deny funding where it sets cap | Held: Funding may be withheld only when charter school agreed to a cap; unilateral withholding invalid |
| Insurance conditions (minimum levels; naming District as additional insured) | Charter schools: District may not prescribe coverage amounts or require District be insured; Section 17‑1719‑A(17) requires charter schools to provide insurance for themselves and trustees, not the district | School District: needs protection from litigation costs; may contract to protect itself under § 6‑696(e),(i) | Held: District exceeded authority; minimum coverage and blanket additional‑insured mandates invalid though negotiation/agreements remain possible |
| Requirement to use District assessment system / performance targets | School District: may require participation in district assessments to compare performance | Charter schools: no citywide standards exist; targets must be reasonable | Held: Condition reasonable/affirmed (participation in state/district assessment context permissible) |
| Personnel: require teachers be direct employees of charter | School District: teachers should be direct employees so trustees retain authority; consistent with West Chester | Charter schools: teachers are not "administrators" and management contracts should be allowed | Held: Affirmed; teachers must be direct employees of the charter school board of trustees |
| Annual report content, use of District computer network, lottery notice, special‑education outreach | Charter schools: District may not expand Secretary‑prescribed report form, force use of SCN format, demand long advance lottery notice, or miscite Chapter 14 for Child Find | School District: needs data, uniform formats, and timely notice to oversee compliance | Held: District may not expand Secretary‑prescribed annual report form (reversed); requiring SCN usage (format) upheld if District provides software/training; 30‑day (not 80‑day) lottery notice/packaging requirement reversed; special‑education clause reversed to avoid erroneous Chapter 14 citation (may require compliance with Chapter 711) |
Key Cases Cited
- Foreman v. Chester‑Upland Sch. Dist., 941 A.2d 108 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (school district cannot impose enrollment caps absent charter agreement)
- School Dist. of Philadelphia v. Dep’t of Educ., 92 A.3d 746 (Pa. 2014) (interpreting § 17‑1723‑A(d) as prohibiting enrollment caps unless agreed in charter)
- West Chester Area Sch. Dist. v. Collegium Charter Sch., 812 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 2002) (conditions in a charter must be authorized by the Charter School Law to preserve charter autonomy)
- Carbondale Area Sch. Dist. v. Fell Charter Sch., 829 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (local district cannot dictate insurance amounts/types if charter school provides adequate coverage)