Court rules in favor of Education Legal Alliance in charter authorization case

LEGAL

This significant decision provides valuable procedural guidance for LEAs

A wooden gavel rests on a stack of tan-colored law books against a dark background, symbolizing a legal ruling

On March 14, 2025, California’s Third District Court of Appeal issued its decision in CSBA v. State Board of Education (CSBA) in favor of the association’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) and member district Napa Valley Unified. A significant victory for CSBA and its members, the decision provides valuable procedural guidance regarding local educational agencies’ review of charter petitions pursuant to Education Code Section 47605 and, even more importantly, recognizes the substantial deference owed to LEA decisions under current California law. The ELA continues to be on the cutting edge of statewide legal issues affecting school districts and county offices of education, as this was the first litigation over the sweeping charter reforms in Assembly Bill 1505. The decision was initially deemed unpublished, which meant it could not be cited as precedent. The ELA, the district and others petitioned the California Supreme Court to publish the case, and the court approved the request. The decision is now precedential.

Charter school authorization

The Charter Schools Act provides the process for authorizing charter schools, requiring that a petition be initially presented for approval to the governing board of the school district in which the charter will be located, and if denied, to the county board of education. Based on Section 47605, a petition may be denied when there are concerns regarding the charter’s ability to implement its educational program or to serve certain underserved student populations and if the charter is “demonstrably unlikely” to serve the interests of the district community — which includes an assessment of the charter’s school’s fiscal impact on the district.

The ELA continues to be on the cutting edge of statewide legal issues affecting school districts and county offices of education.

If the county board also denies the petition, the charter may then appeal to the State Board of Education (SBE), which may elect to summarily deny the petition or hold a hearing. If a hearing is held, the SBE may reverse only if it finds an “abuse of discretion” by the district or county board of education that denied the petition. It was this SBE role and how the State Board dispensed it that precipitated this lawsuit.

In 2021, the Napa Foundation for Options in Education filed a charter petition to establish the Mayacamas Charter School with the Napa Valley Unified School District, which denied the petition based on a thorough set of findings prepared by district staff. The foundation then appealed the petition to the Napa County Board of Education. Like the district, the county board was also provided with proposed findings based on investigation by the Napa County Office of Education, together with the county superintendent. At the time of the petition, the district was under significant financial stress and had previously been forced to make extensive cuts in services. The COE findings concluded that the charter would exacerbate these issues, potentially undermining the district’s solvency and requiring school closures. Because of this, the findings recommended that the county board deny the petition. The county board denied the petition on these bases at a March 15, 2022, meeting and ratified it on April 5, 2022. Read more about the case at csba.pub/charter-appeal.

The foundation appealed to the SBE. In addition to challenging the substantive reasons for the petition’s denial by the district and the county board, the foundation alleged that the district board’s denial was motivated by improper bias because the district board had “prejudged” the petition, as evidenced by the board’s adoption of staff’s proposed findings and the alleged use of prepared scripts. The foundation also argued that the county board’s denial was untimely because it was not issued within 90 days of the petition’s submission as required by Section 47605. Although the California Department of Education recommended upholding the district and county board denials, the SBE sided with the foundation and approved the petition.

The district and CSBA’s ELA both filed writ petitions challenging SBE’s approval of the petition. After the trial court agreed with the ELA and the district and issued an order overruling the SBE’s decision, the foundation appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal.

Finding that the SBE’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the court rejected SBE’s conclusion that the district’s written findings were not adequately supported by the record, noting that the concerns they raised were relevant considerations under Section 47605. The court also dismissed SBE’s claim that the district board’s adoption of staff’s proposed findings, or using scripts, demonstrated improper bias, or that the foundation’s position was not meaningfully considered.

The court disagreed with the SBE and the foundation that the county board’s written findings were untimely, finding that the foundation’s own failure to comply with Section 47605’s procedures had delayed the start of the county board’s 90-day deadline to decide the petition. The court also found that the SBE failed to properly apply the abuse of discretion standard of review in AB 1505 when it found the county board’s findings regarding the district’s fiscal distress were insufficient to deny the petition.

In all, the court’s decision is a powerful recognition of LEAs’ right to consider all aspects of a charter school’s impact when deciding whether a charter petition should be granted. The decision recognizes that local determinations such as those made by the district and county boards in the case are entitled to significant deference by both the SBE and California courts.

Back to Newsletter