Ruling backs ELA on ‘statewide benefit’ charter case
Published: September 7, 2010
In a stunning reversal of an earlier trial court decision, California’s 1st District Court of Appeal concluded 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 Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School District—and ultimately five additional schools—under a single statewide benefit charter.
The July 26 ruling reinstated all five causes of action in a 2007 lawsuit filed by CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance, which was joined in its lawsuit by the Stockton Unified School District, the California Teachers Association and the Association of California School Administrators.
“The State Board did not have before it any evidence on the question of whether Aspire’s ‘statewide benefit’ could be provided under local charters. The State Board did not discuss or consider that question, and, in fact, two members of the State Board objected to the vote on Aspire’s petition precisely because there was nothing before the State Board to support a finding that Aspire could not achieve its ‘statewide benefit’ under local charters,” the court ruled.
State law permits charter applicants to operate schools that offer similar services under local charters in a number of districts, the court noted. It pointed out that as of 2005, Aspire was operating 17 schools chartered by seven different districts in California.
“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 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,” Farland explained, “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.”
What’s next
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 decision sends the case back to the trial court for reconsideration.
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 Aspire’s website.
The Alliance may now 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.
Easy link: