IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Young Scholars of Southeastern :

Pennsylvania Charter School, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 514 C.D. 2023

 : Submitted: June 7, 2024

Norristown Area School District :

(Charter School Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: September 5, 2024 

Young Scholars of Southeastern Pennsylvania Charter School (YSSCS) 

petitions for review an Order of the Charter School Appeal Board (CAB), which 

denied YSSCS’s appeal of a decision of the Norristown Area School District 

(District) Board of Directors (Board) denying YSSCS’s application to open and 

operate a charter school in the District. YSSCS argues CAB erred in concluding that 

YSSCS did not show sustainable support as required under Section 1717-A(e)(2)(i)

of the Charter School Law (CSL), 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(i).

1 After review, we 

affirm.

1 The CSL is part of the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as 

amended, added by the Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, 24 P.S. §§ 17-1701-A—17-1751-A.
2

I. BACKGROUND

A. YSSCS’s Second Revised Application 

YSSCS initially applied to open and operate a charter school in the District 

on November 14, 2019. (CAB Opinion (Op.), Finding of Fact (FOF) ¶ 1.) The 

Board held a public hearing on YSSCS’s initial application on December 16, 2019, 

(the Hearing), and on February 24, 2020, the Board denied it. (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) YSSCS 

then submitted a revised application, which the Board likewise voted to deny. (Id. 

¶¶ 6-8.) Thereafter, on May 18, 2020, YSSCS submitted the instant Second Revised 

Application. (Id. ¶ 10.) The Board considered the Second Revised Application at a 

special meeting on August 17, 2020, including the materials from the two previous 

applications and the transcript of the Hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14.) 

YSSCS projected that its first-year enrollment would be 220 students, (id.

¶ 35), and attached to the Second Revised Application pre-enrollment forms, which 

stated as follows: 

I [(name)], hereby state my intent to enroll my child(ren) in . . . 

[]YSSCS[] once it receives its charter. . . .

I understand that . . . []YSSCS[] has not yet been granted a charter. By 

signing this enrollment form, I am stating my intent to send my 

child(ren) to the YSSCS, but I am not obliged to do so. If a charter is 

granted for the school, I understand that I will need to complete official 

enrollment documents in order for my child(ren) to be enrolled at the 

school. YSSCS is projected to open in September 2020. 

(Id. ¶ 37.) YSSCS also attached a number of online enrollment forms. (Id. ¶ 38

& n.2.) 

YSSCS further included 10 emails which it labeled as “[o]nline [l]etters of 

[s]upport.” (Id. ¶ 39.) These emails state that they were generated as a result of 

filling out a form on www.ysscs.com, and they provide the name and contact 
3

information of the individual who filled out a form. (Id. n.3; Board’s Denial of the 

Second Revised Application (Board’s Denial), FOF ¶ 27.

2

) YSSCS also attached 

“[a] copy of the electronic form that is presumably responsible for generating the 

emails[,]” which states as follows: 

I support the creation of . . . []YSSCS[], a kindergarten through eighth 

grade charter school to be located in the . . . District and proposed to 

open in September 2020. YSSCS will allow our community to start a 

school from the ground up that reflects the needs of our families and 

our students and helps to improve the future of our community, our 

state, and our country. 

YSSCS [is] designed to make sure that our children are well prepared 

for high school and beyond. YSSCS will provide a school day tailored 

to the needs of individual students, making sure that every child masters 

the information necessary for success. YSSCS will harness the latest 

technology to foster personal responsibility and help students become 

independent learners by combining the best of both live and online 

classroom experiences.

An independent board of directors that includes educators, business 

leaders, parents, and other members of our community will govern the 

YSSCS that will give families in this area an important opportunity to 

access a quality education unique to anything currently available.

(Board’s Denial, FOF ¶ 28; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 604a-05a.) 

At the Hearing, the following Founding Members of YSSCS “were present: 

Adam Kenz, Brittany Trofe, Bastian Schotsman, Dr. Anthony Mooring, Cheryl 

Jackson, Denise Agurto, and Jennifer Arevalo.” (CAB Op., FOF ¶ 43.) The 

Founding Members present at the Hearing established as follows: Mr. Kenz lives in 

Hatboro, which is not in the District, and became involved with YSSCS through 

parents in the District; Ms. Arevalo lives in Ambler and became involved with 

2 The Board’s Denial can be found in the Reproduced Record at 3193a-221a. We glean 

some facts from the Board’s Denial for background purposes only. 
4

YSSCS through Mr. Kenz, she is the Chief Executive Officer of Souderton Charter 

School Collaborative, which is in the Souderton School District, and she confirmed 

that Wendy D. Ormsby, M.S., another Founding Member who was absent from the 

hearing, lives in Harleysville;3 Ms. Trofe lives in the District, became involved in 

YSSCS through her previous work with Mr. Kenz, and is a teacher; Mr. Schotsman 

is Ms. Trofe’s husband and became involved in YSSCS through Ms. Trofe, he was 

a teacher in the Netherlands, and he is now “an education manager at a postsecondary automotive school in Exton”; Ms. Jackson lives in the District, became 

involved in YSSCS through receiving information in the mail, and is the grandparent 

and legal guardian of students in the District; Ms. Agurto lives in North Wales, 

became involved in YSSCS through a postcard “received by one of her clients,” and 

she works for ACLAMO Family Centers in the District; and Dr. Mooring lives in 

Landsdale, became involved in YSSCS through discussions with Mr. Kenz, and is 

in the process of obtaining “a doctorate in Urban Education Leadership and 

Education Policy.” (Board’s Denial, FOF ¶¶ 34-41.) Ms. Jackson also provided 

public comment in support of YSSCS at the Hearing. (CAB Op., FOF ¶ 44.) Five 

other District residents made public comments at the hearing “in opposition to the 

issuance of a charter to YSSCS.” (Id. ¶ 45 & n.4.) 

B. Board’s Denial 

After considering the foregoing evidence, the Board voted to deny the Second 

Revised Application with written notice provided to YSSCS on August 19, 2020. In 

sum, the Board denied the Second Revised Application because YSSCS

3 Charles A. Green, III is another Founding Member who was not present at the hearing. 

His resumé, which is part of the record before this Court, demonstrates he resides in the District. 

(See R.R. at 627a.) 
5

failed to meet the criteria set forth in [Section] []1717-A(e)(2)(i)-(iv)

by (1) failing to demonstrate the capability, in terms of support and 

planning, to open a school that would provide a comprehensive learning 

experience, (2) failing to adequately budget for critical teaching jobs, 

program staffing, and special education services, (3) failing to present 

a complete and properly aligned educational curriculum, (4) failing to 

produce sufficient evidence of sustainable support from the 

community, and (5) failing to demonstrate how YSSCS is unique or 

innovative, or could serve as a model for other schools.

(Id. ¶¶ 11-12, 16.) 

YSSCS thereafter sought to appeal the Board’s Denial. To be eligible to 

appeal, Section 1717-A(i)(2), (5) of the CSL required YSSCS to “obtain the 

signatures of at least two per centum of the residents of the school district or of one 

thousand (1,000) residents, whichever is less, who are over eighteen (18) years of 

age” and present these signatures to the local court of common pleas for verification. 

24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(i)(2), (5). YSSCS collected signatures and presented them to 

the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court). The parties 

stipulated that YSSCS collected the requisite number of signatures as required by 

the CSL, and the trial court issued an order certifying YSSCS’s petition to appeal. 

YSSCS appealed to CAB. (CAB Op., FOF ¶¶ 18-21.) 

C. CAB’s Opinion 

After YSSCS presented its appeal to CAB, CAB issued a scheduling order 

requiring the parties to file motions to supplement the record by August 16, 2021. 

(Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) Neither party filed a motion to supplement the record by this date. 

(Id. ¶ 25.) CAB also directed the parties to file briefs and proposed findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, which the parties timely filed. (Id. ¶¶ 26-31.) CAB held a 

hearing on December 6, 2022, for the parties to present their arguments and answer 

questions, and voted on January 10, 2023; however, the matter was tabled because 
6

of a tie vote. (Id. ¶¶ 32-33.) CAB thereafter voted on February 21, 2023, to deny 

YSSCS’s appeal. (Id. ¶ 34.) 

CAB conducted a de novo review and issued its Opinion and Order on April 

24, 2023. With respect to evidence of sustainable support, CAB first found that 

YSSCS provided “133 pre-enrollment forms identifying 159 students for potential 

enrollment[,]” along with “[o]nline [e]nrollment forms identifying 112 students for 

potential enrollment.” (Id. ¶¶ 36-38.) CAB noted that at least 45 of these students, 

however, would not be eligible to enroll by September 2020. (Id. ¶ 38 & n.2.) CAB 

acknowledged the “[o]nline [l]etters of [s]upport” noting that they “appear to be 

automatically generated emails that were produced because of filling out an 

electronic form[,]” “[n]one of the[m] . . . are actual letters written by an individual 

in the [District] community wishing to express support for YSSCS,” and “none of 

the[m] . . . articulate any reasons why the writer supports the establishment of 

YSSCS’[s] charter.” (Id. ¶ 39 & n.3; see also id. at 15.) CAB stated that YSSCS

did “not include any letters of support from community businesses, organizations, 

or other members of the [District] community.” (FOF ¶ 40.) CAB also found that 

YSSCS did not engage with any community groups in creating its plans, nor did it 

identify any support from “local or statewide community leader[s].” (Id. ¶¶ 41-42.) 

Further, CAB found that YSSCS “does not identify any support for YSSCS’[s]

charter from teachers, outside the [F]ounding” Members. (Id. ¶ 42.) Considering

the testimony at the Hearing, CAB found that the only public comment made in 

support of YSSCS came from Ms. Jackson, a Founding Member, and the remaining

public comments were “made in opposition” to YSSCS’s charter. (Id. ¶¶ 44-45; see 

also id. at 15.) Regarding the composition of the Founding Members, CAB found

that less than half of the individuals are “members of the [District] community.” 
7

(FOF ¶ 46.) It cited Appeal of Vitalistic Therapeutic Center Charter School (CAB 

Docket No. 1999-06, filed August 18, 1999), and Dr. Lorraine K. Monroe Academy 

Charter School (CAB Docket No. 2000-16, filed March 21, 2001),

4

for the 

proposition “that where a charter school’s board of directors consists mainly of 

individuals who are not residents of the district in which the school is to be located, 

that fact will support a determination that the charter school has failed to demonstrate 

sustainable support.” (Id. at 16.) Taking these findings into consideration, CAB

concluded YSSCS did not demonstrate sustainable support. (Id. at 15.) 

