Appellate court rules for CSBA Legal Alliance in statewide benefit charter case
Published: July 28, 2010
In a stunning reversal of an earlier trial court decision, California’s 1st District Court of Appeal has reinstated all five causes of action in a 2007 lawsuit filed by CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance, concluding that the State Board of Education failed to make the necessary findings of fact when it approved a petition from Aspire Public Schools, Inc. to open schools in Stockton USD and Los Angeles USD, and ultimately 5 additional schools, under a single statewide benefit charter approved by the SBE.
The July 26 ruling represents a major victory for CSBA’s Alliance, which sued the State Board, joined by Stockton Unified School District, CTA, and ACSA. The Alliance contended that state law required the State Board to make a specific finding whether Aspire’s proposed charter would provide instructional services of a statewide benefit that could not be provided by a charter school operating in only one district or county.
The appellate court agreed with the Alliance that the State Board did not receive or review any evidence that a statewide charter—rather than a series of local charters approved by local boards—was necessary in order for Aspire to offer a statewide instructional program. The court noted that state law permits charter applicants to operate schools that offer similar services under local charters in a number of districts, and pointed out that as of 2005, Aspire was operating 17 charter schools chartered by seven different districts.
“This was never about whether Aspire offers quality educational services,” said Stephanie Medrano Farland, who follows charter school issues for CSBA. “We are delighted that the appeal court agreed that the State Board needs to follow state law when it considers whether to grant a statewide benefit charter.”
The lawsuit also contended that once Aspire’s first statewide benefit charter campuses were up and running in Los Angeles and Stockton, the State Board failed to enforce the provisions of the charter or the memorandum of understanding between the State Board and Aspire that was supposed to guide the operation of these schools. As of October 2007, the suit alleged, Aspire was operating its statewide benefit charters “notwithstanding the virtually complete failure” to comply with the terms of its state charter and its MOU with the State Board. The suit asked the court to order the State Board to enforce the terms of these agreements.
The appellate ruling concluded that the Alameda County Superior Court erred when it ruled in favor of the State Board on all five causes of action in the Alliance lawsuit. That decisions sends the case back to the trial court for reconsideration.
What happens next is unclear and negotiations with the SBE are likely. The appellate decision will become final 30 days after its July 26 release date, after which the State Board has 10 days to file a petition asking the California Supreme Court to take up the case.
The Alliance’s lawsuit had originally asked the court to revoke Aspire’s statewide charter at the end of the 2007-08 school year to minimize the impact on students. The company has opened four additional campuses under its statewide charter in the intervening years since the suit was filed, according to information on the Aspire website.
The Alliance may ask the trial court to revoke Aspire’s statewide charter at the end of the 2010-11 school year, Alliance Director Richard Hamilton said. In the interim, Aspire could ask the State Board to revisit its 2007 charter decision—and this time, Aspire could present evidence it believes meets the statutory requirement, if possible, as to why a charter school “operating in only one district or one county” could not provide the benefits Aspire wants to offer. Aspire could also petition for a charter from each local school board in which its statewide benefit charters already operate.
The issue of statewide benefit charters has been a critical aspect of CSBA’s work to safeguard the authority of locally elected school boards.
“The concern,” said Farland, “is that charter petitioners will bypass local districts in an attempt to avoid local oversight and move straight to the State Board, where they are likely to receive a favorable reception and local accountability doesn’t exist.”
Easy link: