IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Eastern University Academy Charter :

School, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1167 C.D. 2019

v. :

: Submitted: May 11, 2020

School District of Philadelphia, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: July 10, 2020

Eastern University Academy Charter School (the Academy) petitions for 

review of the August 14, 2019 order of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Department of Education, State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB), affirming the 

School Reform Commission of the School District of Philadelphia’s (SRC) decision 

not to renew the Academy’s Charter.1

 

1 The Charter School Law, Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, as amended, 24 P.S. § 17-1725-A. 

The CSL amended Article XVII-A of the Public School Code of 1949 (“School Code”), Act of March 

10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §§ 1-101–27-2702. The Charter School Law was enacted in 

1997 

to create and maintain schools that operate independently from the 

existing school district structure as a means to, inter alia, improve pupil 

learning and increase learning opportunities, encourage the use of 

different and innovative teaching methods, and provide parents and 

pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities 
2

The Academy’s Stated Mission to Provide a

“College-Integrated Learning Experience”

Through its Partnership with Eastern University

The Academy was founded by Eastern University, a co-educational 

Christian University located in St. Davids, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia. In 2009, 

the School District of Philadelphia (School District) granted the Academy a charter to 

operate a middle school and high school for grades 7 through 12, for a term of three 

years, beginning on July 1, 2009 (the Charter). 

The Academy’s mission is set forth in its original October 3, 2006 charter 

application (Original Application):

The mission of [the Academy] is to provide a wholistic, 

college-integrated learning community dedicated to the 

education of each student in the context of his/her unique 

interests. The school will provide students with an 

environment of excitement and early expectation through an 

integrative discovery-based learning experience that will 

develop logical reasoning, critical thinking, and purpose 

driving global citizens. The school will graduate selfdirected, self-aware learners many of whom will have 

successfully mastered college level work.

(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 2885a) (italics in original.)

The Original Application represented that the Academy “will be a model 

of true integration of an Early College program where students prepare for and earn 

college credit prior to graduation.” (R.R. at 2885a.) Eastern University, the Academy’s 

“primary partner,” was to provide “a wealth of academic resources, facilities resources, 

and personnel to the college in a merging of college and high school programs that is 

 

that are available within the public school system. 24 P.S. §17-1702-

A.

Discovery Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia, 166 A.3d 304, 316 (Pa. 2017).
3

inherent in the school’s Early College design.” Id. at 2966a. Students were to take 

courses at Eastern University for college credit. 

The Academy also partnered with Big Picture Schools to bring to the 

school its model of “intensive, student-interest-driven, project-based learning in the 

form of materials, professional development, technical assistance, and . . . other 

resources.” Id.

“Unique characteristics” of the Academy included “the option of 

graduating in four years with a high school diploma and up to two years of transferable 

college credit,” “collaboration between university faculty and high school teachers 

around core competencies and student learning outcomes,” and a “Rigorous Early 

College 9-12 curriculum.” Id. at 2887a-88a. The Original Application described the 

proposed charter school as follows:

[The Academy] is an Early College model high school, with 

a rigorous approach to developing student mastery of 

competencies that provide the foundation of success in 

higher education coursework and higher level problemsolving. The Early College movement is a relatively recent 

outgrowth of the middle college movement, which was 

developed to educate high school students on college 

campuses in order to bridge the college attendance and 

success gap of many low income and minority students. The 

Early College model represents a true partnership between 

high school and colleges, which curricula at the high school 

directly aligned to college curricula, and opportunities and 

supports provided for students to earn college credit at their 

high school and on a college campus.

* * *

The school will employ a performance-based progression, or 

competency based approach that will enable a student who 

has demonstrated competencies in a given area (e.g.[,]

science) to move to college level work and study in that area, 
4

even though he or she might not yet be ready for college in 

another area. The student seminar levels have been 

organized in the attached Curriculum such that by the time 

most students reach the end of 11th grade they will be 

working at the college entrance level, and thus may be taking 

college level courses either at [the Academy] or on the 

campuses of Eastern University. Content, skills and 

competencies at the highest levels (e.g.[,] Level 7) in the high 

school will be aligned to college syllabi and assessments in 

order for students to receive college credit for that course. 

(R.R. at 2901a-02a.)

The Original Application represented that the Academy was designed to 

accelerate students above their average grade level quickly, in order to enable them to 

begin mastering the skills necessary for college level studies while they are still 

completing high school. Id. at 2986a. The Academy’s stated goal was to “have 100% 

of . . . students take and pass at least one college class prior to graduation, and to have 

at least 20% of . . . students take and pass at least 10 college classes prior to graduation.” 

Id. at 2981a. It was projected that 100% of the Academy’s students would obtain 3 

college credits prior to graduation, approximately 80% would obtain at least 6 college 

credits, and 20% would obtain 30 college credits. Id. at 2997a.

2012 Charter Renewal

On June 1, 2012, the SRC approved a renewal of the Academy’s Charter 

for an additional five-year term, from July 1, 2012, until June 30, 2017 (the “2012 

Charter”). The Academy’s 2012 renewal application incorporated the Academy’s 

Original Application (collectively, “Applications”) and required the Academy to 

operate the charter school in conformity with the mission statement set forth in the 

Applications. (R.R. at 2456a.) 
5

Eastern University and Big Picture Schools’ 

Detachment from the Academy

During the term of the 2012 Charter, the Academy and Big Picture 

Schools “part[ed] ways” due to “a strained relationship.” (R.R. at 2726a, 2758a.) Also 

during the term of the 2012 Charter, there was a shift in the strategic goals of the 

Academy’s founding partner, Eastern University. (R.R. at 2748a.) The relationship 

between the Academy and Eastern University ended because, in the Academy’s words:

The original steward of the vision of [the Academy] was 

former Eastern University President, Dr. David Black.

Unfortunately, Dr. Black did not have much support from the 

faculty and administration for the charter school, and as a 

result, students were only given an opportunity to take 20 

courses per semester. Once Dr. Black retired and a new 

president came aboard, the support for the school from the 

university dwindled since the new president did not have the 

same passion for Eastern University’s partnership with [the 

Academy]. Clearly, the university thought that offering 

additional courses to students free of charge was not 

economically feasible.

(R.R. at 2758.) 

The last time Academy students took a class at Eastern University was in 

the fall of 2015. In September 2016, the Academy and Eastern University entered into 

a Settlement Agreement and Release requiring the Academy to, inter alia, “change the 

name of the Charter School, removing any reference to [Eastern] University in its

signage, websites, promotional literature, letterhead, or any other locations where the 

Charter School’s name is used, by July 1, 2017.” (11/8/17 Notes of Testimony (N.T.)

90, R.R. at 1725a.) The Academy’s lease for its facilities at 3300 Henry Avenue 

expired in 2019, at which time the Academy needed to change its location. (R.R. at 

2748a.)
6

The Academy’s 2016 Renewal Application

In the fall of 2016, the Academy submitted a renewal application (“2016 

Renewal Application”). The Academy reiterated that it was created as an “Early 

College program where all students would be equally prepared for postsecondary 

education and given the opportunity to engage in college-level dual enrollment 

programs while still in high school.” (R.R. at 2746a.) The Academy conveyed that its 

partnerships with Eastern University and Big Picture Schools had ended. Id. at 2748a. 

