Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules school district is not required to fund cyber charter school’s kindergarten program
Slippery Rock Area Sch. Dist. v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter Sch., J-22-2011 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Nov. 23, 2011)
Abstract: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a school district was not required under state law to fund a cyber charter school’s kindergarten program for a four year old student because the school district had exercised its discretion not to offer such a program in its public schools. The court concluded that even though Pennsylvania’s Charter School Law (PCSL) authorizes the creation of independent charter schools and allows the board of any such school to set its own policies, including those related to curriculum, a school district is not required to fund an educational program created by a charter school that the district has, in its discretion, decided not to offer in its public schools.
Facts/Issues: The PCSL provides for the funding of charter schools by requiring a school district to pay the charter school for each student residing in the district who attends the charter school. If a school district fails to make the payment, the PCSL authorizes the state Secretary of Education to deduct the appropriate amount from the state’s payments to the district. Slippery Rock Area School District (SRASD) was notified by the secretary that funds were being deducted from SRASD’s state subsidy because SRASD had failed to pay Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School (PCCS), a charter school located within SRASD, for numerous students residing in the district who were attending PCCS.
SRASD objected to the withholding of $1,716.63 for a four-year-old female student enrolled in PCCS’s kindergarten program. It contended that the deduction for this student was “contrary to law” because the Pennsylvania’s Public School Code (PPSC) requires the district “to educate every person, residing in the district, between the ages of six and twenty-one years.” SRASD pointed out that while it operates a discretionary kindergarten program for children who are five, the four year old attending the PCCS program did not meet the school district’s age requirement. It asserted that under state law it was not obligated fund PCCS’s program for four-year-olds.
SRASD’s argument proved unsuccessful at the state administrative hearing and on appeal in court. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the Secretary’s order requiring SRASD to pay for PCCS’s kindergarten program for four-year-olds. The Commonwealth Court, citing to the Secretary’s opinion and order, agreed that references to the “board of directors” and the “school board” must be read to include the board of trustees at the cyber charter school. Likewise, the court agreed with the Secretary’s determination that the intent of the PCSL is violated where the school district is permitted to dictate policies at the cyber charter school.
SRASD’s petition to appeal was granted by the state supreme court. The appeal was limited to one issue: whether, pursuant to the PPSC and PCSL, a school district that has exercised its discretion not to provide a kindergarten program to four-year old students within its district is nevertheless obligated to fund a kindergarten program provided by a cyber charter school for a four-year-old student residing within that same district.
Ruling/Rationale: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision. It agreed with SRASD that the Charter School Law was subsumed in the Public School Code and, as a result, a local school board has the discretion under the latter to set up a kindergarten program, which includes the authority to set the minimum entrance age for the school district.
Having found that the state legislature “created a gap when it failed to articulate whether it is a cyber charter school’s or a school district’s policy that prevails in the event of a conflict regarding funding,” the supreme court resolved the conflicted by holding “that the cyber charter school is bound by the policy of the school district in which the student resides.” It also noted that its holding was “guided by the recognition that the district’s funding obligation is inextricably linked to its duty to provide a public education.”
Because the PCSL does not address whether a school district has a funding obligation in those circumstances whether the cyber charter school’s admissions policy does not “mimic” the school district’s policy, the supreme court looked to the relevant section of the Pennsylvania Administrative Code (PAC) for guidance. Relying the PAC section which states, “School age is the period of a child’s life from the earliest admission age to a school district’s kindergarten program until graduation from high school or the end of the school term in which a student reaches the age of 21 years, whichever occurs first,” the court decided that the minimum age for entry into the school district’s schools trumped any entrance age set by a charter school for its programs.
While acknowledging that a charter school has the authority to set its own entrance age for kindergarten, that does not trigger a commensurate duty for the school district to fund such a program where the cyber charter school’s policy does not align with the school district’s. It, therefore, concluded that “while [PCCS] may offer educational programs to students who are too young to attend classes in [SRASD], [PCCS] is precluded from billing the district for those same students.”
Slippery Rock Area Sch. Dist. v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter Sch., J-22-2011 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Nov. 23, 2011)
[Editor's Note: In October 2011, Legal Clips summarized an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reporting that Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner was calling for a moratorium on new charter and cyber charter schools, pending an overhaul of a funding system that he believes has resulted in serious inequities in what taxpayers pay to finance these public school alternatives. Wagner’s report, based on a review of 18 charter schools and information from the state Department of Education, concluded that the problem is a state law requiring school districts to pay a charter-school tuition rate per pupil based on a district’s own costs, which results in different districts paying different rates to the same charter school.]
