IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vision Academy Charter School :

of Excellence, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Southeast Delco School District :

(Charter School Appeal Board), : No. 46 C.D. 2022

Respondent : Submitted: October 28, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge 

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: March 30, 2023

Vision Academy Charter School of Excellence (Charter School) 

petitions this Court for review of the Charter School Appeal Board’s (CAB) 

December 17, 2021 order affirming the Southeast Delco School District’s (District)

decision that denied its charter. The Charter School presents fives issues for this 

Court’s review: (1) whether CAB erred by determining that the Charter School’s

revised charter application (Revised Application) did not satisfy the requirements of 

Section 1719-A of the Charter School Law (CSL);

1

(2) whether CAB erred by 

determining that the Revised Application did not demonstrate its capability, in terms 

of support and planning, to provide a comprehensive learning experience to students 

1 Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, added by Section 1 of the Act of June 19, 

1997, P.L. 225, 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A (relating to application contents).
2

pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the CSL;2(3) whether CAB erred by 

determining that the Revised Application did not conform to the legislative intent 

outlined in Section 1702-A of the CSL;3(4) whether CAB erred by determining that 

the Revised Application failed to demonstrate that the Charter School may serve as 

a model for other public schools pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(iv) of the CSL;4

and (5) whether CAB is estopped from denying the Revised Application. After 

review, this Court reverses and remands.

Facts

On November 14, 2019, the Charter School filed an application with 

the District (Original Application) to open and operate a charter school pursuant to 

the CSL. On December 18, 2019, the District’s Board of Directors (Board) held a 

public hearing on the Charter School’s Original Application. The Board heard 

testimony from the Charter School and the District’s administration. Pursuant to 

Section 1717-A(e)(2)(i) of the CSL, the Board also took public comments during the 

hearing regarding the Charter School’s Original Application. Five people spoke 

during the public comment period. On February 27, 2020, the District voted to deny 

the Original Application. On March 6, 2020, the District issued an Opinion 

Supporting Denial. 

On March 12, 2020, the Charter School incorporated as a domestic 

nonprofit nonstock corporation. On April 6, 2020, the Charter School filed its 

Revised Application with the District. The Revised Application added more 

curriculum, but was otherwise the same as its Original Application. No public 

hearing was held regarding the Charter School’s Revised Application and, on May 

2 Added by Section 1 of the Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A (relating 

to charter school establishment).

3 Added by Section 1 of the Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, 24 P.S. § 17-1702-A.

4 Added by Section 1 of the Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(iv).
3

28, 2020, the District voted to deny the Charter School’s Revised Application. In 

denying the Revised Application, the District issued written rulings setting forth its 

reasoning for the denial. On July 23, 2020, the Charter School filed an Emergency 

Petition to Certify Petition for Appeal (Petition) with the Delaware County Common 

Pleas Court (Common Pleas). The Charter School obtained the signatures of 1,425 

qualified District residents over the age of 18, which exceeded the number of 

signatures required to qualify a charter school to pursue an appeal from a charter 

denial to CAB. On August 27, 2020, Common Pleas held a hearing on the Petition, 

which the District did not oppose. Also on August 27, 2020, Common Pleas certified

the Petition and authorized the Charter School’s appeal to CAB. On December 17, 

2021, CAB affirmed the District’s denial of the Charter School’s Revised 

Application.5 The Charter School appealed to this Court.6

Discussion

Section 1719-A(1), (8), (14), and (15) of the CSL 

The Charter School first argues that CAB erred by determining that the 

Revised Application did not satisfy the requirements of Section 1719-A(1)

(applicant identification); (8) (community group involvement); (14) (extracurricular

activities); and (15) (criminal histories) of the CSL. 

With respect to the Charter School’s identification, CAB explained:

5 CAB’s order to affirm the District’s denial of the Charter School’s charter was based on 

CAB’s October 17, 2021 vote, wherein three CAB members voted to deny the appeal and two 

CAB members voted to grant the appeal. 