The Academy indicated that it was currently “partnered with” the Community College 

of Philadelphia and Manor College “to provide [] students with opportunities for 

postsecondary credit during the 2016-2017 academic year.” Id. The Academy 

represented that in the spring of 2016, its students began taking courses through the 

Community College of Philadelphia. It stated that students have taken a total of 170 

credits and have successfully completed credits in American Government, 

Anthropology, Communications, Computer Science, Economics, English, Geology, 

Math, Political Science, Psychology, Social Work, Sociology, Theater, and Theology. 

Id. at 2723a. The Academy also stated that it will “continue to research the availability 

and opportunities available from other local institutions,” and that it would now 

“assume responsibility for all related costs to students for taking these courses.” Id. at 

2746a-47a.

The Academy also summarized its students’ academic performance for 

the 2012 Charter term. According to the Academy’s 2016 Renewal Application, 

student performance on the Keystone and Pennsylvania System of School Assessment 

(PSSA) exams in 2012-2013 was “similar to the School District.” Id. at 2721a. For 

the Algebra I Keystone, the Academy reported that it outperformed “peer, charter[,]

and district schools,” but scored below the average of peer, charter, and district 
7

schools” for the Literature Keystone. Id. No students passed the Biology Keystone 

exam. Id. For the Math PSSA, Academy students “outperformed the district slightly 

and fell below peer and charter school averages by approximately 10 percentage 

points,” and for the English/Language Arts PSSA, Academy students performed “very 

closely to the district average.” Id.

For the 2013-2014 school year, the Academy reported that scores on the 

Biology Keystone increased, but PSSA Math and English scores decreased because its 

“best teachers in English and Math left due to offers at other schools for administrative 

positions.” Id. at 2722a.

For 2015-2016, the Academy reported that its students exceeded the 

average proficiency levels of the School District in Biology and Literature. PSSA 

proficiency rates for English/Language Arts and Math remained unchanged. Id.

The Academy set forth multiple ways it proposed to improve its academic 

position, including hiring a full-time data coordinator and a math/science teacher coach 

to provide teachers with additional support for math/science. Id. at 2726a. 

School District’s Charter Schools 

Office’s Evaluation of the Academy’s 2016

Renewal Application

The School District’s Charter Schools Office (CSO) oversaw the 

evaluation of the Academy’s 2016 Renewal Application and began its evaluation in the 

fall of 2016 by collecting data, conducting 60 site visits and developing a Renewal 

Rubric, through which it assigned points on a weighted scale to information submitted 

by the Academy. The CSO published a Renewal Report on June 1, 2017, in which it 

recommended that the Academy’s Charter not be renewed. On June 15, 2017, the SRC 

adopted Resolution SRC-8 (the “Nonrenewal Notice”), after finding substantial 
8

grounds not to renew the Academy’s Charter. The Nonrenewal Notice listed the 

following 55 grounds for the proposed nonrenewal:

1. During the 2012-2013 school year, 52.96% of [Academy] 

students scored proficient or advanced on the Math PSSA 

exam. During the 2013-2014 school year, 34.71% of 

[Academy] students scored proficient or advanced on the 

Math PSSA exam. Thus, in the first two years of the charter 

term, the [Academy] had an 18.25 percentage point decrease 

in PSSA Math proficiency.

2. During the 2014-2015 school year, under the new Common 

Core-aligned PSSA, 0.95% of [Academy] students scored 

proficient or advanced on the Math PSSA exam. During the 

2015-2016 school year, under the new Common Corealigned PSSA, 0.00% of [Academy] students scored 

proficient or advanced on the Math PSSA exam. Thus, in the 

second two years of the charter term, the [Academy] had a 

0.95 percentage point decrease in PSSA Math proficiency.

3. During the 2012-2013 school year, 50.03% of [Academy] 

students scored proficient or advanced on the Reading PSSA 

exam. During the 2013-2014 school year, 44.73% of 

[Academy] students scored proficient or advanced on the 

Reading PSSA exam. Thus, in the first two years of the 

charter term, the [Academy] had a 5.30 percentage point 

decrease in PSSA Reading proficiency.

4. During the 2012-2013 school year, 17.00% of [Academy] 

Grade 8 students scored proficient or advanced on the 

Science PSSA exam. During the 2015-2016 school year, 

15.00% of [Academy] Grade 8 students scored proficient or 

advanced on the Science PSSA exam. Thus, in the four 

years of the charter term, the [Academy] had a 2.00 

percentage point decrease in PSSA Science proficiency.

5. In no year of the Charter Term did the [Academy] have Math 

proficiency rates on the PSSA exam that met or exceeded 

charter school averages from the 2012-2013 school year 
9

through the 2015-2016 school year. Charter sector average 

proficiency rates in Math on the PSSA for Grades 7-8 were 

62.69% in the 2012-2013 school year, 58.50% in the 2013-

2014 school year, 14.09% in the 2014-2015 school year and 

13.60% in the 2015-2016 school year.

6. [The Academy’s] Math proficiency rates on the PSSA exam 

did not meet or exceed School District school averages in the 

three most recent of four years during the Charter term, the 

2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. School 

District school average proficiency rates in Math on the 

PSSA for Grades 7-8 were 51.50% in the 2013-2014 school 

year, 15.39% in the 2014-2015 school year and 17.42% in 

the 2015-2016 school year.

7. In no year of the Charter Term did the [Academy] have 

Reading/ELA [(English Language Arts)] proficiency rates 

on the PSSA exam that met or exceeded charter school 

averages from the 2012-2013 school year through the 2015-

2016 school year. Charter sector average proficiency rates in 

Reading/ELA on the PSSA for Grades 7-8 were 57.96% in 

the 2012-2013 school year, 60.74% in the 2013-2014 school 

year, 39.49% in the 2014-2015 school year and 39.24% in 

the 2015-2016 school year.

8. In no year of the Charter Term did the [Academy] have 

Reading/ELA proficiency rates on the PSSA exam that met 

or exceeded School District school averages from the 2012-

2013 school year through the 2015-2016 school year. School 

District school average proficiency rates in Reading/ELA on 

the PSSA for Grades 7-8 were 52.86% in the 2012-2013 

school year, 55.67% in the 2013-2014 school year, 34.89% 

in the 2014-2015 school year and 36.61% in the 2015-2016 

school year.

9. In no year of the Charter Term did the [Academy] have 

Science proficiency rates on the PSSA exam that met or 

exceeded charter school averages from the 2012-2013 school 

year through the 2015-2016 school year. Charter sector 

average proficiency rates in Science on the PSSA for Grade 
10

8 were 32.75% in the 2012-2013 school year, 32.26% in the 

2013-2014 school year, 32.49% in the 2014-2015 school year 

and 30.96% in the 2015-2016 school year.

10. In no year of the Charter Term did the [Academy] have 

Science proficiency rates on the PSSA exam that met or 

exceeded School District school averages from the 2012-

2013 school year through the 2015-2016 school year. School 

District school average proficiency rates in Science on the 

PSSA for Grade 8 were 27.94% in the 2012-2013 school 

year, 29.15% in the 2013-2014 school year, 28.40% in the 

2014-2015 school year and 29.39% in the 2015-2016 school 

year.

