The fight between I-LEAD Charter School and the Reading School District continues to play out in court.
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed charges filed by I-LEAD that claimed the district violated state and federal laws before revoking its charter last year. That decision came exactly a week after the state Charter School Appeal Board voted to allow the school to remain open.
I-LEAD officials claimed that the Reading School Board violated their First Amendment rights and right to due process, as well as Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act, which requires that an agency such as a school board must deliberate and take official action in an open and public meeting.
They alleged primarily that school board members met in secret on multiple occasions and implemented changes to a public meeting agenda on short notice with the intent to conceal their actions.
In its motion to dismiss the charges, the district claimed I-LEAD representatives – including the school itself, parents and students, and former Reading School Board members – sued “solely because they are displeased the revocation proceedings occurred and the school board voted to revoke the charter.”
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl issued an order Tuesday granting the district’s motion, which concludes the case.
The court opinion lists several reasons for its decision, including that some plaintiffs – parents and their children – have no standing to claim they’ve suffered injury as the result of the school board’s conduct because I-LEAD was successful in its appeal of the revocation and consequently remains open.
The court similarly found I-LEAD’s due process claim fails because the school had a remedy from charter revocation: the appeal process, which recently overturned that decision. Regardless of remedy, Schmehl wrote that plaintiffs were not deprived of any interest protected by the due process clause.
“Continued education at I-LEAD is clearly not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution,” he wrote. “Plaintiffs do not have a protected liberty or property interest in attending a school of their choice.”
The opinion also found:
As an entity created by the school district, I-LEAD could not sue the district for alleged constitutional violations.
The school district did not infringe upon I-LEAD’s free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
I-LEAD’s Sunshine Act claims were untimely.
A charter school is not permitted to bring legal challenges under the Sunshine Act.
In a statement released Thursday, Reading School Board President Abraham J. Cepeda called the suit “frivolous” and “baseless.”
“It is easy to conclude from the decision that the Reading School District acted lawfully and that these claims were frivolous,” Cepeda said. “I hope the district can move forward from these baseless accusations. Over the last three years, our district has been open, transparent and focused solely on the education of our children.”
I-LEAD founder and CEO Angel Figueroa said the primary relief the school sought was to reverse the revocation decision.
“As of last week, the (appeal board) granted us that release,” he said. “Nonetheless, we are concerned that the Reading School District board of directors continues to violate the Sunshine Act by plotting in secret about the school, and we intend to review the court’s decision.”
Contact Lea Skene: 610-371-5032 or lskene@readingeagle.com.
