Judge rejects statewide benefit charter
Education Legal Alliance stance prevails on charter SBE granted to Aspire
Published: March 20, 2012
CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance has won a major legal victory in its longstanding battle over a 2007 decision by the State Board of Education that allowed the Oakland-based Aspire Public Schools Inc. to operate “statewide benefit charter” schools in the Stockton, Sacramento and Los Angeles unified school districts under the supervision of the State Board rather than local school districts and county offices of education.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee notified the Alliance March 15 that she intends to grant its petition for a writ of mandate that directs the State Board “to set aside its approval of a statewide charter for Aspire.” The judge also indicated she intends to order State Board members to comply with the adjudicatory provisions of the state’s Administrative Procedures Act when considering whether to grant future statewide benefit charter petitions that bypass local governing boards and establish state-supervised charters in multiple locations.
“It’s imperative that the State Board follow state law,” declared CSBA General Counsel Keith Bray, who directs the Alliance. “The board should award a statewide benefit charter only when a petitioner is offering a program so unique or specialized it cannot be provided under a charter granted by a district or county governing board.”
CSBA Assistant Executive Director for Policy Analysis Angelo Williams agreed, and summed up the position that has motivated the association’s actions before the State Board and in court.
“Children are best protected when local district or county office boards evaluate charter petitions and supervise charter schools in their own communities, and state lawmakers who devised statewide benefit charter regulations intended that,” Williams said.
“CSBA opposed the renewal of Aspire’s statewide benefit charter at SBE with our partners in this endeavor, the Association of California School Administrators and the California Teachers Association. We suggested that SBE postpone any action until the court made its decision,” Williams continued.
“Now that the case has been decided it reinforces the purpose of the statewide benefit charter. CSBA will continue its advocacy at SBE around charter issues under the direction of our new senior policy director and Natomas Unified School District board member, Teri Burns.”
Details of final judgment being worked out
Deborah Caplan, an attorney who represents the Alliance in this case, offered insights into the legal developments.
“We believe the judge correctly concluded that Aspire did not demonstrate that it could not provide the same educational program through locally approved charters. We hope that, as a result of the court’s guidance, statewide charter approval will now be reserved for unique programs that really cannot be provided through a locally approved charter, as the law intended.”
Caplan said the judge agreed with arguments of Alliance and other plaintiffs in the case, including ACSA and the CTA, and the Stockton Unified School District, that Aspire failed to demonstrate that it met the statutory requirements and that the State Board failed to comply with the law when it awarded Aspire’s benefit charter.
“The court concludes the record lacks substantial evidence that Aspire’s program offered a statewide benefit that could not be achieved through local charters,” Lee wrote.
Aspire operates 28 schools in California under conventional charters granted by local districts, with enrollments that total 10,000 K-12 students.
The State Board renewed Aspire’s statewide benefit charter earlier this year, permitting the company to operate a total of six campuses until 2017.
The judge has directed attorneys on both sides in the dispute to work with her on details of the final judgment, so it’s not clear how long Aspire can continue operating its statewide benefit charter schools, which the company says serve 1,860 students, or what process should be used if Aspire wishes to open these schools with local district approval.
SBE procedures questioned
Judge Lee also agreed with plaintiffs that in 2007 and in the State Board’s subsequent deliberations on statewide benefit charter amendments and renewals, the board failed to comply with the adjudicatory hearing and evidentiary provisions in the California Administrative Procedures Act. Lee said those require the SBE to convene “formal hearings akin to a court trial” and consider sworn testimony subject to cross-examination when considering statewide benefit charter petitions.
Stephanie Medrano Farland—who handled charter school issues during her tenure as senior policy analyst at CSBA and now advises local educational agencies about charter evaluation and oversight as an independent contractor—said the quality of Aspire’s educational programs was never the issue.
“It was about following the law,” Farland said. “These regulations were instituted for a reason and SBE's actions demonstrate just how important it is that the state follow its own rules.”
“Statewide charters are to be the exception,” Farland said. “Aspire never reached the criteria to be an exception to this rule.”
A representative for the State Board declined to comment because the board has not met since the judge issued her ruling, and Aspire’s attorney Paul C. Minney said the company has no comment at this time.