11. During the 2012-2013 school year, 43.00% of [Academy] 

students scored proficient or advanced on the Algebra I 

Keystone exam. During the 2013-2014 school year, 20.00% 

of [Academy] students scored proficient or advanced on the 

Algebra I Keystone exam. During the 2014-2015 school 

year, 14.71% of [Academy] students scored proficient or 

advanced on the Algebra I Keystone exam. During the 2015-

2016 school year, 34.50% of [Academy] students scored 

proficient or advanced on the Algebra I Keystone exam. 

Thus, in the four years of the charter term, the [Academy] 

had an 8.50 percentage point decrease in Algebra I Keystone 

proficiency.

12. [The Academy’s] Algebra I proficiency rates on the 

Keystone exam did not meet or exceed charter school 

averages in three of four years during the Charter term, the 

2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. Charter 

sector average proficiency rates in Algebra I on the Keystone 

exam were 40.00% in the 2013-2014 school year, 41.69% in 

the 2014-2015 school year and 45.56% in the 2015-2016 

school year.

13. [The Academy’s] Algebra I proficiency rates on the 

Keystone exam did not meet or exceed School District school 

averages in three of four years during the Charter term, the 

2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. School 
11

District school average proficiency rates in Algebra I on the 

Keystone exam were 43.00% in the 2013-2014 school year, 

43.31% in the 2014-2015 school year and 48.19% in the 

2015-2016 school year.

14. [The Academy’s] Literature proficiency rates on the 

Keystone exam did not meet or exceed charter school 

averages in three of four years during the Charter term, the 

2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. Charter 

sector average proficiency rates in Literature on the Keystone 

exam were 55.00% in the 2012-2013 school year, 55.00% in 

the 2013-2014 school year, and 56.41% in the 2014-2015 

school year.

15. [The Academy’s] Literature proficiency rates on the 

Keystone exam did not meet or exceed School District school 

averages in three of four years during the Charter term, the 

2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. School 

District school average proficiency rates in Literature on the 

Keystone exam were 56.00% in the 2012-2013 school year, 

56.00% in the 2013-2014 school year, and 54.36% in the 

2014-2015 school year.

16. [The Academy’s] Biology proficiency rates on the Keystone 

exam did not meet or exceed charter school averages in three 

of four years during the Charter term, the 2012-2013, 2013-

2014 and 2014-2015 school years. Charter sector average 

proficiency rates in Biology on the Keystone exam were 

18.00% in the 2012-2013 school year, 25.00% in the 2013-

2014 school year, and 29.76% in the 2014-2015 school year.

17. [The Academy’s] Biology proficiency rates on the Keystone 

exam did not meet or exceed School District school averages 

in three of four years during the Charter term, the 2012-2013, 

2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. School District 

school average proficiency rates in Biology on the Keystone 

exam were 22.00% in the 2012-2013 school year, 28.00% in 

the 2013-2014 school year, and 33.33% in the 2014-2015 

school year.
12

18. [The Academy’s] building level School Performance Profile 

(“SPP”) score was 53.0 for the 2012-2013 school year, 50.5 

for the 2013-2014 school year, 50.7 for the 2014-2015 school 

year (high school grades only) and 54.3 for the 2015-2016 

school year. All of the [Academy’s] scores fall into the 

lowest SPP category of 60 or below. 

19. [The Academy’s] SPP building level cores were below the 

average for all School District schools including CTE 

[(Career and Technical Education)] programs for the 2012-

2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 school years. The average 

SPP score for all School District-operated schools including 

CTE programs was 57.5 in the 2012-2013 school year, 57.3 

in the 2013-2014 school year (high schools only).

20. [The Academy’s] SPP building level scores were below the 

charter sector average for Philadelphia brick and mortar 

charters for 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-

2016 school years. The average SPP score for the charter 

sector for Philadelphia brick and mortar charters was 66.0 in 

the 2012-2013 school year, 63.6 in the 2013-2014 school 

year, 57.6 in the 2014-2015 school year (high schools only), 

and 56.7 in the 2015-2016 school year.

21. [The Academy] did not meet the Pennsylvania academic 

growth standard, as measured by the Average Growth Index 

[(“AGI”)], in PSSA Math in the 2013-2014 school year, in 

the 2014-2015 school year and in the 2015-2016 school year.

22. [The Academy] did not meet the goals in its Charter for the 

Pennsylvania academic growth standard, as measured by the 

AGI, in PSSA Math for the Middle School grades in the 

2013-2014 school year, in the 2014-2015 school year, and in 

the 2015-2016 school year.

23. [The Academy] did not meet the Pennsylvania academic 

growth standard, as measured by the AGI, in PSSA 

Reading/ELA in the 2012-2013 school year, in the 2013-

2014 school year, and in the 2014-2015 school year.
13

24. [The Academy] did not meet the goals in its Charter for the 

Pennsylvania academic growth standard, as measured by the 

AGI, in PSSA Reading/ELA for the Middle School grades in 

the 2012-2013 school year, in the 2013-2014 school year, 

and in the 2014-2015 school year.

25. [The Academy] did not meet the Pennsylvania academic 

growth standard, as measured by the AGI, in Grade 8 PSSA 

Science in the 2012-2013 school year, in the 2013-2014 

school year, in the 2014-2015 school year and in the 2015-

2016 school year.

26. [The Academy] did not meet the goals in its Charter for the 

Pennsylvania academic growth standard, as measured by the 

AGI, in Keystone Algebra I in the 2012-2013 school year, in 

the 2013-2014 school year, and in the 2014-2015 school 

year.

27. [The Academy] did not meet the goals in its Charter for the 

Pennsylvania academic growth standard, as measured by the 

AGI, in Keystone Literature in the 2013-2014 school year 

and in the 2014-2015 school year.

28. For the 2012-2013 school year, the [Academy] received 4.54 

points (out of 100) in the college readiness benchmark 

performance measure. This represents 1.82% of all Grade 12 

students being college ready with either a 1550 on the SAT 

or 22 on the ACT.

29. For the 2013-2014 school year, the [Academy] received 0 

points (out of 100) in the college readiness benchmark 

performance measure. This represents 0% of all Grade 12 

students being college ready with either a 1550 on the SAT 

or 22 on the ACT.

30. For the 2014-2015 school year, the [Academy] received 5.32 

points (out of 100) in the college readiness benchmark 

performance measure. This represents 2.13% of all Grade 12 

students being college ready with either a 1550 on the SAT 

or 22 on the ACT.
14

31. For the 2015-2016 school year, the [Academy] received 4.63 

points (out of 100) in the college readiness benchmark 

performance measure in 2015-2016. This represents 1.85% 

of all Grade 12 students being college ready with either a 

1550 on the SAT or 22 on the ACT.

32. For the 2014-2015 school year, the [Academy] earned 0 

points in indicators for closing the achievement gap for all 

students attending [the Academy] in the high school grades 

for a full year in both the Keystone Algebra I exam and the 

Keystone Literature exam.