CAB further noted that because YSSCS did not show a majority of the 

Founding “[M]embers own business or property in [the District,]” “there are no 

mitigating factors to consider when observing that a majority of YSSCS’[s Founding 

Members] do[] not reside in [the District].” (Id. at 16-17.) CAB also discussed 

YSSCS’s argument that the signatures collected for purposes of appeal under 

Section 1717-A(i)(2) of the CSL should be considered as evidence of sustainable 

support. CAB concluded that “[t]hose signatures were collected after the fact and 

for a different purpose.” (Id. at 16.) CAB mentioned that the individuals who signed 

the petitions for purposes of appeal “could have appeared at the [H]earing to express 

their support for [YSSCS’s] charter school plan but apparently did not do so.” (Id.) 

CAB stated that “it cannot be presumed that their support is sustainable simply 

because they signed the petition to allow YSSCS to appeal the [Board’s Denial].” 

(Id.) Thus, CAB refused to consider the petition signatures for purposes of appeal 

as evidence of sustainable support. 

4 Copies of CAB’s decisions can be found at https://www.education.pa.gov/K12/Charter%20Schools/Appeals/Pages/AppealBoardDecisions.aspx (last visited September 4, 

2024). Although decisions of CAB have no precedential value in this Court, we may use them for 

their persuasive value. See Bagwell v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 76 A.3d 81, 87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 
8

In sum, CAB agreed with the Board that YSSCS did not demonstrate 

sufficient community support for its charter. CAB therefore concluded that it did 

not need to address any of the remaining reasons the Board cited in denying the 

Second Revised Application. (Id. at 17.) YSSCS filed its petition for review in this 

Court.5 

II. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS6

A. YSSCS

YSSCS argues that CAB erred in not properly considering the evidence of 

sustainable support for YSSCS’s charter in the aggregate. YSSCS states that it has 

provided “sufficient pre-enrollment forms, letters of support, and testimony” to 

establish sustainable support from the District community. (YSSCS’s Brief (Br.) at 

10.) YSSCS contends that the “online letters of support” should be considered as 

evidence of sustainable support, notwithstanding the fact that they are form letters. 

YSSCS cites School District of Pittsburgh v. Provident Charter School for Children

With Dyslexia, 134 A.3d 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), for the proposition that it is the 

content of the letters that matters, and because the “online letters of support” identify 

5 This Court’s

review of a[] [CAB] adjudication considers whether constitutional rights were 

violated, whether errors of law were committed, or whether the decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence. Ronald H. Brown Charter Sch[.] v. Harrisburg 

City Sch[.] Dist[.], 928 A.2d 1145, 1147 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). “Substantial 

evidence” is defined as “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Carbondale Area Sch[.] Dist[.] v. Fell Charter 

Sch[.], 829 A.2d 400, 405 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh v. Provident Charter Sch. for Children With Dyslexia, 134 A.3d 128, 139

n.23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 

6 We reorganize the parties’ arguments for clarity. 
9

YSSCS and the location of the charter school, the content of the Online Letters 

demonstrates sufficient sustainable support. YSSCS further argues that CAB erred 

in not considering the support of the Founding Members. YSSCS states that it goes 

against precedent to discount support “simply because it comes from a founding 

member of [a] charter school” and cites Brackbill v. Ron Brown Charter School, 777 

A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), for this proposition. (YSSCS’s Br. at 17.) YSSCS 

states that a majority of the Founding Members work, are educators, reside, or have 

family in the District. Thus, CAB should not have discounted their support. Also, 

YSSCS contends that CAB imposed a new requirement when it noted that no

Founding Member owns businesses or property in the District. YSSCS challenges 

CAB’s use of Lorraine and Vitalistic in concluding that because a majority of the 

Founding Members are not members of the District, YSSCS did not show

sustainable support. YSSCS further argues that CAB erred in not considering the 

1,000 signatures required to appeal the Board’s Denial under Section 1717-A(i)(2)

of the CSL as evidence of sustainable support. YSSCS contends that CAB has 

previously held that the signatures required for appeal purposes may properly be 

considered as evidence of sustainable support and cites In re Ronald H. Brown 

Charter School (CAB Docket No. 1999-01, filed December 2, 1999), for this 

proposition. 

YSSCS also argues that CAB was equitably estopped from denying the

Second Revised Application because YSSCS modeled the Second Revised 

Application off applications that were granted for other charter schools. Namely, 

YSSCS states Young Scholars of McKeesport Charter School was granted a charter, 

that decision was affirmed by this Court in McKeesport Area School District 

v. Young Scholars of McKeesport Charter School (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 373 C.D. 2015,
10

filed July 13, 2015),

7 and the Second Revised Application was modeled off that plan. 

YSSCS claims it “relied to [its] detriment on that prior grant of a charter in the 

preparation and presentation of the [Second Revised] Application[.]” (YSSCS’s Br. 

at 25.) For that reason, YSSCS claims CAB was equitably estopped from denying 

its appeal of the Board’s Denial. 

