Predictable struggle

2 new city charter schools appealing application denials

Two charter schools whose applications were denied by the Pittsburgh school board intend to appeal the decision, taking their turn in the often predictable back-and-forth struggle over new charter schools in Pennsylvania.

Representatives from Catalyst Academy and Career Tech Charter High School said they are in the early stages of the process to contest the school board’s unanimous rejection of their applications in February.

Catalyst Academy, a proposed kindergarten-throug-heighth-grade school that would open in East Liberty, completed the first step in the appeals process earlier this month when it submitted more than the required 1,000 signatures from city residents expressing their support.

The district has 30 days to

contest the signatures and then the charter school plans to file a formal appeal to the state Charter Appeals Board, school leaders said.

Career Tech also is “working toward an appeal,” the school’s founder, Maureen Anderson, said.

“This is like watching the same movie,” said Ira Weiss, who is the solicitor for Pittsburgh Public Schools and several other local school districts.

Per the Pennsylvania Charter School Law, the local school board acts as the authorizer for proposed brickand-mortar charter schools within its district. If a school board denies a charter, the proposed school can turn to the state appeal board.

Some districts and charter schools have negotiated to agree on voluntary caps on the number of students a charter school could draw from the authorizing school district, thus limiting the amount of “tuition” that district would have to pay.

But many charter school applications still end up before the state appeals board, including those from Environmental Charter School, Provident Charter School and charter schools in Penn Hills and McKeesport over the past several years.

Leaders of the proposed Catalyst and Career Tech schools weren’t particularly surprised when the school board voted down their proposals. At the time, Career Tech’s Ms. Anderson called it “part of the process.”

“Based on our experience, it feels like the process is broken,” Catalyst’s founder and CEO, Brian Smith, said.

Mr. Weiss said Pittsburgh Public has paid his firm roughly $125,000 over the past decade on matters related to charter school application review and appeals. He also said the district likely won’t contest Catalyst’s signatures and will prepare to make its case before the appeals board after the charter formally files an appeal.

One of the most frequent concerns that charter school critics cite is the way they are funded in Pennsylvania. School districts pay “tuition” based on what they spend per pupil for each of their students enrolled in a charter school. School districts often blame charters for being a financial drain on their already cashstrapped budgets.

Before voting at the legislative meeting in February, board members briefly expressed some concerns about both Catalyst and Career Tech, including about their disciplinary practices and ability to serve students with special needs.

But Mr. Smith said his team was told by the school district’s application review team that Catalyst’s proposed charter school met all the district’s criteria for approval, yet the school board still rejected the charter.

“Our question is exactly what kind of application would get approved if we’re meeting all the criteria of the law and their own administrative review,” he said. “It feels unjustified and politicized.”