33. For the 2014-2015 school year, the [Academy] earned 0 

points in indicators for closing the achievement gap for all 

historically underserved students attending [the Academy] in 

the high school grades for a full year in Algebra I and 29.37 

points (out of 100, in lowest category of 60 or less) in 

Literature.

34. For the 2015-2016 school year, the [Academy] received 0 

points for indicators of closing the achievement gap for all 

students in Math.

35. For the 2015-2016 school year, the [Academy] received 0 

points for indicators of closing the achievement gap for 

historically underperforming students in Math.

36. For the 2014-2015 and the 2015-2016 school years, the 

[Academy] received 0 points for student enrollment in AP

[(Advanced Placement)], IB [(International Baccalaureate)] 

or college credit coursework in each of the four core 

academic areas. This is of particular note given that the 

[Academy] describes itself as an early college program.

37. [The Academy] did not meet the attendance goals in its 

Charter in the 2012-2013 school year, in the 2013-2014 

school year, in the 2014-2015 school year, and in the 2015-

2016 school year.
15

38. For the 2015-2016 school year, the most current year data is 

available, the percentage of [Academy] students attending 

95% or more instructional days did not meet or exceed the 

School District school average or the Charter sector average.

39. [The Academy’s] graduation rate declined over the course 

of the charter term by four percentage points from 83.05% in 

the 2013-2014 school year to 79.03% in the 2015-2016 

school year.

40. [The Academy’s] stated mission in its Renewal Application 

to provide a college integrated learning community where 

graduates will have successfully mastered college level work 

is inconsistently reflected in school operations and 

programming during the Charter term. During a three and a 

half[-]year founding partnership with Eastern University, the 

[Academy’s] namesake, which ended in fall 2015, less than 

100 students at the [Academy] participated in dual 

enrollment at Eastern University. In fall 2016, students were 

only enrolled in remedial, pre-college electives at the 

Community College of Philadelphia due to late registration 

by the [Academy]. The [Academy’s] 2015-2016 graduating 

class had 0 students matriculate in the first fall after 

graduation at the founding partner post-secondary institution, 

Eastern University. Of the students graduating from the 

[Academy] in 2015-2016 eligible to enroll in the first fall, 

only 28 students enrolled in a four-year public or private 

university although the [Academy’s] mission is to provide a 

“college-integrated learning community.”

41. Components of [the Academy’s] educational program as 

stated in the Renewal Application, such as high academic 

expectations, student engagement and student voice, were 

inconsistently reflected in school and classroom observations 

during the fall of 2016. In only 7% of classroom 

observations during the renewal site visits in November 2016 

was student voice present at least 50% of the time. In only 

10% of the same classroom observations did the teacher 

almost always or always convey high academic expectations 

for students. In only 7% of classroom observations were 
16

virtually all students intellectually engaged in challenging 

content more than 90% of the time. These findings are based 

on at least 30 classroom observations during site visits in 

November 2016.

42. [The Academy] did not provide sufficient evidence of a 

school-wide screening process during the Term Charter, in 

violation of Chapter 711 of the Pennsylvania Code [(22 Pa. 

Code §§711.1-711.62)] and the [Academy’s] Charter. As of 

the November 2016 renewal site visit, the [Academy] did not 

appear to use research based interventions and did not 

provide evidence of a monitoring system to track student 

progress.

43. Twenty percent (20%) of the Individualized Education 

Programs (“IEPs”) maintained by [the Academy] and 

reviewed by the CSO during the onsite visit to the [Academy] 

in November 2016 did not have evidence of parent 

participation in the IEP process, in violation of Chapter 711 

of the Pennsylvania Code [(22 Pa. Code §§711.1-711.62)] 

and the [Academy’s] Charter.

44. From a review of 40 IEPs at [Academy] conducted during 

the renewal evaluation period in the 2016-2017 school year, 

the School District’s Office of Auditing Services found a 

15% error rate due to missing signatures or lapses in IEP 

dates.

45. [The Academy] does not have fully compliant and equitable 

student admission policies in accordance with the Charter 

School Law, the [] School Code, and its Charter in that:

a. [The Academy’s] student enrollment materials for 

the 2016-2017 school year did not require parents or 

guardians to submit evidence of immunizations, 

parent/guardian registration statements and home 

language surveys prior to enrollment and attendance 

at the [Academy] as required by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Education (“PDE”) Basic Education 

Circular on the Enrollment of Students.
17

b. The student enrollment files maintained by the 

[Academy] seen and reviewed by the CSO during 

the onsite visit to the school in November 2016 

contained copies of social security cards, which 

cannot be requested, and required McKinneyVento[2]

affidavits, physical and dental records, and 

report cards/transcripts in order to enroll in violation 

of state regulations.

46. During the term of the Charter, the [Academy’s] Code of 

Student Conduct was not in compliance with and the 

[Academy] did not comply with Chapter 12 of the Public 

School Code, [24 P.S. §§12-1201-1217]. In fall 2016, 

students pending expulsion were asked to remain home and 

were excluded from school for longer than 15 school days 

without a formal hearing.

47. The Board of Trustees of [Academy] failed to operate in 

accordance with applicable law and the [Academy] Bylaws 

and policies in that:

a. While the Bylaws state that Board of Trustees will 

annually elect officers, the minutes of the Board 

meetings do not provide evidence that the Board 

voted to elect officers during the 2013-2014 and 

2015-2016 school years.

b. Minutes for the Board of Trustees from the 2014-

2015 and 2015-2016 school years did not identify 

the date, time or location of all Board meetings as 

required by the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.[3]

c. Thirty-nine of 40 Statements of Financial Interest 

were not submitted or completed timely throughout 

the charter term for all Board members and 

 

2 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§11301-11412.

3 65 Pa.C.S. §§701-716.
18

administrators for the years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 

2015.

48. [The Academy] failed to meet the 100% highly qualified 

teacher (“HQT”) requirement during every year of the 

Charter term, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act[4]

as reported by PDE. In the 2012-2013 school year, only 79% 

of the PDE specified core academic classes taught at [the 

Academy] were taught by [HQTs]. In the 2013-2014 school 

year, only 80% of the PDE specified core academic classes 

taught at [the Academy] were taught by highly qualified 

teachers. In the 2014-2015 school year, only 74% of the core 

academic classes at [the Academy] were taught by [HQTs].

49. [The Academy] failed to meet the requirement that in each 

year of the Charter term at least 75% of professional staff 

members hold appropriate state certification. 70% of 

professional staff were appropriately certified in the 2012-

2013 school year and 74% of professional staff were

appropriately certified in the 2014-2015 school year.

50. During the CSO’s onsite review of twenty of the 

[Academy’s] personnel files during the fall 2016 renewal site 

visit, four of twenty employees were missing a current 

Pennsylvania Child Abuse Clearance; five of twenty 

employees were missing a current Pennsylvania Criminal

Background Check; fifteen of twenty employees were 

missing a current FBI Background Check; and fourteen 

eligible employees, based on date of hire, were missing Act 

168[5]training certifications. These omissions constitute 

violations of the Public School Code and the [Academy’s] 

Charter. 

 

4 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-7941.

