Bell v. Wilkinsburg Sch. Dist.

283 A.3d 245

Betty BELL, an Adult Individual, and Propel Schools, d/b/a Propel Charter School - Homestead, Propel Charter School - Sunrise, d/b/a Propel Braddock Hills, Propel Charter School - Pitcairn, and Propel Charter School - Hazelwood, Appellees

v.WILKINSBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant

No. 25 WAP 2021

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: March 10, 2022

Decided: September 29, 2022

Stuart Lee Knade, Esq., Pro Se

Kevin Michael McKenna, Esq., Mark G. Morford, Esq., for Amicus Curiae Arts Academy Charter Middle School, Collegium Charter School, Environmental Charter School, School Lane Charter School, Urban Academy of Greater Pittsburgh Charter School, Urban Pathways K-5 College Charter School

Matthew Mark Hoffman, Esq., Christopher Laine Voltz, Esq., Tucker Arensberg, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant Wilkinsburg School District

Alan Thomas Shuckrow, Esq., David Alan Strassburger, Esq., Strassburger McKenna Gutnik & Gefsky, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellees Propel Schools, d/b/a Propel Charter School-Homestead, Propel Charter School - Sunrise, d/b/a Propel Braddock Hills, Propel Charter School - Pitcairn, Propel Charter School - Hazelwood, Betty Bell

BAER, C.J., TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE TODD

In this appeal, we consider whether Appellant, Wilkinsburg School District (the "District"), was required to obtain prior approval from the Department of Education (the "Department") before changing the mode of transportation for charter school students, from school buses to public transportation. After review of the governing statutes and administrative regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education (the "Board"), we conclude the District was not required to obtain such approval and, therefore, we reverse the Commonwealth Court decision and remand to that tribunal for further proceedings.

I. Background

The District is a public school district located in Wilkinsburg Borough, Allegheny County. Appellee, Propel Charter Schools ("Propel"), is a non-profit corporation that operates public charter schools within several municipalities outside of the District's boundaries – Pitcairn, Homestead, Braddock Hills, and Hazelwood – for which the District is required to provide transportation under the Public School Code. See 24 P.S. § 17-1726-A(a).¹

Prior to the 2017-2018 school year, the District contracted with an independent bus company to provide transportation for all students residing in the District who attended its schools as well as for those students who attended one of Propel's charter schools located within ten miles of the District's boundaries.² Thus, students who attended these charter schools were transported to and from those schools on buses the District provided, pursuant to its bus contract. However, before the 2018-2019 school year, as part of ongoing efforts to safeguard its fiscal stability, the District engaged the services of a consultant from the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials to review its overall transportation program. Based on the consultant's review, the District determined that, if it discontinued providing school bus transportation for charter school students, and, instead, furnished those students with free passes to use public bus transportation provided by the Allegheny County Port Authority ("PAT"), its overall annual transportation costs would be reduced. This was because the District would be fully reimbursed by the Department for the cost of purchasing of bus passes from PAT; whereas, if it continued to provide bus transportation itself for the Propel students, the state subsidy for such costs was significantly more limited; as a result, the District would incur $136,836 in unreimbursed transportation expenses each fiscal year.

Consequently, the District decided that it would no longer provide Propel students with school bus transportation; and, in July 2018, the District informed both Propel and the parents of Propel students of this change. The District did not seek approval from the Department prior to implementing this new transportation plan; however, it had never previously sought approval from the Department for any of its previously-implemented transportation plans. Instead, the District's customary practice was to submit to the Department a form for transportation reimbursement at the end of each fiscal year – a "PDE 1049" form – and all of its prior requests for such reimbursement using this method had been granted by the Department.

As a result of the District's decision, Propel retained the services of a private bus company to provide transportation for all of its students in kindergarten through grade five; however, Propel did not provide such transportation for its sixth through twelfth grade students, who instead used the PAT bus passes provided by the District, or other means of transportation.

Two of Propel's students are the grandchildren of Appellee Betty Bell and reside with her in the District. Both attend Propel's charter school located in Pitcairn, and the oldest grandchild takes a PAT bus to and from that school. On October 12, 2018, Bell and Propel jointly filed a lawsuit against the District, seeking both declarative and injunctive relief.³ The lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment that the District's furnishing of PAT bus passes to Propel's students did not constitute the provision of "free transportation" as Section 17-1726-A(a) of the Charter School Law ("CSL") required,⁴ and, also, sought an injunction to prospectively prohibit the District from issuing such passes to Propel's students. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court ruled in the District's favor and dismissed Propel's complaint.⁵

The trial court found that the District did not violate either the CSL or the Public School Code. The court reasoned that, although Section 17-1726-A(a) of the CSL requires students to be provided "free transportation," Section 13-1362⁶ of the Public School Code expressly permits such transportation to be furnished by "common carriers" such as PAT. The trial court concluded that the "under the same conditions" language in Section 17-1726-A(a) was a requirement that the route be non-hazardous, but not that charter school students and school district students be transported in the same type of carrier.⁷ Trial Court Opinion, 10/22/19, at 2. Given that the trial court could find no basis in either the CSL or the Public School Code to mandate that identical means of transportation be provided to school district and charter school students, it refused to "impose such a requirement by judicial fiat." Id.

Propel appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the trial court committed legal error by failing to conclude that: (1) Section 1726-A(a) of the CSL required the District to provide the charter school students with the same form of transportation that the District provides to students attending its own schools; (2) the District's use of PAT buses to transport Propel students violated Section 23.2⁸ and Section 23.4⁹ of the Board's regulations governing pupil transportation; and (3) the District's use of PAT buses to transport Propel students violated Section 13-1362 of the School Code because this resulted in students having to walk long distances over unsafe routes. See Propel Brief filed in Bell v. Wilkinsburg School District , No. 1259 C.D. 2019, (Pa. Cmwlth.).

The Commonwealth Court reversed in a unanimous, published en banc opinion. Bell v. Wilkinsburg School District , 252 A.3d 708 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). The court focused its analysis on the question of whether the District complied with Section 23.2 of the Board's regulations, as it viewed this to be "a threshold issue." Id. at 711. The District argued that, because Section 23.2 states only that the means of transportation chosen by a school district is "subject" to Department approval, it does not require the Department to approve a transportation plan prior to implementation, but, rather, the Department may approve a transportation plan retroactively, when it reimburses the district's transportation costs (or disapprove the plan by declining to reimburse such costs). The court rejected this argument, interpreting Section 23.2 as requiring "that, before a school district may implement a new or altered transportation plan ... the school district must first obtain the Department's approval." Id. at 712. Consequently, it concluded that the trial court erred by failing to find that the District violated Section 23.2 by not seeking approval from the Department before changing its transportation plan for the Propel students. As a result, the court reversed the order of the trial court and remanded this case to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of Propel.¹⁰

We granted allowance of appeal to consider whether the Commonwealth Court erred when it interpreted 22 Pa.Code § 23.2 to require school districts to obtain advance approval from the Department for pupil transportation plans and transportation services contracts before implementing them. See Bell v. Wilkinsburg School District , ––– Pa. ––––, 266 A.3d 447 (2021) (order).

II. Arguments

The District argues that the Commonwealth Court erroneously interpreted 22 Pa. Code § 23.2 as requiring school districts to obtain Department approval prior to making any change to their transportation plans; rather, it contends the Department "regulates school district transportation via reimbursement." District Brief at 19. In support of this assertion, the District highlights the fact that the trial court specifically found that the Department does not require prior approval of any contracts or agreements related to the method of student transportation, and that, in fact, the Department lacks any established procedure for considering and approving such transportation-related agreements prior to their implementation. Indeed, according to the District, as established by the testimony of the District's Director of...