CSBA wins suit over statewide benefit charter
Published: April 1, 2013
The State Board of Education last month agreed to settle much of a 2007 lawsuit brought by CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance and its partners over a statewide benefit charter the State Board had granted to Aspire Public Schools.
As part of the agreement, Aspire agreed to surrender the statewide benefit charter that had allowed the company to operate six campuses in California under statewide authorization and supervision instead of charters granted locally. In addition, Aspire and the State Board agreed to pay $150,000 apiece to offset attorneys’ fees and related court costs.
“Today’s settlement is an important victory for parents and children across the state. Local charter schools are a common public education option. It is important that all charters—whether locally approved or state approved—meet the standards established in the Education Code and comply with the law,” explained Keith J. Bray, CSBA general counsel and director of the ELA. “As a public school option, statewide benefit charter schools must demonstrate, at the time of application, the same thoroughness and rigor expected of charter schools overseen by local educational agencies.”
The settlement follows a June ruling by an Alameda County Superior Court judge who agreed with the ELA that the State Board failed to make the required findings of fact when it permitted Aspire to operate schools as statewide benefit charters. The ELA successfully argued that statewide benefit charters must be reserved for educational programs that cannot be provided by schools chartered through local governing boards.
Aspire had already demonstrated it could effectively offer its educational programs as locally authorized charter schools, the court noted, and was already doing so in a number of local districts throughout the state. In the months since the court ruling, Aspire has sought and received local charters that permit all six of Aspire’s former statewide benefit charter campuses to stay open.
Administrative procedures still under appeal
The ELA and its partners in the lawsuit—the California Teachers Association, the Association of California School Administrators and the Stockton Unified School District—never challenged the effectiveness of the educational programs offered by Aspire’s charter schools. They instead stressed the importance of adhering to state law when deciding whether to grant a statewide benefit instead of a local charter. Aspire operates a total of 34 schools in California that are chartered by local governing boards, and the court agreed these locally chartered schools offer the same basic services as the statewide benefit charter campuses.
The case has had a complex history. A trial court initially dismissed the suit the ELA filed after the State Board granted Aspire’s statewide benefit charter in 2007, but California’s 1st District Court of Appeal reinstated all five causes of action and sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration in 2010.
The lawsuit was originally based on two claims—both of which were supported in the Alameda Superior Court’s June ruling. The settlement has resolved the first claim: to ensure that statewide charters meet the same standards outlined in the law as locally approved charters. The second claim seeks to guarantee that the State Board consistently follow the Administrative Procedures Act required by law when reviewing, analyzing and approving statewide charter applications. This claim has been challenged by the State Board and remains on appeal. Bray said the ELA will continue litigation to ensure compliance with the law.
Related link:
- Read the ELA Update on this and other cases advocating for public schools.