5 Section 111.1 of the Public School Code, added by the Act of October 22, 2014, P.L. 2624, 

No. 168, as amended, 24 P.S. § 1-111.1 (“Act 168”), provides for an employment history review 

process. 
19

51. [The Academy’s] student health services policy as reviewed 

by the CSO during the 2016-2017 school year does not 

reference state mandated immunizations and examinations in 

accordance with Chapter 23 of the Pennsylvania School 

Health Code.[6]

52. The Pennsylvania Department of Health cited concerns over 

the lack of a school dentist at [the Academy] during the 2013-

2014 school year, in violation of Article XIV of the Public 

School Code.

53. During the renewal site visit in November 2016, the CSO 

reviewed nine 8th grade student files. Of the nine 8th grade 

student files reviewed, two did not have proof of a dental 

exam in grade 7; three did not have proof of an annual vision 

screening in the 2015-2016 school year; three did not have 

proof of an annual hearing exam in the 2015-2016 school 

year; and two did not have proof of annual height and weight 

information for the 2015-2016 school year.

54. For the 2012-2013 school year, the 2013-2014 school year 

and the 2014-2015 school year, [the Academy] did not 

complete Form PDE-4101, which certifies the fulfillment of 

fire drill and school bus evacuation drill requirements.

55. [The Academy] failed to submit its 2014 and 2015 Annual 

Reports to PDE in a timely fashion in violation of the Public 

School Code and its Charter.

(R.R. at 2673a-79a.)

The SRC directed that a public hearing be conducted to address the CSO’s 

recommendation not to renew the Academy’s Charter. The School District appointed 

a Hearing Officer to conduct public hearings and issue a proposed report. Hearings 

 

6 24 P.S. §14-401–14-1424, added by the Act of July 15, 1957, P.L. 937.
20

were held over the course of 14 days from October 9, 2017, through December 20, 

2017. 

Hearings

At the hearing, the School District presented evidence that the Academy 

is not the school described in its Original Application. (10/9/17 N.T. 107, R.R. at 

1028a.) It presented evidence that the original charter applicant, Eastern University, is 

no longer involved with the Academy and has not been since the 2015-2016 school 

year. (10/9/17 N.T. 67-68, R.R. at 1018a.) It also presented evidence that Big Picture 

Schools, one of the Academy’s original partners, is no longer affiliated with the 

Academy. The School District presented evidence that very few students meet the

Commonwealth’s college readiness benchmarks, and graduates of the Academy were

not persisting at great numbers into college or graduating from college. 

The School District presented undisputed evidence that the Academy did 

not meet the Commonwealth’s graduation goals in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. 

(Findings of Fact (F.F.) No. 155.) It also presented evidence that for every year of the 

2012 Charter term, very few of the Academy’s 12th graders achieved a score of at least

1550 on the SAT, which represents the college and career readiness benchmark. (F.F. 

Nos. 157-60.)

The School District also presented evidence that when compared to 

district averages and charter school sector averages, the Academy underperformed in 

virtually all years and in all subjects. Specifically, with respect to the PSSAs, the 

School District presented undisputed evidence that the Academy’s PSSA Math 

proficiency decreased 51.99 percentage points from 2013 to 2017, and that the 

Academy’s average was 14.92 percentage points lower than the charter schools and 

13.18 percentage points lower than the School District Schools for those years. (F.F. 
21

No. 130.) The School District also presented undisputed evidence that the Academy’s 

PSSA Reading proficiency declined 29.84 percentage points from 2013 to 2017, and 

that the Academy’s average was 16.77 percentage points lower than the charter schools 

and 12.64 percentage points lower than the School District’s schools. (F.F. No. 132.) 

The School District also presented undisputed evidence that the Academy’s PSSA 

Science proficiency declined 13.4 percentage points from 2013 to 2017, and that the 

Academy’s average was 17.77 percentage points lower than the charter schools and 

14.33 percentage points lower than the School District’s schools. (F.F. No. 134.) 

With respect to the Keystone exams, the School District presented 

undisputed evidence that during the 2012 Charter term, the percentages of Academy 

students who scored proficient or advanced on the Algebra I exam were substantially 

below the overall percentages in the School District and charter schools, with the 

exception of 2012-2013. (F.F. No. 138.) The School District presented undisputed 

evidence that during the 2012 Charter term, the percentages of Academy students who 

scored proficient or advanced on the Literature exam were substantially below the 

overall percentages in School District and charter schools, with the exception for both 

sectors in 2015-2016 and School District schools in 2016-2017. (F.F. No. 139.) The 

School District presented undisputed evidence that during the 2012 Charter term, the 

percentages of Academy students who scored proficient or advanced on the Biology 

exam were consistently below the overall percentages in School District and charter 

schools, with the exception of the 2015-2016 school year. (F.F. No. 140.)

The Academy did not dispute the accuracy of any of the data presented by 

the School District. It argued instead that the School District’s comparison of the 

Academy’s performance on standardized tests to students from “special admission” or 

“magnet” schools was inherently unfair. In support, the Academy presented an expert
22

in charter school policy, educational research, and Pennsylvania academic assessments, 

Alexander D. Schuh, Ph.D. (Dr. Schuh). Dr. Schuh opined that students who attend 

special admission schools have to meet certain stringent criteria related to attendance, 

punctuality, behavior, grade, and standardized test scores. He opined that these 

rigorous entrance criteria make special admission schools qualitatively different from 

neighborhood schools and charter schools and that a comparison of the Academy’s 

standardized testing scores with special admissions schools was unfair. (R.R. at 

2603a.) 

The School District presented evidence relating to the results of CSO’s 

site visit, including evidence of violations of Pennsylvania and Federal laws and 

regulations pertaining to student discipline, HQTs, annual reports, teacher 

certifications, student enrollment, special education files, special education screening, 

background checks and clearances, the Sunshine Act and Bylaws, statements of 

financial interest, and student health and safety. (F.F. Nos. 166-308.)

Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation

The Hearing Officer issued his report on March 14, 2018, in which he 

recommended that the Academy’s Charter not be renewed, upon concluding, in part, 

that the Academy “violated material standards and conditions contained in its written 

charter, has failed to meet applicable requirements for student performance, and has 

violated applicable laws from which it has not been exempted.” (Hearing Officer’s 

Report (Report) at 10.) Specifically, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Academy 

failed to meet the requirements set forth in its Charter regarding its affiliation with 

Eastern University and its stated mission as an early college high school and collegeintegrated learning community where all students will take and pass at least one college 

course as a condition of graduation. In this regard, the Hearing Officer found:
23

[The Academy’s] stated mission in its Renewal Application 

to provide a college integrated learning community where 

graduates will have successfully mastered college level work 

is inconsistently reflected in school operations and 

programming during the charter term. During a three and a 

half[-]year founding partnership with Eastern University, the 

[Academy’s] name sake, which ended in fall 2015, less than 

100 students at the [Academy] participated in dual 

enrollment at Eastern University. In fall 2016, students were 

only enrolled in remedial, pre-college electives at the 

Community College of Philadelphia due to later registration 

by the [Academy]. The [Academy’s] 2015-2016 graduating 

class had 0 students matriculate in the first fall after 

graduation at the founding partner post-secondary institution, 

Eastern University. Of the 52 students graduating from the 

[Academy] in 2015-2016 eligible to enroll in the first fall, 

only 28 students enrolled in a four-year public or private 

university although the [Academy’s] mission is to provide a 

“college-integrated learning community.”

