# Boyertown Area School District v. Department of Education

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2002 · 797 A.2d 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649631

## Case

- **Full name:** BOYERTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent; Keystone Central School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Souderton Area School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Upper Merion Area School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Keystone Central School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Norristown Area School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Boyertown Area School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Daniel Boone Area School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Perkiomen Valley School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Pottsgrove School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent; Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, Petitioner, v. Department of Education, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 2, 2002
- **Citations:** 797 A.2d 421; 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pellegrini
- **Judges:** Colins, McGinley, Smith-Ribner, Pellegrini, Friedman, Cohn, Leavitt
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649631

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION BY
JUDGE PELLEGRINI.
While I concur that Petitioners have a right to a hearing, the scope is limited. In this setting, the Secretary only determines if the charter school has properly documented that its students are enrolled and the amount to be deducted from the respective school district accounts. The propriety of the charter of the charter school is not before the Secretary because he did not participate in the decision to award the charter. That decision was made by either the school district or the Charter Schools Appeal Board.
Judge COHN joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649631. Public record. Not legal advice.