6

“Our review of [CAB’s] decision is limited to determining whether constitutional rights 

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

substantial evidence.” Propel Charter Schs. v. Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh, 271 A.3d 1, 6 n.9 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2021) (quoting New Hope Acad. Charter Sch. v. Sch. Dist. of the City of York, 89 A.3d 

731, 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)).
4

The applying entity did not exist at the time of the 

December 18, 2019 hearing. It was not created until

March 12, 2020, according to the Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Corporations and Charitable Organizations

[(Pennsylvania Corporation Bureau)]. This was after the 

[Original A]pplication[,] and only [after] the District 

identified the issue in the initial denial. Findings of Fact

Nos. 1, 7, and 8. In the Revised Application, [the Charter 

School] identified the applicant as Vision Academy 

Charter School of Excellence. This contradiction calls 

into question who is in a position of control of the 

proposed Charter School. Charter schools are public

schools and from that there is a strong affirmative duty of 

proactive candor owing to the public. That was not 

provided. The District was right to question this factor and 

[the Charter School] offered no adequate explanation.

[The Charter School] failed on this factor. 

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 13.

The Charter School contends that the CSL does not prohibit, and in fact,

expressly authorizes, an unincorporated nonprofit association to establish a charter

school and that, at the time of the Original Application and public hearing, the 

Charter School existed as a legal entity recognized under Pennsylvania law in clear 

contrast to CAB’s findings. Specifically, the Charter School asserts that it was an 

unincorporated nonprofit association when it filed the Original Application and 

when the public hearing was held, and cites Section 9112 of the Pennsylvania 

Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Law (Law)7to support its position. 

The Charter School declares that because an unincorporated nonprofit association is 

recognized as a legal entity in Pennsylvania that may own and dispose of property,

8

the Charter School existed when it filed the Original Application.

7

15 Pa.C.S. § 9112 (An unincorporated nonprofit association consists of two or more 

individuals who are joined together for a limited nonprofit purpose. Such an agreement to join 

together may be “oral, in record form or implied from conduct for one or more common, nonprofit 

purposes.”).

8

See Section 9114(a) of the Law, 15 Pa.C.S. § 9114(a) (providing that a “nonprofit 

association is a legal entity distinct from its members and managers”).
5

The District rejoins that, according to the Pennsylvania Corporation 

Bureau, the Charter School was created on March 12, 2020, and, thus, did not exist 

at the time of the December 18, 2019 hearing. The District maintains that,

notwithstanding its concerns as to the Charter School’s identity as expressed at the 

Board hearing, and in the District’s denial of the Original Application, the Charter 

School offered no explanation, until the instant appeal, now claiming that the initial 

applicant was an unincorporated nonprofit association. The District asserts that 

because the Charter School did not raise this claim before the District or CAB, it 

cannot now raise it in this appeal, and cites School District of Pittsburgh v. Provident 

Charter School for Children with Dyslexia, 134 A.3d 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), to 

support its position.

The Provident Charter School Court held:

The [s]chool [d]istrict contends that [CAB’s] adjudication 

did not account for the fact that “there is even less choice 

for students who would attend Provident [Charter School] 

than what students elsewhere in the [d]istrict enjoy.” 

School District Brief at 37. There is no record evidence to 

substantiate this claim. The [s]chool [d]istrict did not 

supplement the record before [CAB] or provide any 

evidence about its programs. The [s]chool [d]istrict 

cannot now complain that [CAB] did not consider 

evidence not presented to it.

Id. at 143. Similarly, here, as evidenced by the record, the Charter School contends

for the first time that CAB erred by concluding that the Charter School did not exist 

at the time of the Original Application because it was a legally recognized 

unincorporated nonprofit association that incorporated prior to submitting its 

Revised Application.

However, Section 1719-A of the CSL specifies: “An application to 

establish a charter school shall include all of the following information: (1) The 

identification of the charter applicant.” 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A (emphasis added). 
6

Thus, whether the Charter School, i.e., Vision Academy Charter School of 

Excellence, was an unincorporated nonprofit association or incorporated entity is of 

no moment. The Original Application, the Revised Application, and the hearing 

testimony reflected that the applicant was Vision Academy Charter School of 

Excellence. Any concerns that the Charter School could not be located in the 

Pennsylvania Corporation Bureau were alleviated by the Charter School’s March 12, 

2020 incorporation. Given the fact that the same named entity filed the Original 

Application and the Revised Application, the applicant’s identity was clear. 

Accordingly, the Charter School satisfied the applicant identification requirement in 

Section 1719-A(1) of the CSL.

Relative to the CSL’s community group involvement requirement, 

CAB described:

Section 1719-A(8) of the CSL requires an application to 

include information on involvement of community 

groups. The District points out that the [Original] 

Application and Revised Application are silent on this 

issue. [The Charter School] responds by saying, [“][the 

Charter School] did not have any community groups 

involved in the planning process; therefore, none are 

identified in the [Revised] Application. There is no 

requirement under the [CSL] which would compel an 

applicant to identify community partnerships that do not 

yet exist.[”] [Charter Sch. Br.] at [] 9. 

The interpretation offered by [the Charter School] 

acknowledges that it did not have specific, committed

community partnerships as of submission and 

consideration of the [Original and Revised] Applications, 

however, it also acknowledges that it did not name certain 

organizations that it might approach upon grant of a

charter. The CSL does require community groups to be 

“involved in the charter school planning process,” but [the 

Charter School] seems to suggest that the language is not 

time-sensitive and community engagement must occur at 

some point in the planning process. However, without 

disclosure or identification in the application of specific, 
7

committed community partners, or potential community 

partners, [the Charter School’s] application is not 

compliant with the requirements, and the intent, of the 

CSL[,] 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A(8)[,] because such an 

interpretation would vitiate the pla[i]n language of the 

CSL and cannot be countenanced. CAB disagrees with an 

interpretation that CSL requirements cannot be met unless 

a charter is first obtained. [The Charter School] failed on 

this factor.

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 14.

The Charter School argues that the CSL’s plain language does not 

support CAB’s interpretation that specific committed or potential community 

partners must be identified in the application. The Charter School further claims 

that the Revised Application included numerous references to potential community 

partners and involvement, specifically, the “tremendous community support and the 

collaboration of local university representatives” in connection with its proposed 

extended day program. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 113a. The Charter School 

adds that Charter School founding member Dr. Anthony Mooring discussed the 

Charter School’s community partnerships at the December 18, 2019 public hearing 

on the Original Application, stating in connection with the extended day program

that the Charter School will work in community collaboration and will want to “work 

with local universities.” R.R. at 31a. The Charter School further emphasizes that 

Vision Academy Charter School in William Penn School District’s (Vision William 

Penn) parent teacher association (PTA) president Nicole Chanel explained at the

public hearing that the PTA engages the school and community partners in 

fundraisers and other similar activities and programs, which is a model that the 

Charter School intends to follow.

The Charter School also stresses that the Revised Application provides 

that its “founders expect to have an active relationship with the community locally 

and more broadly in the region, reaching out for volunteers from local universities 
8

and businesses for support in the Extended Day Program.” R.R. at 150a-151a. To 

this end, the Charter School’s “Board has established a Community Advisory 

Committee that is the official connection between the school and its broader 

community.” R.R. at 151a. In the Charter School’s early planning stages its

founding members “reached out to a number of community organizations and

community leaders . . . and intends on working to create a more defined collaborative 

relationship with [Vision William Penn] . . . as well as other Core Knowledge[9]

schools in the Mid-Atlantic region.” R.R. at 164a.

The Charter School proclaims that in Section III.1.D of the Revised 

Application, it states that the Charter School will involve community groups in the 

planning process by ensuring that “the community plays an important role in the

development and implementation of this [charter] school [and] the Board has 

formally identified in its by-laws that there will be a Community Advisory 

Committee that will provide support to the [B]oard.” R.R. at 164a; see also R.R. at 

4192a. With respect to professional development opportunities, the Charter School 

declares that the Revised Application provides that the Charter School “will employ 

its university and community business connections in organizing workshops that will 

enrich staff experience.” R.R. at 182a.

9 Anthony Mooring, one of the Charter School’s founders, explained Core Knowledge as 

follows:

A challenging curriculum, we want to use a research[-]based Core 

Knowledge curriculum, curriculum. Now, we believe this will 

improve student achievement, mastery of information, and it builds 

on knowledge learned so the more they learn, the more they will 

continue to learn through this Core Knowledge curriculum.

And this curriculum is not new, it’s been proven and used before, 

uh, one of the places it was used is Newark Charter School. Newark 

Charter School curriculum is a melding, it met the Delaware 

standards.

R.R. at 25a.
9

Section 1719-A of the CSL mandates: “An application to establish a 

charter school shall include all of the following information: . . . (8) Information on 

the manner in which community groups will be involved in the charter school 

planning process.” 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A (emphasis added). “[T]he applicant need 

only set forth the information mandated by the [CSL], i.e., information on how

community groups will be involved in the planning process. [The Charter School’s] 

[R]evised [A]pplication did so.” Provident Charter Sch., 134 A.3d at 138 (bold 

emphasis added; italic emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the Charter School met the 

community group involvement requirement in Section 1719-A(8) of the CSL.

