Slippery Rock Area School District v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School

31 A.3d 657, 612 Pa. 486, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2818
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 23, 2011
Docket27 WAP 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 31 A.3d 657 (Slippery Rock Area School District v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Slippery Rock Area School District v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, 31 A.3d 657, 612 Pa. 486, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2818 (Pa. 2011).

Opinions

OPINION

Justice ORIE MELVIN.

We granted review to determine whether a public school district is obligated to fund a kindergarten program offered by a cyber charter school for a four-year-old student when the district has exercised its discretion not to offer such a program in its public schools. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the school district is not required to fund the program. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court.

[490]*490The Charter School Law (“CSL”), 24 P.S. §§ 17-1701-A-17-1751-A, 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 CSL authorizes the Secretary of Education (“Secretary”) to deduct the appropriate amount from the state’s payments to the district. 24 P.S. § 17-1725-A(a)(5).1

On October 25, 2006, the Secretary notified Appellant, Slippery Rock Area School District (“Slippery Rock”), that funds had been deducted from the district’s state subsidy and were made payable to Appellee, Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School (“Cyber School”).2 The Secretary deducted funds because Slippery Rock failed to pay Cyber School for numerous students residing in the district who were attending Cyber School. Pursuant to section 17-1725-A(a)(6) of the CSL, the Secretary advised Slippery Rock that it had thirty days in which to contest the deductions.

By letter dated November 21, 2006, Slippery Rock notified the Department that the deduction was “inaccurate.” Slippery Rock objected to the withholding of $1,716.68 for a four-year-old female student enrolled in Cyber School’s kindergarten program. Slippery Rock asserted that the deduction for this student was “contrary to law” because the Public School Code of 1949 (“PSC”), 24 P.S. §§ 1-101-27-2702, requires the district “to educate every person, residing in the district, between the ages of six and twenty-one years.” 24 P.S. § 5-501. Slippery Rock averred that while it operates a discre[491]*491tionary kindergarten program for five-year-old children, the four-year-old student still fell below the age threshold. Since the student at issue did not meet the age requirements for admission into the district’s kindergarten program, Slippery Rock argued that it was not obligated to “assume the costs or obligation of this individual’s enrollment into [Cyber School].” Letter, 11/21/06, Certified Record (“C.R.”) at 11.

The Department responded to Slippery Rock’s objection on January 23, 2007, indicating that the district was properly assessed the cost of the student’s enrollment in Cyber School. By letter dated February 22, 2007, Slippery Rock reiterated its earlier objection to the deduction and requested a hearing before the Department. Following the Department’s directive, Cyber School filed a response asserting that Slippery Rock’s objection did not fall within any permissible basis for a challenge to the deduction pursuant to the CSL. See Letter, 3/22/07, C.R. at 8.

On May 9, 2007, the Department appointed a hearing officer. Cyber School filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that: (1) the student’s enrollment complied with the CSL; (2) Slippery Rock’s objection had no basis in law; (3) Slippery Rock’s argument violated the intent and policy behind the CSL; and (4) Slippery Rock lacked standing to object. Slippery Rock filed a response asserting that it had standing to object to the deduction. On the merits, Slippery Rock argued that it was not obligated to pay for the education of a student who could not, because of her age, enroll in the district. Slippery Rock maintained that Cyber School must abide by the district’s admission policy in order to receive payment. Since there were no disputed factual issues, the hearing officer certified the case to the Secretary for disposition.

By opinion and order dated January 8, 2008, the Secretary granted Cyber School’s motion and dismissed Slippery Rock’s objection. The Secretary observed that section 5-503 of the PSC gives school districts the discretion to establish and maintain kindergarten programs.3 The Secretary reasoned [492]*492that the mere fact that school districts have the discretion to establish a kindergarten does not prohibit a cyber charter school from implementing a similar program.

The Secretary further recognized that 24 P.S. § 17-1749-A(b)(2) subjects cyber charter schools to, inter alia, the Chapter 11 regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education. Pursuant to section 11.14, “When kindergarten is provided, the board of school directors shall establish the district’s minimum entry age,” which may not be less than four years, no months, before the first day of the school term. 22 Pa.Code § 11.14. The Secretary noted that other sections in Chapter 11 refer to the “board of school directors” or the “school board” and grant these entities the authority to establish polices regarding attendance, religious holidays, and absences. See 22 Pa.Code §§ 11.21(a), 11.41(b), and 11.41(c). The Secretary opined, “Because cyber charter schools are subject to Chapter 11, in order to comply with the CSL and prevent an absurd result, the references to ‘board of directors’ and ‘school board’ must be read to mean ‘board of trustees of the cyber charter school.’ ” Opinion and Order, 1/8/08, C.R. at 5. According to the Secretary, without this “modified reading,” these sections would allow the school district to set policies at the cyber charter school in violation of the intent behind the CSL.4

Recognizing that the CSL grants the board of trustees of a cyber charter school the authority to set polices relating to the [493]*493operation of the school, including the curriculum, the Secretary found that Cyber School can establish a kindergarten program for four-year-old students. The Secretary concluded, “Slippery Rock cannot deny payment to [Cyber School] simply because Slippery Rock does not have a four-year-old kindergarten program.” Id. at 6. Consequently, the Secretary granted Cyber School’s motion to dismiss Slippery Rock’s objection. Slippery Rock filed a petition for review with the Commonwealth Court.

In a unanimous en banc opinion, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the order of the Secretary. Slippery Rock v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, 975 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009). The court recognized that the CSL was enacted to “establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure” in order to increase learning opportunities and provide educational opportunities that are not available in the public school system. Id. at 1223 (citing 24 P.S. § 17-1702-A). The Commonwealth Court cited to the Secretary’s opinion and order at length, agreeing 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 CSL is violated where the school district is permitted to dictate policies at the cyber charter school. Finding the Secretary’s reasoning persuasive and entitled to deference, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

T.J. McCloskey, Acting Consumer Advocate v. PA PUC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Antonia Pantoja Charter School v. Com. of PA, Dept. of Ed.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2019
S & H Transport, Aplt. v. City of York
210 A.3d 1028 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2019)
C. Sadler v. WCAB (Philadelphia Coca-Cola)
210 A.3d 372 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2019)
Commonwealth v. Kerstetter
94 A.3d 991 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
School District of Philadelphia v. Department of Education
92 A.3d 746 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Peerless Insurance v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School
19 F. Supp. 3d 635 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2014)
Commonwealth v. Kerstetter
62 A.3d 1065 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Pocono Mountain Charter School v. Pocono Mountain School District
908 F. Supp. 2d 597 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2012)
Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. State Charter School Appeal Board
56 A.3d 80 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Wyland v. West Shore School District
52 A.3d 572 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Slippery Rock Area School District v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School
31 A.3d 657 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.3d 657, 612 Pa. 486, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slippery-rock-area-school-district-v-pennsylvania-cyber-charter-school-pa-2011.