(Report at 6, F.F No. 40.)

The Hearing Officer concluded that the Academy “no longer has the 

relationship with Eastern University that was fundamental to its [Original] Application. 

Eastern University was the founder and ‘principal partner’ of the proposed charter 

school, yet no student has taken a class at Eastern University since the fall of 2015.” 

(Report at 16.) The Hearing Officer further found that the Academy “has attempted to 

replace Eastern University with Community College of Philadelphia, Manor College 

and Wilmington University, but none of those institutions provide the opportunities 

that were promised in the Application.” Id. The Hearing Officer noted that “[n]o

[Academy] student has ever taken and completed a course at Manor College or 

Wilmington University.” Id. The Hearing Officer also found that the Academy 

“introduced no evidence that [Community College of Philadelphia] has stepped into 

Eastern University’s previous role in the Early College high school design that the 
24

Application[s] described, by providing professional development, dual enrollment at 

the [U]niversity’s expense, graduate staffing resources, and the myriad of other 

opportunities and supports that Eastern University promised.” Id. 

The Hearing Officer also found relevant that the Academy and Big Picture 

Schools have decided to part ways during the term of the 2012 Charter due to a strained 

relationship. Id. The Hearing Officer determined that the “demise of [the Academy’s] 

relationship[] with Eastern University and Big Picture Schools was a material 

detrimental change to the school that the SRC approved when it granted the 2012 

[C]harter.” Id. The Hearing Officer concluded:

As set forth in the [Original] Application, all students at [the 

Academy] were to be provided with a college preparatory 

education and could begin taking college courses as early as 

the 9th grade. According to the 2012 Charter, [Academy] 

students would be able to earn as many as 62 college credits, 

and would be required to earn at least 3 college credits in 

order to graduate.[7] The [Original] Application promised

that students would be offered the opportunity to take college 

courses in three different ways (i) taking accredited courses 

taught by [Academy] faculty at Eastern [University]; (ii) 

taking college courses at Eastern University; and (iii) taking 

college courses taught by Eastern University faculty and 

graduate students at [the Academy’s] campus. Collaboration 

was to occur between university faculty and high school 

teachers around core competencies and student learning 

outcomes.

[The Academy] has not kept these promises. [The Academy] 

never had the specified relationship with Eastern University 

during the 2012 Charter term. No Eastern University faculty 

or graduate students came to [the Academy’s] campus to 

 

7

It is undisputed that the Academy unilaterally changed its graduation requirements during 

the 2012 Charter term to remove this requirement that students earn at least three college credits. 

(R.R. at 268a.)
25

teach course or to team-teach with [Academy] teachers. [The 

Academy’s] own teachers and programs could not provide 

college credit. Only a small percentage of [Academy] 

students took a college course and an even smaller 

percentage actually passed the college courses they took.

(Report at 17.) 

With respect to student performance requirements, the Hearing Officer

found that: the Academy’s [SPP] scores were in the lowest tier in every year of the 

2012 Charter, lower than the School District’s scores in all but one year, and lower than 

the charter sector scores in every year. (F.F. Nos. 127-28.) Nearly all of the Academy’s 

proficiency rates were substantially below those of both the School District as a whole 

and the charter sector as a whole, and showed no clear pattern of significant 

improvement. (F.F. Nos. 130-144.) The Academy has not shown consistent or 

sustained success in closing the achievement gap for all of its students or for its 

historically underperforming students. (F.F. Nos. 145-47.) Nearly all of the 

Academy’s [AGI] scores have not met the Pennsylvania growth standard. (F.F. Nos. 

148-52.)

The Hearing Officer opined that the Academy’s students will receive a 

better education if they transfer to other schools because in nearly all years, grades and 

subjects, the proficiency rates of students at School District schools and Philadelphia 

charter schools significantly exceeded the proficiency rates of Academy students. (F.F. 

Nos. 130-44.) 

The Hearing Office also addressed dozens of legal violations, violations 

of Bylaws and violations of the Charter, which he concluded “reveal a pervasive lack 

of organizational competence,” which further supported the SRC’s decision not to 

renew the Academy’s Charter. (Report at 100; F.F. Nos. 42-55.) 
26

Based on the Hearing Officer’s Report, SRC voted not to renew the 

Charter by Resolution dated April 26, 2018. The Academy timely appealed to the 

CAB. Before the CAB, the Academy argued that the School District failed to render 

its decision not to renew the Charter prior to the Charter’s expiration date. The 

Academy also asserted that many of the grounds for the nonrenewal have no basis in 

the School Code, the Charter School Law, or regulations. It contended that the CSO 

imposed renewal standards which were not required by law. The Academy also 

asserted that the School District failed to meet its burden of proof on many of its claims, 

that its student performance standards were improperly compared to “special 

admission” schools, that several of its infractions do not warrant nonrenewal, and that 

the Hearing Officer was biased in his review. 

The CAB adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact in their entirety. 

With respect to the Academy’s argument that section 1729-A of the Charter School 

Law, 24 P.S. §17-1729-A, imposed a deadline by which a nonrenewal of a charter must 

be completed, the CAB rejected the argument, concluding that the plain statutory 

language of this section does not require nonrenewal proceedings to conclude before 

the end of a charter term. Following an independent review of the record, the CAB 

also found that the School District’s decision not to renew the Academy’s Charter was 

based upon substantial evidence which demonstrated that the Academy: (1) failed to 

meet student performance standards at section 1729-A(a) of the Charter School Law, 

and the regulations at 22 Pa. Code §4.12; (2) violated the terms of its Charter by failing 

to fulfill its mission of providing a college-integrated community and an early college 

program where students prepare for and earn college credit prior to graduation and 

losing its affiliation with Eastern University as a principal partner of the Academy; and 
27

(3) violated numerous Pennsylvania and Federal laws and regulations. The CAB found 

the Academy’s argument that the Hearing Officer was biased to be without merit. 

Discussion

On appeal,8the Academy argues that the CAB erred by: (1) holding that 

School District’s decision not to renew its Charter was timely; (2) determining that the 

Academy failed to meet the material standards and conditions of its Charter; (3) 

determining that the Academy failed to meet applicable requirements for student 

performance, as set forth in its Charter and in the regulations set forth at 22 Pa. Code

§4.12; (4) holding that the Academy violated numerous provisions of the law from 

which it was not exempted; and (5) upholding the School District’s use of the Renewal 

Rubric and its appointment of a biased Hearing Officer.

1. Whether the CAB erred in finding that the School District’s 

Decision not to renew Academy’s Charter was Timely?

In its first issue, the Academy argues that the School District was timebarred pursuant to section 1729-A(a) of the Charter School Law from not renewing the 

Academy’s Charter due to the School District’s failure to render its decision not to 

renew during, or at the end of, the Academy’s 2012 Charter term, which was set to 

expire on June 30, 2017. 