Concerning extracurricular activities, CAB explicated:

Section 1719-A(14) [of the CSL] requires an application 

to include information on extracurriculars, and, in 

particular, whether any agreements have been entered into 

or plans developed with the local school district regarding 

participation of the charter school students in 

extracurricular activities with the school district. The 

District points out that the [Original] Application and 

Revised Application are silent on this issue. On pages 12-

13 in its brief [the Charter School] makes an argument, 

similar to its argument about community group 

engagement, about extracurriculars. Essentially, [the 

Charter School] is of the position that at the time of 

submission of the Original Application and Revised 

Application it was too early for that information to exist.

Again, the pla[i]n wording of the statute requires 

something on this factor; thus, [the Charter School] should 

have put something forward. [The Charter School] failed 

on this factor.

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 14-15.

The Charter School argues that the Revised Application expressly 

provides that “[t]here have not been extra[]curricular activities jointly planned with 

the [] [D]istrict yet. However, [the Charter School] will seek [every] opportunity to 

cooperate with [the] . . . District in regard to extracurricular activities.” R.R. at 155a. 
10

Section 1719-A of the CSL mandates, in relevant part: “An application

to establish a charter school shall include all of the following information: . . . (14) 

Whether any agreements have been entered into or plans developed with the 

local school district regarding participation of the charter school students in 

extracurricular activities within the school district.” 24 P.S. § 17-1719-A (emphasis 

added). Contrary to CAB’s conclusion, the Charter School was not silent on this 

issue. Indeed, the Charter School was required to state whether it had entered into 

agreements or had developed plans regarding extracurricular activities, and the 

Charter School declared that it had not, as of that time. The Charter School provided 

the prescribed information. Accordingly, the Charter School satisfied the 

extracurricular activities requirement in Section 1719-A(14) of the CSL.

Regarding criminal histories, CAB stated:

Section 1719-A(15) [of the CSL] requires an application 

to include information on criminal background checks. 

The District points out that the [Original] Application and 

Revised Application are silent on this issue. Again, [the 

Charter School] says [sic] that it was too early for that 

information to exist. Again, the plain wording of the 

statute requires something on this factor; thus, [the Charter 

School] should have put something forward. [The Charter 

School] failed on this factor.

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 15.

The Charter School argues that the Revised Application contained 

Appendix J, the Charter School’s Personnel Handbook (Handbook), which specifies 

the requirements to be completed before employment commences, including, in 

relevant part, “Employee Background Check,” which states “[a]ll employees must 

comply with state requirements such as, but not limited to, fingerprinting, . . . Child 

Abuse Index, and Criminal Record Statement.” R.R. at 4217a. In addition, the 

Charter School states that although the Revised Application did not set forth the 
11

Charter School faculty and staff names and clearances, it identified the job 

qualifications for the various Charter School faculty and staff positions. See R.R. at 

184a-188a.

Section 1719-A of the CSL mandates: “An application to establish a 

charter school shall include all of the following information: . . . (15) A report of 

criminal history record, pursuant to [S]ection 111 [of the Public School Code of 

1949],

[10]

for all individuals who shall have direct contact with students.” 24 

P.S. § 17-1719-A (emphasis added). 

Because a charter school has not yet been established 

when an applicant seeks a charter, it is unreasonable and 

unrealistic to expect the charter application to contain the 

specific names and clearances for all proposed faculty and 

staff positions. . . . [T]he approach taken by [the Charter 

School] in its application was appropriate and compliant 

with the [CSL]. Therefore, [the Charter School’s] failure 

to provide specific names and clearances for the [Charter

S]chool’s faculty and staff was not a proper basis for 

[CAB’s] denial of its [Revised A]pplication.

Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. Foundling Coal. of the Infinity Charter Sch., 847 A.2d

195, 204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (quoting CAB Dec. at 18 (citations omitted)).11 

Accordingly, the Charter School has satisfied the criminal histories requirement in 

Section 1719-A(15) of the CSL.

Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the CSL

The Charter School next argues that CAB erred by determining that the 

Revised Application did not demonstrate its capability, in terms of support and 

10 Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, added by Section 1 of the Act of July 1, 

1985, P.L. 129, 24 PS. § 1-111 (“Criminal history of employes and prospective employes; 

conviction of [employes of] certain offenses.”).

11 The Infinity Charter School Court “agree[d] with [CAB] that [the charter school] did 

everything that could reasonably be done to include this information in its application.” Infinity 

Charter Sch., 847 A.2d at 204. 
12

planning, to provide a comprehensive learning experience to students, including but 

not limited to, through its financial plan, its proposed facility, and its curriculum, 

pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the CSL, as such conclusion is not supported 

by substantial evidence.

Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the CSL mandates that the Charter School 

establish: “The capability of the charter school applicant, in terms of support and 

planning, to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students pursuant to the 

adopted charter.” 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(ii). 

Relative to the Charter School’s financial plan, CAB determined:

Review of the budgetary information submitted in the 

Original Application, and unchanged in the Revised 

Application, supports the District[,] as the information is 

not adequate to support a conclusion of a comprehensive 

learning experience. The [D]istrict rightly complains 

about a lack of information on startup/repayment costs, the 

source of legal costs, special education training, oversight 

and internal controls, overly optimistic salary 

assumptions, thin margin, and no reserve.

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 17.

However, “the [CSL] does not require such specifics in the budget as

long as the school board or[,] upon appeal[,] [CAB] can determine that the applicant

is capable of providing a comprehensive learning experience for students.” 

McKeesport Area Sch. Dist. v. Propel Charter Sch. McKeesport, 888 A.2d 912, 918 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (quoting Infinity Charter Sch., 847 A.2d at 202).

Here, the record evidence reveals that the Charter School hired Charter 

Choices to assist with its financial planning. Joseph Martin12 testified that Charter 

Choices has “provide[d] financial management and back office services to schools 

around Pennsylvania[ . . .] over the past [15] years[.] [It has] supported over [50] 

12 Joseph Martin works with Charter Choices. See R.R. at 34a.
13

schools assisting them with back office support, and [it] provided [] the financial 

component support for th[e] [Original A]pplication.”

13 R.R. at 35a. The financial 

budget included in the Revised Application sets forth, inter alia, projected revenue 

sources, including estimated state and federal aid, federal funds for child nutrition, 

and revenue from regular and special education, see R.R. at 199a, as well as 

projected operational expenses, including average teacher salaries, health and dental 

insurance, property and general liability insurance, and similar expenses, see R.R. at 

4205a, and contracted services, including business, audit, legal, professional

development, payroll, special education, and food services. See R.R. at 4207a. 

There are also budgeted line items for transportation and similar services, books and 

equipment, and site costs, see R.R. at 4206a, and for personnel, including

administration, instruction, aides, and similar positions. See R.R. at 4206a. 

In addition, the Revised Application provides for working capital and 

specifically sets forth that “the Business Manager’s personnel shall provide 

assistance to the [Charter] School to seek a line of credit facility [sic] with a financial 

institution to be utilized to fund seasonal or other cash flow deficiencies” thus, 

squarely addressing and eliminating the District’s and CAB’s concerns regarding 

potential budget deficits. R.R. at 173a. Accordingly, this Court holds that 

substantial evidence does not support CAB’s determination that the Revised 

Application failed to demonstrate the Charter School’s capability, in terms of 

support and planning, to provide a comprehensive learning experience to students

through its financial plan. 

With respect to the Charter School’s proposed facility, CAB concluded:

[The Charter School] is of the position that the District is 

attempting to demand more information than the CSL 

13 The financial component in the Revised Application is unchanged. The public hearing 

was held before the Revised Application was submitted.
14

requires in connection with the proposed facility. As such,

[the Charter School] does not further elaborate on this 

factor as part of the application process.

These arguments are akin to those put forth regarding 

community group engagement, extracurriculars, and 

background checks . . . i.e., there is no need to produce 

such information now. This, again, calls into question the 

application process and advances an interpretation that 

undermines efforts to have information provided by the 

applicant as part of the [application] process. Further, 

even if information is provided, (or that the District 

requires more information than the CSL requires)[,] the 

District openly and rightfully questions if the retail space 

at the facility could ever appropriately constitute 

educational space necessary for a school.

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 18.

This Court has explained:

The CSL requires an applicant to provide “[a] description 

of and address of the physical facility in which the charter 

school will be located and the ownership thereof and any 

lease agreements.” Section 1719-A(11) of the CSL, 24 

P.S. § 17-1719-A(11). Further, under Section 1722-A(a) 

of the [CSL],

[14]

a charter school may be located on “space 

provided on a privately owned site, in a public building or 

in any other suitable location.” 24 P.S. § 17-1722-A(a). 

A charter school facility must comply only with the public 

school regulations that concern health or safety of 

students. [See] Section 1722-A(b) of the CSL, 24 P.S. § 

17-1722-A(b).

Carbondale Area Sch. Dist. v. Fell Charter Sch., 829 A.2d 400, 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2003).

Here, in its Revised Application, the Charter School provided the 

Charter School’s intended location, i.e., description and address, see R.R. at 173a, 

the identity of the building’s ownership, and the Letter of Intent for Lease. See R.R. 

at 1415a. The Revised Application further included:

14 Added by Section 1 of the Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225.
15

The building will fully comply with all [Americans With 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (]ADA[)15] and state and federal 

safety regulations.

The [Charter S]chool is fully committed to meeting all 

building code, life safety and accessibility requirements[,]

and has taken the necessary preliminary steps to gain an 

idea of the scope and cost of the work that will be 

necessary to bring the building up to code and to ensure 

the safety of all of the students. The [Charter] School will 

take any additional measures above and beyond those 

required by code as requested to ensure the safety and 

welfare of all building occupants. [The Charter] School 

and site owners will execute a lease with options for 

renewal. The site owners will provide all of the finances 

and will do any fit-out required during the term of the 

lease. This will be repaid by the [Charter] School on a 

monthly basis during the first 5-year period. This 

projected amount has been included in the attached [5]-

year proforma budget.

R.R. at 173a-174a.

[This Court] [dis]agree[s] with [] CAB that [the Charter 

School] [failed to] compl[y] with the requirements of the

CSL. Although the additional information would be 

helpful in making a determination, it is not statutorily

required. As we stated in Brackbill [v. Ron Brown Charter 

School, 777 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001)], “[a]lthough an 

applicant must include a proposed facility in its 

application, there is no requirement that the facility be 

under a contractual obligation before the charter is 

granted.” Id. at 139.

Carbondale Area Sch. Dist., 829 A.2d at 408. Accordingly, this Court holds that 

substantial evidence does not support CAB’s determination that the Revised 

Application failed to demonstrate the Charter School’s capability, in terms of 

support and planning, to provide a comprehensive learning experience to students 

through its proposed facility. 

15 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213.
16

Concerning the Charter School’s curriculum, CAB stated:

Although a charter school application is not required to 

“completely describe the content of the curriculum,” it 

must be adequately described. Appeal of Denial of 

Charter for Career Connections Charter Middle Sch[.], 

(CAB No. 2006-03) [(]citing In re: Pocono Mountain 

Mathematics [&] Tech[.] Charter Sch[.], (CAB No. 2004-

5)[)]. It seems that the District was reasonable in rejecting 

the [Original and Revised] Applications.

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 20.

In its cover letter accompanying the Revised Application, the Charter 

School outlined the District’s concerns regarding its curriculum, including, inter 

alia: the Spanish curriculum is unnecessary because it is not the most prominent 

language in the District; contracting for disabled student services is insufficient; the 

Charter School did not adequately discuss positive behavior support, discipline of 

special education students, least restrictive environment, state and local assessment, 

restraint, and seclusion; and the curriculum and textbooks do not align with current 

Pennsylvania core standards. See R.R. at 99a.

The Charter School responded:

The Revised Application identifies a robust and thorough 

recitation of the curriculum’s alignment with the 

[Pennsylvania (]PA[)] [Safety and Security ] Curriculum 

Framework, PA Core Standards and PA Academic

Standards. Indeed, the [Original] Application was also 

clear that the curriculum is aligned to current state 

standards. It provides details and examples of the 

coursework that will be provided to its students and 

thoroughly identifies the offerings for these areas of the 

curriculum.

With respect to the [] Board’s findings related to [the 

Charter School’s] Spanish curriculum, [the Charter 

School] does not claim that Spanish is the most spoken 

foreign language in the [D]istrict. Rather, [it] [is]

proposing to teach a world language, starting in 
17

kindergarten, that meets the state requirements for 

teaching world languages. The [Original] Application

clearly identifies that its world languages curriculum will 

align with the American Council on the Teaching of 

Foreign Languages [] standards and World-Readiness 

Standards for Learning Languages and satisfy the 

requirements provided under [PA] law for the teaching of 

world languages.

R.R. at 99a-100a. 

The Charter School expounded:

With regard to the [] Board’s concerns with [English 

Language Learners (]ELL[)] and the statistics provided, 

the [] Board does not provide us with any evidence that 

they [sic] estimated large concentration of 3% of District 

[s]tudents being an [ELL] is actually a smaller percentage. 

The information contained in [the Original] Application is 

public information obtained from Future Ready PA[16]and 

is reliable. A 3% ELL population, as in the District, is a 

considerably large percentage. 

. . . .

With regard to the [] Board’s concerns regarding special 

education services, the Revised Application will [sic] 

include all provisions that are consistent with [PA] law, 

federal law and regulations, including revising and adding 

provisions to identify the plan for [sic] to include students 

receiving special education services in the regular 

education program, where appropriate, and consistent with 

[PA] law. Our policies regarding Positive Behavior

Support, discipline of special education students, the least 

restrictive environment, state and local assessments and 

restraints and seclusion are fully addressed in the Revised 

Application. Curriculum mapping has been adjusted in the 

Revised Application to indicate full alignment with the 

current [PA] standards.

Further, our curriculum for English learners with 

disabilities, provided in the [Original] Application, shows 

16

“The Future Ready PA Index [(Index)] is a collection of school progress measures related 

to school and student success. The Index includes a range of assessment, on-track, and readiness 

indicators, to more accurately report student learning, growth, and success in the classroom and 

beyond.” https://www.futurereadypa.org (last visited Mar. 29, 2023).
18

that all English learners with disabilities are eligible for 

special education services which will comply with all state 

and federal laws and regulations. The [Original] 

Application also demonstrates that [the Charter School] 

will comply with the [Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act],

[17]

[the National School of Public 

Administration and Local Government (]ESDDA[),

18]

Section 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973],

[19]

[the] 

ADA, [the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act],

[20]

the G[]askin Settlement [A]greement[21]and [title 22 of ] 

the Pennsylvania Code [(Education)]. [The Charter 

School] has demonstrated that it is committed to providing 

equal opportunity in formal education and extracurricular 

activities to students with disabilities. 

R.R. at 100a-101a.

Indeed, in its Revised Application, the Charter School included 

Appendix B - Aligned Curriculum, which detailed curriculum frameworks aligned

to PA Core Standards and Pacing Plans, PA ELL Standards, and PA academic 

standards. See R.R. at 482a-4123a. Accordingly, this Court holds that substantial 

evidence does not support CAB’s determination that the Revised Application failed 

to demonstrate the Charter School’s capability, in terms of support and planning, to 

provide a comprehensive learning experience to students through its curriculum.

In sum, the record evidence clearly reveals that the Charter School 

demonstrated its capability, in terms of support and planning, to provide a 

comprehensive learning experience to students through, inter alia, its financial plan,

17 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1487.

18 The ESDDA “is the educational unit of the National Center of Public Administration 

and Local Government with the mission of training a body of specialized officials of the Public 

Administration with comprehensive professional training.” www.ekdd.gr/en/the-school/esddaprofile/ (last visited Mar. 29, 2023).

19 29 U.S.C. § 794 (relating to nondiscrimination under federal grants and programs).

20 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.

21 “The Gaskin Settlement Agreement is a formal resolution between the Pennsylvania 

Department of Education (PDE) and a group of families and advocacy organizations who had filed 

a class-action lawsuit against PDE on behalf of a group of children with disabilities in 1994.” 

www.portageareasd.org/gaskinsagreement (last visited Mar. 29, 2023).
19

its proposed facility, and its curriculum. Accordingly, CAB erred by determining

that the Revised Application failed to demonstrate its capability, in terms of support 

and planning, to provide a comprehensive learning experience to students through 

its financial plan, its proposed facility, and its curriculum in accordance with Section 

1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the CSL.

Section 1702-A of the CSL

The Charter School next argues that CAB erred by determining that the 

Revised Application did not conform to the legislative intent outlined in Section 

1702-A of the CSL, which provides:

It is the intent of the General Assembly, in enacting [the 

CSL], to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils 

and community members to establish and maintain 

schools that operate independently from the existing 

school district structure as a method to accomplish all of 

the following:

(1) Improve pupil learning.

(2) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils.

(3) Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching 

methods.

(4) Create new professional opportunities for teachers, 

including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning 

program at the school site.

(5) Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices 

in the types of educational opportunities that are 

available within the public school system.

(6) Hold the schools established under [the CSL]

accountable for meeting measurable academic standards 

and provide the school with a method to establish 

accountability systems.

24 P.S. § 17-1702-A (emphasis added).
20

The legislative concept was to retain the charter schools’

accountability to state and local authority[,] but afford 

charter schools the flexibility to provide an innovative and 

unique curriculum and to develop educational techniques 

that might serve as models for all public schools. To this 

end, the legislature relieved charter schools from having 

to follow many of the laws and regulations governing 

other public schools, in the hope that freeing charter 

schools to function without being hindered by these 

mandates would encourage innovation.

W. Chester Area Sch. Dist. v. Collegium Charter Sch., 760 A.2d 452, 455 n.6 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2000), aff’d, 812 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 2002).

CAB concluded: “[T]he shortcomings of the proposed curriculum do 

not convince that [the Charter School] will improve pupil learning. The main 

reason is want of new program. There appears to be nothing new beyond the 

District’s offerings and the offerings of [Vision William Penn].” CAB Dec. 17, 2021 

Op. at 21-22 (emphasis added). However, the existence of similar programs in a 

school district does not prove fatal to a consideration of whether a charter school can 

serve as a model for other public schools pursuant to Section 1717-A(e) of the CSL. 

See Infinity Charter Sch. Accordingly, CAB erred by determining that the Revised 

Application did not conform to the legislative intent for its stated reason.

Section 1717-A(e)(2)(iv) of the CSL

The Charter School next argues that CAB erred by determining that the 

Revised Application failed to demonstrate that the Charter School may serve as a 

model for other public schools pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(iv) of the CSL.

Section 1717-A(e)(2)(iv) of the CSL mandates that the Charter School 

establish: “The extent to which the charter school may serve as a model for other 

public schools.” 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(iv). 
21

Here, CAB concluded:

The District evaluated [the Charter School’s Original and 

Revised] Applications by the metric of the extent to which 

it will serve as a model for other public schools. [See] 24 

P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(iv). CAB has reasoned that 

charter schools should improve public education. Given 

the discussion above: deficiencies in the application; lack 

of new program; inadequate facility; and, a limited 

financial plan, one can rightfully conclude that the 

proposed [charter] school would not be a model for other 

public schools, as required by the CSL. The District was 

right to do so here.

CAB Dec. 17, 2021 Op. at 22. Based on this Court’s rulings above that substantial 

evidence does not support CAB’s determinations and it is those same determinations 

upon which CAB concluded that the Charter School would not be a model for other 

public schools, there is no basis for CAB’s ruling and this Court cannot conclude 

that the Charter School would not be a model school for other public schools. 

Accordingly, CAB erred by holding otherwise.

Conclusion

CAB erred by determining that the Revised Application did not satisfy 

the requirements of Section 1719-A(1) (applicant identification); (8) (community 

group involvement); (14) (extracurricular activities); and (15) (criminal histories) of 

the CSL. Further, CAB’s determination that the Revised Application did not 

demonstrate the Charter School’s capability, in terms of support and planning, to 

provide a comprehensive learning experience to students through its financial plan, 

its proposed facility, and its curriculum, pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the 

CSL, is not supported by substantial evidence. In addition, CAB erred by 

determining that the Revised Application did not conform to the legislative intent 

outlined in Section 1702-A of the CSL, and that the Revised Application failed to 
22

demonstrate that the Charter School may serve as a model for other public schools 

pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(iv) of the CSL.

22

 

Based on the foregoing, CAB’s order is reversed and the matter is 

remanded to CAB to direct the District to issue the Charter School a charter. 

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

22 Based on the aforementioned dispositions, this Court does not reach the Charter School’s 

remaining issue.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vision Academy Charter School :

of Excellence, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Southeast Delco School District :

(Charter School Appeal Board), : No. 46 C.D. 2022

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2023, the Charter School Appeal 

Board’s (CAB) December 17, 2021 order is REVERSED, and the matter is 

REMANDED to CAB to direct the Southeast Delco School District to issue Vision 

Academy Charter School of Excellence a charter.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge