California Court Checks The State Board of Education on Charter School Appeal
April 2025
Number 16
In Napa Valley Unified School District v. State Board of Education (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 14, 2025, No. C099068), California’s Third District Court of Appeal examined the discretion afforded to charter school authorizers in approving or denying charter petitions. While the initial ruling was issued as an “unpublished opinion”, the Court ordered publication on April 10, 2025, authorizing use of this holding as valid legal authority.
History
Napa Foundation for Options in Education (Foundation), a nonprofit entity, filed a charter petition with Napa Valley Unified School District (School District) in 2021 to establish Mayacamas Charter Middle School. The School District denied the petition, citing concerns about the would-be charter school’s ability to implement its proposed programs or meet student needs. The Foundation appealed to the Napa County Board of Education (County Board), which also denied the petition. The County Board, examining “community interest,” was concerned that the charter school would have a negative impact on the School District’s enrollment and overall fiscal health. The Foundation then appealed to the State Board of Education.
In the course of the appeal to the State Board of Education (“State Board”), the staff at the California Department of Education recommended that the State Board affirm the local denials. However, the State Board concluded the School District had abused its discretion by exhibiting bias and failing to provide the nonprofit Foundation with due process during the petition hearing. The State Board further determined that the County Board lacked evidence to support its denial, thereby also abusing its discretion. The State Board approved the charter petition with the Napa County Board of Education as its authorizer instead of the School District. After this approval, the School District and the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Educational Legal Alliance (ELA) filed a lawsuit to overturn the State Board’s decision, arguing that the decision exceeded the scope of the State Board’s authority under Assembly Bill 1505.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1505
AB 1505, which went into effect July 1, 2020, empowered charter authorizers to consider community interest when reviewing a charter petition. Also under AB 1505, when reviewing charter school appeals, the State Board’s role in the appeal process is limited to determining whether there was an “abuse of discretion” by the authorizing school district and county board. See 2019 Client News Brief Number 49.
These community impact factors are subjective and may include fiscal effects. Here, the ELA argued that the provisions of AB 1505 limited the State Board’s review of such discretionary decisions. Because the School District and County Board established legitimate reasons under AB 1505 to support findings that the charter school would not serve the interests of the entire community, ELA argued that the State Board should have deferred to these findings.
Litigation
The trial court agreed with ELA and the School District, holding that the School District properly acted within its discretion when it considered the community impact factors included in AB 1505. Additionally, the trial court found that the School District and the County Board had substantial evidence for denial, as the staff reports had shown evidence of financial distress that could be exacerbated by the charter school. Therefore, the trial court found that the record lacked evidence that either the School District or County Board had abused its discretion, as is required under AB 1505 for the State Board to grant a charter petition on appeal. The trial court ordered the State Board to set aside its decision authorizing the charter. The Foundation then appealed the trial court’s decision.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal further considered the State Board’s actions and agreed with the trial court’s conclusion. It found no substantial evidence to support the State Board’s decision that the School District and the County Board had abused their discretion. Rather, the court held that the factual findings supported the School District and County Board decisions. By authorizing the charter and reversing the denials of the School District and the County Board, the State Board circumvented the California Legislature’s intent to grant discretion specifically to the local agencies. The State Board should have given deference to the findings of the local authorizer, rather than insert its own findings.
Takeaways
As the first instance that a California Court of Appeal has examined the appropriate standard for review of a charter petition appeal under AB 1505, this case clarifies the proper standard for the State Board. This case further confirms that AB 1505 requires the State Board to give deference to denials made by school districts and county boards first hearing petitions.
Other important notes about this decision:
Number 16
In Napa Valley Unified School District v. State Board of Education (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 14, 2025, No. C099068), California’s Third District Court of Appeal examined the discretion afforded to charter school authorizers in approving or denying charter petitions. While the initial ruling was issued as an “unpublished opinion”, the Court ordered publication on April 10, 2025, authorizing use of this holding as valid legal authority.
History
Napa Foundation for Options in Education (Foundation), a nonprofit entity, filed a charter petition with Napa Valley Unified School District (School District) in 2021 to establish Mayacamas Charter Middle School. The School District denied the petition, citing concerns about the would-be charter school’s ability to implement its proposed programs or meet student needs. The Foundation appealed to the Napa County Board of Education (County Board), which also denied the petition. The County Board, examining “community interest,” was concerned that the charter school would have a negative impact on the School District’s enrollment and overall fiscal health. The Foundation then appealed to the State Board of Education.
In the course of the appeal to the State Board of Education (“State Board”), the staff at the California Department of Education recommended that the State Board affirm the local denials. However, the State Board concluded the School District had abused its discretion by exhibiting bias and failing to provide the nonprofit Foundation with due process during the petition hearing. The State Board further determined that the County Board lacked evidence to support its denial, thereby also abusing its discretion. The State Board approved the charter petition with the Napa County Board of Education as its authorizer instead of the School District. After this approval, the School District and the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) Educational Legal Alliance (ELA) filed a lawsuit to overturn the State Board’s decision, arguing that the decision exceeded the scope of the State Board’s authority under Assembly Bill 1505.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1505
AB 1505, which went into effect July 1, 2020, empowered charter authorizers to consider community interest when reviewing a charter petition. Also under AB 1505, when reviewing charter school appeals, the State Board’s role in the appeal process is limited to determining whether there was an “abuse of discretion” by the authorizing school district and county board. See 2019 Client News Brief Number 49.
These community impact factors are subjective and may include fiscal effects. Here, the ELA argued that the provisions of AB 1505 limited the State Board’s review of such discretionary decisions. Because the School District and County Board established legitimate reasons under AB 1505 to support findings that the charter school would not serve the interests of the entire community, ELA argued that the State Board should have deferred to these findings.
Litigation
The trial court agreed with ELA and the School District, holding that the School District properly acted within its discretion when it considered the community impact factors included in AB 1505. Additionally, the trial court found that the School District and the County Board had substantial evidence for denial, as the staff reports had shown evidence of financial distress that could be exacerbated by the charter school. Therefore, the trial court found that the record lacked evidence that either the School District or County Board had abused its discretion, as is required under AB 1505 for the State Board to grant a charter petition on appeal. The trial court ordered the State Board to set aside its decision authorizing the charter. The Foundation then appealed the trial court’s decision.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal further considered the State Board’s actions and agreed with the trial court’s conclusion. It found no substantial evidence to support the State Board’s decision that the School District and the County Board had abused their discretion. Rather, the court held that the factual findings supported the School District and County Board decisions. By authorizing the charter and reversing the denials of the School District and the County Board, the State Board circumvented the California Legislature’s intent to grant discretion specifically to the local agencies. The State Board should have given deference to the findings of the local authorizer, rather than insert its own findings.
Takeaways
As the first instance that a California Court of Appeal has examined the appropriate standard for review of a charter petition appeal under AB 1505, this case clarifies the proper standard for the State Board. This case further confirms that AB 1505 requires the State Board to give deference to denials made by school districts and county boards first hearing petitions.
Other important notes about this decision:
- Another point of contention was whether the State Board was statutorily required to find that both the School District and County Board committed abuses of discretion, or only one entity. Before the Court of Appeal heard this appeal, the California Legislature amended Education Code section 47605, clarifying that in order to overturn a denial, it is now clear that the State Board must find that both the district and county board committed abuses of discretion.
- The School District and this same charter school are currently involved in another case, Napa Valley Unified School District v. Barbara Nemko et al, after the charter school rebranded itself as a countywide charter school and submitted a new petition to the County Board. This petition was approved by the County Board, and the charter school is currently in active operation.
As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