The CSO began its evaluation of the Academy’s Renewal Application in 

the Fall of 2016, and approved Resolution SRC-8 on June 15, 2017. The Academy 

asserts that, based upon the plain language of section 1729-A(a) of the Charter School 

Law the School District was required to render its decision on whether to renew the 

 

8 This Court’s review of the 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. Ronald H. Brown Charter School v. Harrisburg City School District, 928 

A.2d 1145, 1147, n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 
28

Academy’s Charter prior to the June 30, 2017 expiration of the 2012 Charter term—

for which renewal was sought. The Academy contends that the School District’s failure 

to meet the timing deadline set forth under section 1729-A(a) of the Charter School 

Law, 24 P.S. §17-1729-A(a), consequently extinguishes the School District’s right to 

seek termination or nonrenewal of the Academy’s Charter for the term that has passed. 

Section 1729-A(a) of the Charter School Law (Causes for nonrenewal or 

termination) states, in relevant part:

During the term of the charter or at the end of the term of 

the charter, the local board of school directors may 

choose to revoke or not to renew the charter based on any

of the following:

(1) One or more material violations of any of the conditions, 

standards or procedures contained in the written charter 

signed pursuant to section 1720-A [of the Charter School 

Law, 24 P.S. §17-1720-A].

(2) Failure to meet the requirements for student performance 

set forth in 22 Pa. Code Ch. 5 (relating to curriculum) or 

subsequent regulations promulgated to replace 22 Pa. Code 

Ch. 5 or failure to meet any performance standard set forth 

in the written charter signed pursuant to section 1716-A [of 

the Charter School Law, 24 P.S. §17-1716-A].

(3) Failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal 

management or audit requirements.

(4) Violation of provisions of this article.

(5) Violation of any provision of law from which the charter 

school has not been exempted, including Federal laws and 

regulations governing children with disabilities.

(6) The charter school has been convicted of fraud.
29

(Emphasis and italics added.) A school district may choose to revoke a charter or not 

to renew a charter on any of these listed grounds. 

When examining the Charter School Law, we keep in mind the rules of 

statutory interpretation, including that a court’s primary goal in interpreting a statute is 

to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Section 1921(a) of 

the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. §1921(a). “When the words of a 

statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded 

under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S. §1921(b). Additionally, courts 

construe every statute, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. 1 Pa.C.S. 

§1921(a); Discovery Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia, 166 A.3d 304, 

316 (Pa. 2017).

We reject the Academy’s assertion that section 1729-A of the Charter 

School Law contains a mandatory deadline by which a school district must decide 

whether to renew a charter which is expiring. Section 1729-A sets forth the specific 

grounds upon which a school district may revoke or not renew a school charter. The 

clear and unambiguous language in the Charter School Law reflects that the statute 

does not contain any definite or specific deadline by which the SRC had to issue its 

decision on the Academy’s nonrenewal. The language is permissive, not mandatory, 

and provides simply that a school district may decide to revoke a charter during its term 

or to not renew a charter at the end of its term. It gives the school district two choices: 

(1) it may decide to “revoke” a charter during its term; or (2) to not “renew” a charter 

at the end of its term. Here, the Academy’s Charter was expiring and the Academy 

submitted an application to renew. Pursuant to section 1729-A of the Charter School 

Law, the School Board was limited to the grounds enumerated in that section when 
30

making that decision. Section 1729-A says absolutely nothing about any deadlines by 

which a school district must render its decision to revoke or not to renew. 

The language “during the term of” is a reference to the school district’s 

ability to “revoke” a charter during its term. The language “at the end of” simply relates 

back to the school district’s ability to decide not to “renew” a charter at the end of its 

term. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Academy’s argument is tantamount to 

asserting that a school district can never decide not to renew a charter under the Charter 

School Law unless the nonrenewal proceedings are completed “by” the end, or prior to 

or on the expiration date of the charter school’s charter. If the Legislature intended to 

require a school district to issue its final decision not to renew a charter by a particular 

date or prior to the expiration of the charter term, it would have clearly indicated there 

was a deadline to do so in the Charter School Law. Such mandatory language does not 

appear in the Charter School Law, and we decline to expand the provisions by adding 

to it the requirement that a school district must issue its decision not to renew a charter 

on a date prior to the end of the charter term. 

2. Whether the CAB erred by determining that the 

Academy Failed to Meet the Material Requirements of 

its Charter?

In its second issue, the Academy argues that the CAB erred in determining 

that the Academy failed to meet its stated mission to provide a “college-integrated 

learning experience” and an “Early College program where students prepare for and 

earn college credit prior to graduation.” (R.R. at 2885a.) 

When a charter is granted by a local board of school directors, the charter 

school is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the charter, as well as the 

information contained in the charter school application which are incorporated into the 

charter. See section 1720-A(a) of the Charter School Law. The Charter School Law
31

makes clear that a “written charter . . . shall act as legal authorization for the 

establishment of a charter school” and “shall be legally binding on both the local board 

of school directors of a school district and the charter school’s board of trustees.” 

Section 1720-A(a) of the Charter School Law. Accordingly, a charter school is 

required to comply with the terms and conditions of the charter, as well as the 

information contained in the charter school application which is incorporated into the 

charter. 24 P.S. §17-1720-A(a). Pursuant to section 1729-A of the Charter School 

Law, one or more material violations of any of the conditions, standards or procedures 

contained in the written charter is grounds to revoke or “not to renew” a charter. 24 

P.S. §17-1729-A(a)(1). 

Here, the mission statement set forth in the Academy’s Original Charter 

Application included provisions for a “college-integrated learning community” and an 

“Early College program where students prepare for and earn college credit prior to 

graduation.” (R.R. at 2885a.) The Academy’s 2012 Renewal Application required 

that, in order to qualify for graduation from the Academy, students must successfully 

prepare for and take the SAT, complete a college portfolio, visit and interview with at 

least three colleges and obtain at least three college credits by taking accredited courses 

offered by its faculty at the Academy, taking college classes at Eastern University’s 

campus, or taking college courses taught by Eastern University’s faculty and graduate 

students at the Academy. (R.R. at 2776a.)

The CAB found that the Academy failed to meet these terms and 

conditions of its Charter Application and that this was grounds for not renewing the 

Academy’s Charter. We discern no error. 

The record shows that the Academy never had the specified relationship 

with Eastern University during the 2012 Charter year. No Eastern University faculty 
32

or graduate students came to the Academy’s campus to teach courses or to team-teach 

with Academy teachers. The record shows that during the term of its 2012 Charter, the 

Academy lost its affiliation with Eastern University as a principal partner. As part of 

a settlement agreement, the Academy agreed to change its name and remove any

references to Eastern University from its public displays/advertisements. Furthermore, 

no Academy student has taken a class at Eastern University since the fall 2015. The 

record also shows that the Academy’s attempts to affiliate itself with Community 

College of Philadelphia and Manor College, in a manner similar to its relationship with 

Eastern University, were unsuccessful. As noted above, there was no evidence 

credited by the CAB that any Academy student took or completed a course at either of 

these institutions, and the courses taken by Academy students beginning spring 2016 

constituted college readiness and foundational courses for which no college credit was 

available. Only a small percentage of Academy students took a college course and an 

even smaller percentage actually passed the college courses they took. The record also 

established that out of 54 Academy graduates in 2013, only 9 satisfied the requirement 

of passing at least 1 college course. Of 48 graduates in 2014, only 10 satisfied the 

requirement. Of 47 graduates in 2015, only 6 met the requirement, and only 10 met 

the requirement out of the 52 graduates in 2016. The record further shows that only 

three Academy students graduated with at least three college credits in 2017, and that 

the Academy unilaterally eliminated that graduation requirement incorporated into its 

Charter without having sought a Charter amendment to do so.

In Career Connections Charter High School v. School District of 

Pittsburgh, 91 A.3d 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), this Court held that a charter school’s 

failure to implement an integrated interdisciplinary curriculum or the applied learning 

approaches promised in its charter application was sufficient to support the CAB’s 
33

finding that school materially violated its charter, as ground supporting nonrenewal of 

school’s charter under the Charter School Law. We explained:

[T]he daily schedule and academic calendar proposed by 

Career Connections in its charter application were 

incorporated into the terms of the charter and, thus, legally 

binding when the District granted the initial charter. In order 

to change those terms, Career Connections was required to 

amend its charter. Because it changed the daily schedule and 

academic calendar without doing so, it is subject to closure 

under Section 1729-A(a)(1) of the [Charter School Law], 

regardless of whether the District knew of the changes. These 

changes to the daily schedule and academic calendar are 

clearly material, especially given that Career Connections 

touted its flexible daily schedule and 47-week school year as 

“innovations that . . . will enhance the educational program.” 

. . . Accordingly, the CAB did not err in holding that those 

modifications by Career Connections constituted material 

violations of its charter.

Id. at 736.

Here, as in Career Connections, the facts support the CAB’s conclusion 

that the Academy was not the charter school that its Charter and Applications promised 

in terms of the programming to be offered to students, the partnerships developed with 

Eastern University and Big Picture Schools for that programming and the outcomes 

that students were to achieve related to the Academy’s mission as an early college high 

school with a college-integrated learning environment. The Academy freely admits 

that it unilaterally and without informing the School District disassociated itself with 

Eastern University during the term of its Charter. This was a critical and material 

change in the terms of the Charter. These factually supported grounds for nonrenewal 

support affirmance of the CAB’s decision not to renew the Academy’s Charter. 
34

Accordingly, for this reason, we find that the CAB properly concluded 

that the Academy’s material violations of the requirements of its Charter was sufficient 

ground for not renewing the Academy’s Charter under section 1729-A(a)(1) of the 

Charter School Law.

3. Adequate Notice

The Academy argues that it was denied adequate notice of all of the bases 

for the School District’s allegation that it failed to meet its stated mission to provide a 

college-integrated learning experience. The Academy contends that Paragraph No. 40 

of the Nonrenewal Notice only mentioned the following three grounds in support of 

the mission-centered issue: (1) less than 100 students at the Academy participated in

dual enrollment at Eastern University; (2) in 2016, students were only enrolled in 

remedial, pre-college electives at the Community College of Philadelphia due to late 

registration by the Academy; and (3) no students from the Academy’s 2015-2016 

graduating class matriculated at Eastern University. (Academy’s Br. at 24.) The 

Academy further asserts that CAB “improperly expanded upon the underlying 

allegations set forth in the Nonrenewal Notice, in violation of 24 P.S. §17-1729-A(c).” 

(Academy’s Br. at 9.) We find the Academy’s argument is not factually or legally 

supportable. 

The Academy has a protected property interest in its existing charter that 

implicates constitutional due process. Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. 

State Charter School Appeal Board, Pittsburgh Public School District, 56 A.3d 80, 84 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). The Charter School Law requires that a charter school be apprised 

of the reasons for nonrenewal “with reasonable specificity.” Section 1729-A(c) of the 

Charter School Law, 24 P.S. §17-1729-A(c). Section 553 of the Local Agency Law 

also requires the School District to provide the Academy with reasonable notice of a 
35

hearing and an opportunity to be heard. See Section 553 of the Local Agency Law, 2 

Pa.C.S. §553. Adequate notice for due process purposes “requires at a minimum that 

the notice contain a sufficient listing and explanation of the charges against an 

individual.” Pocono Mountain Charter School, Inc. v. Pocono Mountain School

District, 88 A.3d 275, 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (emphasis in original) (citing Caba v. 

Weaknecht, 64 A.3d 39, 64 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)). 

Here, the grounds stated in Paragraph No. 40 complied with the 

“reasonable specificity” requirements of section 1729-A(c) of the Charter School Law.

Paragraph 40 of the SRC’s Nonrenewal Notice provided, in part, that: “the 

[Academy’s] stated mission in its Renewal Application to provide a college integrated 

learning community where graduates will have successfully mastered college level 

work is inconsistently reflected in school operations and programming during the 

Charter term.” (R.R. at 2677a-78a) (emphasis added). 

The Academy fully litigated the grounds for nonrenewal and had the 

opportunity to present witnesses, experts, and evidence on the failure to meet its 

mission issue. In an effort to demonstrate that the Academy complied with its mission, 

it presented the testimony of Fela Murray, the Academy’s school counselor and earlycollege coordinator. On direct examination, Ms. Murray testified at the hearing that 

college-level coursework is part of the Academy’s educational program, and during the 

Academy’s charter, some Academy students took some college level courses at Eastern 

University and the Community College of Philadelphia. (11/6/17 N.T. 72-74; R.R. at 

1616a.) However, on cross-examination, Ms. Murray admitted that the Academy does 

not currently have a requirement that students take college courses. (11/6/17 N.T. 187;

R.R. at 1645a.) 
36

The fact that Paragraph No. 40 gave examples of the conduct which 

supported the allegation in no way limited the School District from presenting evidence 

of other conduct which rebutted the Academy’s evidence, and it did not prohibit CAB 

from considering the entire record. Further, the Academy fails to point to any harm 

caused by the alleged non-compliance. Specifically, the Academy does not explain 

what other information it was precluded from presenting due to the alleged lack of 

notice; therefore, it fails to demonstrate prejudice. “The mere demonstration of a 

potential procedural error, without also alleging a resulting harm, is not sufficient 

reason to disturb an agency adjudication.” D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 2 

A.3d 712, 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Accordingly, this Court does not discern a due 

process violation in the alleged vagueness of the Nonrenewal Notice.

Conclusion

Under section 1729-A(a)(1) of the Charter School Law, a charter school’s 

material violations of any of the conditions, standards or procedures contained in the 

written charter is justification for nonrenewal or revocation. Having reached the 

conclusion that the CAB properly concluded that the Academy’s material violation of 

the requirements of its Charter was a sufficient ground for not renewing the Academy’s 

Charter, it is unnecessary for us to address the Academy’s remaining arguments.

Accordingly, CAB’s order affirming SRC’s decision not to renew the 

Academy’s Charter is affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

Judge Crompton did not participate in this decision.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Eastern University Academy Charter :

School, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1167 C.D. 2019

v. :

:

School District of Philadelphia, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2020, the August 14, 2019 order of 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, State Charter School 

Appeal Board is hereby affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge