School District of Pittsburgh v. Provident Charter School For Children With Dyslexia
2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 99
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Provident sought to open a dyslexia-focused charter school in Pittsburgh and submitted an initial application in 2018 with broad support from residents and professionals.
- Provident resubmitted a detailed revised application on March 14, 2014, advancing a multisensory, dyslexia-centered program with specific features (Orton-Gillingham methods, small groups, 6:1 ratio, Tae Kwon Do, etc.).
- The School District denied Provident’s charter in February 2014, citing deficient community support, expanded alternatives, and compliance with charter law provisions.
- Provident appealed to the State Charter School Appeal Board, which conducted a de novo review and granted the charter, finding substantial community support, a viable plan to meet all students’ needs, expanded choices, and appropriate community involvement planning.
- The School District sought judicial review; the court affirmed the Appeal Board, concluding Provident satisfied the statutory criteria and that the Board adequately articulated its disagreement with the District’s conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Provident showed sustainable community support. | Provident had extensive petitions, letters, and hearings demonstrating aggregate support. | The District argued the support was not sufficiently localized or robust across groups. | Provident demonstrated sustainable support; substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding. |
| Whether the Appeal Board adequately articulated its reasons per 1717-A(i)(6). | The Board’s 38-page decision explains its disagreement with the District. | The District contends more explicit articulation was required in every point. | The Board sufficiently articulated its reasons for agreeing/disagreeing with the District. |
| Whether Provident provided expanded choices distinct from existing offerings. | Provident’s program introduced unique elements (6:1 ratio, multi-sensory instruction, Tae Kwon Do). | Similar programs already existed in Pittsburgh-area schools; expanded choices requirement not met. | Provident’s revised application described differences showing expanded choices. |
| Whether the 1719-A(8) community involvement information satisfied the CSL. | Provident detailed how parents and organizations would participate and partner. | Some argue for concrete agreements; Board accepted aspirational plans. | Information on community involvement complied with 1719-A(8); Board did not err. |
| Whether the pre-enrollment question about special programs violated the Pennsylvania Fair Educational Opportunities Act. | Provident says the question is to tailor programs, not to discriminate. | The Act prohibits pre-admission inquiries about disability/needs. | The pre-enrollment question did not violate the Act; Board’s interpretation upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School, 829 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (sustainable aggregate community support standard applied)
- Brackbill v. Ron Brown Charter School, 777 A.2d 131 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (aggregate support not required to be equal across groups)
- Montour School District v. Propel Charter School-Montour, 889 A.2d 682 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (need for substantial uniqueness in program allowed for CSL compliance)
- Infinity Charter School, 847 A.2d 195 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (application may omit certain specifics at charter stage; flexibility allowed)
- West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 812 A.2d 1172 (Pa.2002) (de novo standard of review for appeals of denial; due process in CAB proceedings)