B. The Board

The Board responds that CAB correctly found that YSSCS did not 

demonstrate sustainable support from the District community. The Board explains

that YSSCS “provided (1) the statutor[il]y required 1,000 signatures, (2) preenrollment forms, (3) ten generic emails of ‘support,’ (4) one public comment in 

favor of the [charter school] at the [H]earing, and (5) [Founding M]embers.” 

(Board’s Br. at 9.) Regarding the “online letters of support,” the Board

acknowledges that they “did contain the name of the charter school and expressed 

support,” but notes that “the letters did not offer specific support as it did in 

Provident[.]” (Id. at 13.) Essentially, the Board argues that they should not be 

considered as evidence of sustainable support since they were not written by 

community members themselves and did not state a particular reason why the 

individual supports YSSCS. The Board also emphasizes CAB’s conclusion that the

majority of the Founding Members are not members of the District, and this fact

supports the conclusion that YSSCS does not have sustainable support under 

Lorraine and Vitalistic. The Board also takes issue with YSSCS’s representation

that a majority of the Founding Members are members of the District because they 

7 Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 126(b), Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), and 

Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), an 

unreported opinion of this Court, while not binding, may be cited for its persuasive value.
11

are residents, teachers, or have family members in the District.

8

 In addition, the 

Board argues that Ms. Jackson “was the only member from the [District] community 

that spoke in support of [YSSCS’s] application.” (Id. at 12.) The Board further 

contends that the signatures collected for purposes of appeal under Section 1717-

A(i)(2) of the CSL cannot be considered as evidence of sustainable support. The 

Board argues that YSSCS mis-cites In re Brown for this proposition and explains 

that the signatures required for a petition to appeal are under an “entirely different 

section of the [CSL] than the requirements to prove sustainable support, [and] the 

Legislature made the conscious choice to not include these signatures in the 

sustainable support section.” (Id. at 10.) Even further, the Board contends that “the 

appeal petition signatures are, by definition under the statute, gathered months after

the application is submitted to the school district.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) 

The Board also argues that CAB was not barred by equitable estoppel 

principles from considering the Second Revised Application on its own merits. The 

Board contends that YSSCS has not shown where CAB “promised” that the plan the 

Second Revised Application was modeled upon “will be successful at every turn.” 

(Id. at 7.) Thus, CAB was not barred by equitable estoppel from denying YSSCS’s

appeal. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Sustainable Support 

Section 1717-A(e)(2)(i) of the CSL provides:

8 To the extent that the Board argues some facts have changed regarding the Founding 

Members’ residences, (see Board’s Br. at 12 nn.2-3), this Court cannot consider those arguments 

as those purported facts are not of record. See Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal 

Bd. (Bullard), 790 A.2d 1072, 1075-76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (“It is well settled that items which are 

not part of the record may not be considered by . . . the appellate body on review.”). 
12

[] A charter school application submitted under this article shall be 

evaluated by the local board of school directors based on criteria, 

including, but not limited to, the following: 

[] The demonstrated, sustainable support for the charter school plan by 

teachers, parents, other community members and students, including 

comments received at the public hearing[.] 

24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(i). CAB has defined “sustainable support” “as support 

sufficient to sustain and maintain the proposed charter school as an ongoing 

identity.” Lorraine, CAB Docket No. 2000-16 at 11. CAB has also explained that 

the relevant community for review purposes is the school district in which the local 

charter school is proposed. Vitalistic, CAB Docket No. 1999-06 at 8. In considering 

whether an application for a charter school has demonstrated sustainable support, 

the evidence is considered “in the aggregate and not by individual categories.” 

Carbondale Area Sch. Dist. v. Fell Charter Sch., 829 A.2d 400, 405 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2003) (citing Brackbill, 777 A.2d at 138 (internal quotation marks omitted)). In 

other words, an applicant “need not demonstrate a threshold level of support among 

each of the discrete groups, i.e., teachers, parents, students[,] and community 

members[,]” Provident, 134 A.3d at 140, and lacking evidentiary support in one 

group is not fatal to the application, Carbondale, 829 A.2d at 405. However, “the 

applicant must show that the charter school enjoys reasonably sufficient support in 

the aggregate from all groups[.]” Montour Sch. Dist. v. Propel Charter SchoolMontour, 889 A.2d 682, 687 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). 

YSSCS contends CAB erred in disregarding the “online letters of support,”

the support from the Founding Members, and the 1,000 signatures required for 

appeal. We address these arguments in turn. 
13

1. “Online Letters of Support”

CAB determined that the ten generic emails characterized as letters of support

“appear to be automatically generated emails that were produced because of filling 

out an electronic form” and did not state any reason why the individual named in the 

email supported YSSCS, and, thus, could not be considered as evidence of 

sustainable support. (CAB Op., FOF ¶ 39 & n.3; see also id. at 15.) Both YSSCS 

and the Board cite the case of Provident to support their arguments relative to the 

“online letters of support.” There, the school district argued that the letters of 

support provided by the applicant charter school could not be considered as evidence 

of sustainable support because they were “form letters.” Provident, 134 A.3d at 140. 

This Court concluded that being form letters was “of no moment,” and it is the 

“content of the letters that is significant.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Specifically, the 

Court explained that the form letters demonstrated support for the charter school at 

issue, and not “to the abstract concept of a [charter] school[.]” Id. The Court stated 

that the form letters were “specific” in that they supported the named charter school 

in the proposed location. Id. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the letters were 

properly considered by CAB as evidence of sustainable support. Id. 

In the record here, there is the text of a “Letter of Support” for YSSCS with 

boxes in which to fill in name of supporter, address, email, phone, signature, and 

date. (R.R. at 605a-06a.) It appears to be an online form, which has not yet been 

completed. There are also emails, titled “Letter[s] of Support,” which do not 

include the text of the letter and only include the “Name of Supporter,” and the 

address, email, phone, an electronic signature, and date. (Id. at 607a-16a.) At the 

bottom of each email is written: “This e-mail was sent from a contact form on 

[YSSCS] (http://www.ysscs.org).” (Id.) These emails could have been generated 
14

from completion of the “Letter of Support” form, or they could have been generated 

in another way. The emails contain no text from the “Letter of Support”; the emails 

contain only names and identifying information. It is these emails that YSSCS refers 

to as “[o]nline [l]etters of [s]upport.” However, these emails are not like the form 

letters in Provident, where the supportive statements were included in the same 

document with the identifying information of the individuals. Thus, while the 

“Letter of Support” provides that the signing individual “support[s] the creation of

Young Scholars of Southeastern Pennsylvania Charter School (YSSCS), a 

kindergarten through eighth grade charter school to be located in the Norristown 

Area School District and proposed to open in September 2020[,]” (R.R. at 605a06a), see also Provident, 134 A.3d at 135 n.8 (emphasizing similar language in the 

form letters therein), the “Letter of Support” form was a separate document, and the 

emails did not contain any of the language from the “Letter of Support.” In sum, 

because the emails do not contain any statements of support for YSSCS, we cannot 

conclude that CAB erred in disregarding these “[o]nline [l]etters of [s]upport.” 

2. Founding Members 

Next, YSSCS takes issue with CAB disregarding the support of the Founding 

Members. A few cases are instructive here. First, in Brackbill, this Court considered 

the issue of whether members of the board of trustees of an applicant charter school 

can provide testimony in support of the school at a public hearing. 777 A.2d at 137. 

The school district complained that only two of the individuals who testified at the 

public hearing were not connected to the charter school’s board or its proposed 

building location. This Court held that because “the board members who testified 

[were] either parents, teachers, or other members of the community,” CAB properly 

relied on their testimony as evidence of sustainable support. Id. This Court 
15

concluded that “nothing in the [CSL] prohibits members of the [b]oard of [d]irectors 

of a proposed charter school from testifying.” Id. Therefore, the Court concluded 

that CAB properly considered the testimony provided by the board of directors at 

the public hearing as evidence of sustainable support. Id. 

In Vitalistic, CAB analyzed whether the applicant charter school 

demonstrated sustainable support in the school district where the charter school was 

proposed. CAB noted that a majority of the charter school’s board consisted of 

individuals who were not members of that district. The charter school argued to 

CAB that a majority of the board members, however, did “own businesses within 

the [district] and are property owners.” Vitalistic, CAB Docket No. 1999-06 at 8. 

Notwithstanding, CAB concluded that a majority of the charter school’s evidence of 

sustainable support came from non-district residents. Because of the lack of 

evidentiary support from members of the district where the charter school was 

proposed to be located, including that a majority of the charter school’s board 

members were not members of the district, CAB concluded that the district’s school 

board of directors did not err in concluding that the charter school did not establish 

sustainable support from the community. Id. at 9.

In Lorraine, CAB likewise analyzed whether the applicant charter school 

demonstrated sustainable support from the district where the charter school was 

proposed. CAB Docket No. 2000-16 at 12-13. CAB concluded that much of the 

demonstrated support came from a neighboring community. For example, CAB

noted that only six percent of the signatures on a supporting petition were from the 

district where the charter school was proposed, the founder of the charter school was 

not from the district, and no member of the district was involved in the application 

process until after the application was submitted to the school district’s board. Id. 
16

CAB also noted that the charter school did not provide any pre-enrollment forms. 

Thus, CAB concluded the charter school in Lorraine did not demonstrate sustainable 

support. Id. 

Here, only Ms. Jackson, who is a Founding Member and member of the 

District, testified in support of YSSCS at the Hearing as a member of the District 

community. To the extent YSSCS attempts to argue that other Founding Members

present at the Hearing testified in support of the charter school as members of the 

District, (see YSSCS’s Br. at 17-19 & n.2), this suggestion is misleading. At the

Hearing, the Board asked the present Founding Members to introduce themselves 

and explain how they became involved with YSSCS. (See R.R. at 37a-46a.) The 

Founding Members, however, did not present testimony in support of the charter 

school as members of the community, besides Ms. Jackson. (See id. at 166a-80a.) 

CAB acknowledged Ms. Jackson’s testimony in support of YSSCS, which is 

permissible. (CAB Op., FOF ¶ 44); Brackbill, 777 A.2d at 137. However, CAB did 

not err in stating that this was the only supportive testimony at the Hearing from a 

member of the District. 

CAB also concluded that a majority of the Founding Members were not 

members of the District, nor did they own businesses or property in the District. 

Essentially, YSSCS contends that CAB lacked substantial evidence of record to 

conclude so. However, the record supports CAB’s conclusions. First, a majority of 

the Founding Members do not reside in the District. Mr. Kenz, Ms. Arevalo, Ms. 

Ormsby, Ms. Agurto, and Dr. Mooring testified that they resided elsewhere, while 

Ms. Trofe, Mr. Schotsman, and Ms. Jackson testified that they reside in the District.9 

9 As noted above, Mr. Green, who was not present at the hearing, also appears to reside in 

the District based on his resumé. (See R.R. at 627a.) Even so, it remains that a majority of the 

Founding Members reside outside the District. 
17

(See R.R. at 37a-46a.) YSSCS maintains that some of the Founding Members at 

least work in the District, like Ms. Agurto, although she is neither a teacher, a 

student, or a parent of children in the District. Brackbill, 777 A.2d at 137. Further, 

there were no findings by CAB or testimony at the Hearing to rebut CAB’s 

conclusion that a majority of the Founding Members do not own business or property 

in the District. CAB did not, as YSSCS maintains, impose a requirement for YSSCS 

to show that the Founding Members own business or property in the District. Rather, 

CAB analyzed whether there were any “mitigating factors to consider when 

observing that a majority of YSSCS’[s] [F]ounding [Members] and board does not 

reside in [the District].” (CAB Op. at 16-17 (emphasis added).) Like the cases of 

Lorraine and Vitalistic, here, CAB considered whether YSSCS’s evidence of 

sustainable support came from members of the District, such as whether the 

Founding Members reside in the District, or own businesses or property in the 

District. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that CAB erred in finding that Ms. 

Jackson’s testimony was the only supportive testimony at the Hearing, and that a 

majority of the Founding Members are not members of the District. 

3. Signatures for Purposes of Appeal

YSSCS next takes issue with CAB not considering the more than 1,000 

signatures gathered for purposes of appeal as evidence of sustainable support and 

contends that In re Brown decided such. However, in that case, CAB considered 

whether unverified petition signatures not gathered for appeal purposes could 

properly be considered as evidence of sustainable support. There, members of the 

community “circulated petitions for signatures in support of the [c]harter [s]chool[,]” 

and these petitions of support stated that the signer was a resident of the community

where the charter school was proposed, was at least 18 years old, and was signing to 
18

support the creation of the charter school. In re Brown, CAB Docket No. 1999-01 

at 20-21. There was no statement that the petitions were being circulated for 

purposes of appeal. Id. The school district challenged the charter school’s petition

signatures because “there was no certification, attestation[,] or verification of 

accuracy by the actual signature gatherers.” Id. at 20. CAB explained that there is 

no requirement under the CSL that petition signatures be certified, and that these 

signatures “were not gathered as part of the ‘appeal process’ pursuant to Section 

[]1717-A[](i)(2), which are subsequently reviewed by the local [c]ourt of [c]ommon 

[p]leas[,]” but “did in fact contain the very same type of information as required by 

the [CSL]” for appeals purposes, like being a resident of the school district and being 

at least 18 years old. Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, CAB concluded that 

unverified petition signatures could properly be considered as evidence of 

sustainable support. 

Here, YSSCS attempts to argue that CAB should have considered the 1,000 

signatures on the appeal petitions as evidence of sustainable support. In re Brown

does not stand for this proposition; rather, that case stood for the rule that unverified 

signatures on petitions of support that were not collected as part of the appeals 

process, but contained similar information, can properly be considered as evidence 

of sustainable support. The petitions of support in In re Brown were different than 

YSSCS’s appeal petitions here. YSSCS explains that its appeal petitions were titled 

“Petition to Appeal the Norristown Area School District Board of School Directors’ 

Rejection of the Application for a Charter School for [YSSCS,]” and provided a 

statement that “I am signing the Petition to Appeal the August 17, 2020 decision of 

the Norristown Area School District Board of Directors[.]” (YSSCS’s Br. at 6-7

(internal quotation marks omitted).) Thus, YSSCS’s appeal petitions differ from the 
19

petitions of support in In re Brown as they were collected for the purpose of appeal, 

rather than for the purpose of gathering evidence of sustainable support. 

Furthermore, this Court has recently held that the CSL is designed as a “twotiered approach” and, as such, “the trial court’s determination on the procedural 

question of whether the requisite number of signatures have been obtained is

separate from the appeal before the CAB pertaining to the merits of the [] denial of 

[a] charter school application.” Norristown Acad. Charter Sch. v. Norristown Area 

Sch. Dist., 305 A.3d 1191, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023), reargument denied (Jan. 2, 

2024) (emphasis in original). We further explained in Norristown that the trial 

court’s record pertaining to the signatures required for appeal purposes and CAB’s 

record on the merits “are necessarily different in substance and source[.]” Id. 

Therefore, signatures that are collected for purposes of appeal, and necessarily after

“the record [h]as [been] certified by the local board of directors,” 24 P.S. § 17-1717-

A(i)(6), cannot be considered as evidence of sustainable support. See also 

Carbondale, 829 A.2d at 405 (explaining that CAB should not allow a party to 

supplement the record if the information was available to the applicant charterschool 

prior to the school district’s vote). We thus conclude that CAB did not err in not 

considering YSSCS’s signatures for purposes of appeal as evidence of sustainable 

support. 

4. YSSCS’s Evidence of Sustainable Support in the Aggregate

YSSCS maintains that it has presented “sufficient pre-enrollment forms, 

letters of support, and testimony” to demonstrate sustainable support. (YSSCS’s Br. 

at 10.) As demonstrated above, the evidence that can be considered as evidence of 
20

sustainable support are the pre-enrollment forms identifying 226 students10 and Ms. 

Jackson’s testimony. We note that pre-enrollment forms are strong evidence of 

support. See McKeesport Area Sch. Dist. v. Propel Charter Sch. McKeesport, 888 

A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). In Propel Charter School McKeesport, this Court 

considered whether CAB erred in concluding that the applicant charter school 

demonstrated sustainable support. The Court explained that CAB found that the 

charter school submitted petitions of support with 497 signatures, 237 of which were 

signatures of parents requesting enrollment information, and 210 of those signatures 

were from parents who resided in the school district. CAB also found that the charter 

school submitted “letters of support from residents, foundations, businesses[,] and 

elected officials.” Id. at 916. The charter school supplemented the record with 

“previously unavailable information” at a hearing before CAB, submitting 168 preenrollment forms. Id. at 917. Although CAB stated that “there [wa]s no better 

evidence” than the pre-enrollment forms, and that they “clearly evidence[] the level 

of support in the aggregate as required by the CSL[,]” the charter school also

submitted hundreds of signatures on petitions of support and letters of support from 

residents, foundations, businesses, and elected officials. Id. at 916. This Court 

concluded that it “agree[d] with [] CAB that, taken in its entirety, the information 

submitted by [the charter school] is sufficient to prove demonstrated, sustainable 

support for its charter school application.” Id. at 917 (emphasis added). In sum, 

although the charter school had strong evidence of sustainable support based on the 

10 CAB stated that YSSCS collected 133 pre-enrollment forms identifying 159 students for 

enrollment, and online enrollment forms identifying 112 students for enrollment, totaling 271 

students identified for potential enrollment. (CAB Op., FOF ¶¶ 36-38.) CAB then states that at 

least 45 of those 271 students would not be eligible to enroll by YSSCS’ proposed opening date. 

(Id. ¶ 38 n.2.) Therefore, YSSCS identified 226 students for potential enrollment. YSSCS does 

not dispute that 45 students would not be eligible to enroll by YSSCS’ proposed opening date. 

(See generally YSSCS’s Br.)
21

pre-enrollment forms, this Court also considered the charter school’s demonstrated

evidence of sustainable support from other members of the community like 

residents, foundations, businesses, and elected officials. 

In other cases where an applicant charter school demonstrated sustainable 

support, the record reflects evidence of support from the various groups like parents, 

students, teachers, or other community members. See Provident, 134 A.3d at 128

(concluding CAB did not err in finding the charter school demonstrated sustainable 

support where the charter school had “multiple petition[s of support] from 

individuals residing within a 4-block radius of [the school’s] proposed site[,] letters 

from parents, educators and a student[,] and appearances at two public hearings”); 

Montour School Dist., 889 A.2d at 687 (concluding CAB did not err in finding the 

charter school demonstrated sustainable support where the charter school had 

“petitions, community meetings, letters of support, information about financial 

backing from the foundation community, and pre-applications received from 196 

prospective students for enrollment[.]”); Central Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. Founding 

Coal., Infinity Charter Sch., 847 A.2d 195, 201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (citation 

omitted) (concluding CAB did not err in finding the charter school demonstrated 

sustainable support where the charter school had “parents of more than [90] children 

[] express[ing] a direct interest in enrolling their children” and “more than [20] 

separate and unique persons that spoke at the public hearings [] offering support for 

[the charter school], and these speakers represented parents, students and teachers”); 

Carbondale, 829 A.2d at 405 (concluding CAB did not err in finding the charter 

school demonstrated sustainable support where the charter school had 126 preenrollment forms, a well-attended hearing with “standing[-]room only,” petitions of 

support, emails and “letters of support from residents, businesses, and elected 
22

officials,” and monetary donations); Brackbill, 777 A.2d at 138; & In re Ronald 

Brown, CAB Docket No. 1999-1 at 20-22 (concluding CAB did not err in finding 

the charter school demonstrated sustainable support where the charter school had 

several district residents who were parents, teachers, and other members of the 

district who testified in support, petitions of support, and high attendance at three 

informational meetings with “enthusiastic” support from attendees).

Here, YSSCS’s pre-enrollment forms are strong evidence of sustainable 

support, but we must note that YSSCS’s demonstrated support from the remaining 

groups is low. In comparing the evidence of support from different groups in the 

above-listed cases where CAB and this Court concluded that the applicant charter 

schools demonstrated sustainable support, as compared to YSSCS’s evidence, we 

cannot conclude that CAB erred in finding that YSSCS did not demonstrate 

sustainable support. As CAB noted, there is no evidence of support from teachers 

outside the Founding Members, community leaders, community businesses, 

organizations, local leaders, statewide leaders, or other members of the community. 

CAB also correctly determined that a majority of the Founding Members are not 

members of the District community, and Ms. Jackson was also the only member of 

the District community who spoke in support of YSSCS at the Hearing. Although

YSSCS’s evidence of sustainable support “need not demonstrate a threshold level of 

support among each of the discrete groups,” Provident, 134 A.3d at 140, YSSCS 

does need to demonstrate that it “enjoys reasonably sufficient support in the 

aggregate from all groups,” Montour School District, 889 A.2d at 687. The abovelisted cases establish that the charter schools therein demonstrated stronger support 

from parents, students, teachers, and other members of the community in which their 

charter schools were proposed than the support demonstrated here by YSSCS. As 
23

our review is limited to whether errors of law were committed and whether CAB’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence, Provident, 134 A.3d at 139 n.23, we 

are constrained to conclude that CAB did not err in denying YSSCS’s appeal based 

on the lack of evidence of sustainable support. 

B. Equitable Estoppel

YSSCS maintains that CAB could not deny the Second Revised Application 

based on equitable estoppel. 

Equitable estoppel may arise from “an informal promise implied by 

one’s words, deeds, or representations” that induces reasonable reliance 

by another to his detriment. In re Jackson, 280 A.3d 1074, 1083 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2022). Thus, the two essential elements of equitable estoppel 

are inducement and justifiable reliance. Belleville v. David Cutler Grp., 

118 A.3d 1184, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). Equitable estoppel may be 

asserted against the government. Jackson, 280 A.3d at 1083; see also 

Chester Extended Care Ctr. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, . . . 586 A.2d 379, 

382 ([Pa.] 1991). “The inducement may be words or conduct and the 

acts that are induced may be by commission or forbearance provided 

that a change in condition results causing disadvantage to the one 

induced.” Belleville, 118 A.3d at 1199 (quoting Zitelli v. Dermatology 

Educ. & Rsch. Found., . . . 633 A.2d 134, 139 ([Pa.] 1993)); see also 

Jackson, 280 A.3d at 1083.

McLogie Props. Inc. v. Kidder Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 298 A.3d 1193, 1205 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2023), appeal denied, 311 A.3d 551 (Pa. 2024). For example, in McLogie, 

the appellant purchased a lot and applied for a zoning permit to build a residence. 

The zoning officer approved the appellant’s zoning application and issued him a 

zoning permit. While under construction, the appellant observed that the 

foundation’s front elevation was lower than what was shown in the approved plan. 

The appellant then sought advice from the building officer as the building officer 

and zoning officer share duties. The building officer told the appellant to submit a 
24

revised plan. The appellant did so, and the building officer approved it without 

informing the zoning officer. The building officer also never revoked the appellant’s 

original zoning permit. The zoning officer learned of the appellant’s revised plan 

and sent an enforcement notice to the appellant informing it that it had built 

something without obtaining a zoning permit. The appellant appealed the 

enforcement notice. The building officer admitted that the lack of communication 

between him and the zoning officer may have caused some confusion. This Court 

concluded that the appellant was entitled to relief under equitable estoppel because 

it had established inducement and reliance. Namely, the appellant “relied to its 

detriment on [the building officer]’s approval of the revised construction plan, 

failure to revoke the building permit upon plan revision, and failure to inform [the 

appellant] that additional zoning approval must be sought[.]” Id. 

YSSCS argues it modeled the Second Revised Application off applications 

for its other charter schools that have been approved and, thus, CAB is equitably 

estopped from denying its appeal. Unlike the appellant in McLogie, YSSCS does 

not explain where or how CAB represented that it would grant a charter to 

YSSCS. YSSCS rather simply maintains that CAB granted a similar application in 

Young Scholars of McKeesport, thus it “implicitly gave its stamp of approval” of 

YSSCS’s Second Revised Application, but these applications are different 

applications for different charter schools. (See YSSCS’s Br. at 24-25 (stating that 

YSSCS’s Second Revised Application has “some differences” from the application 

in Young Scholars of McKeesport).) The granting of other charter school 

applications does not amount to inducement or justifiable reliance absent some 

“‘words, deeds, or representations’” from CAB “that induces reasonable reliance by 

[YSSCS] to [its] detriment.” McLogie, 298 A.3d at 1205 (quoting In re Jackson, 
25

280 A.3d at 1083). Because YSSCS has not shown inducement from CAB, it cannot 

show justifiable reliance, either. Therefore, CAB was not equitably estopped from 

considering the Second Revised Application on its own merits as YSSCS has not 

demonstrated the elements of equitable estoppel. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

In sum, we cannot conclude that CAB erred in denying YSSCS’s appeal based 

on a lack of evidence of sustainable support. YSSCS’s evidence in the aggregate 

does not lend itself to a conclusion that YSSCS demonstrated sustainable support. 

Lastly, equitable estoppel principles did not prevent CAB from considering 

YSSCS’s Second Revised Application on its own merits and denying it. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

__________________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Young Scholars of Southeastern :

Pennsylvania Charter School, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 514 C.D. 2023

 : 

Norristown Area School District :

(Charter School Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, September 5, 2024, the Order of the Charter School Appeal Board

entered in the above-captioned matter is AFFIRMED. 

__________________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge