Understanding Fell Charter Board of Trustees Curriculum Decisions

Charter schools succeed or fail based on who truly controls the classroom. Across Pennsylvania, boards of trustees face a recurring question: does the independent board retain final say over curriculum, or can a management organization effectively set academic policy? The answer carries real consequences for student outcomes, legal compliance, and public accountability. This article examines the legal scope of Fell Charter Board of Trustees curriculum decisions and the broader principles that guide charter school governance under the Pennsylvania Charter School Law. It draws directly from the landmark Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School ruling and related authorities so board members, administrators, founders, and attorneys can apply clear standards in practice.

Legal Framework for Charter School Boards of Trustees

Pennsylvania’s Charter School Law (CSL), enacted in 1997 and codified at 24 P.S. §§ 17-1701-A et seq., creates independent public schools that operate under a charter granted by a local school district or, on appeal, the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB). Unlike traditional district schools, charter schools are governed by their own boards of trustees.

Section 1716-A(a) of the CSL states that the board of trustees “may decide matters related to the operation of the school, including, but not limited to, budgeting, curriculum and operating procedures, subject to the school’s charter.” The same section grants the board authority to employ, discharge, and contract with professional and nonprofessional employees. Official action on budgeting, curriculum, operating procedures, and employment requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all voting members.

The board must consist of at least five nonrelated voting members. At least one member must be a parent of a currently enrolled student (for most schools). Trustees are public officials subject to the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, the Sunshine Act, and financial disclosure requirements. These structural rules reinforce that the board, not an external vendor, holds legal responsibility for the school’s educational program.

The Fell Charter School Precedent and Its Core Holding

The 2003 Commonwealth Court decision in Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School, 829 A.2d 400, remains a cornerstone of Pennsylvania charter school jurisprudence on governance and curriculum control. Residents of Fell Township sought to keep a local elementary school open after the district planned to close it. They formed Fell Charter School and entered a management agreement with Mosaica Education, Inc., a for-profit organization that provided the Paragon Curriculum and operational support.

The district denied the charter application. On appeal, the CAB reversed and ordered the district to grant the charter. The Commonwealth Court affirmed. In analyzing the governance structure, the court examined whether the involvement of a for-profit management company improperly stripped the nonprofit board of authority.

The court held that nothing in the CSL prohibits for-profit entities from assisting in the establishment and operation of a charter school, provided three conditions are met: the school itself remains nonprofit, the board of trustees retains real and substantial authority and responsibility for the educational decisions, and the teachers are employees of the charter school. Fell’s by-laws explicitly stated that the Board of Trustees “has ultimate responsibility to determine general, academic, financial, personnel and related policies.” The management agreement and application materials demonstrated that the board, not Mosaica, held final decision-making power over curriculum and academic policy.

This language has been cited repeatedly in later CAB and court decisions. It establishes that contracting for curriculum design or daily management does not transfer ultimate legal authority. The board remains accountable for the educational program offered under the charter.

What “Real and Substantial Authority” Means for Curriculum

Curriculum decisions sit at the heart of a charter school’s mission. Under Section 1719-A of the CSL, an application must describe the school’s mission and educational goals, the curriculum to be offered, and the methods for assessing whether students meet those goals. The Fell decision clarified that an applicant need only provide detailed curriculum for the grades it will serve in the first year of operation. Future grades may be developed later, so long as the board retains control over the process.

In practice, real and substantial authority requires the board to:

Approve the overall educational program and any major curriculum changes.
Ensure the curriculum aligns with the school’s charter and Pennsylvania academic standards (22 Pa. Code Chapter 4).
Oversee assessment systems and academic accountability.
Retain the power to terminate or modify a management contract if the educational program fails to meet expectations.
Vote formally on curriculum-related policies, with recorded majority support.

Boards may (and often do) rely on school leaders, teachers, and contracted experts for recommendations and day-to-day implementation. That reliance is appropriate. Delegation of implementation, however, is not the same as abdication of responsibility. When a management organization presents a curriculum package, the board must still evaluate it against the school’s goals, state standards, and student needs, then formally adopt or modify it.

Balancing Management Organizations and Board Autonomy

Many Pennsylvania charter schools contract with education management organizations (EMOs) or charter management organizations (CMOs) for back-office services, facilities support, or curriculum frameworks. The Fell ruling and subsequent cases make clear that such contracts are permissible only when the board keeps ultimate control.

Practical safeguards include:

Clear contract language stating that the board retains final authority over curriculum, academic policies, personnel decisions affecting instruction, and performance standards.
Board review and approval of annual academic goals and any significant changes to instructional materials or sequence.
Regular academic performance reporting directly to the board, not solely through the management company.
Independent legal counsel for the board on governance and contract matters.
Documented board votes on curriculum adoption or major revisions.

Failure to maintain these boundaries can expose the school to challenges during charter renewal. Authorizers and the CAB examine whether the board functions as an independent governing body or merely rubber-stamps decisions made by an external entity. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the board’s fiduciary and public duties cannot be outsourced.

Academic Accountability and Oversight Duties

Curriculum authority is inseparable from academic accountability. Charter schools must participate in the Pennsylvania State Assessment System and meet performance standards set forth in the charter or in state regulations. The board of trustees bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring the educational program produces measurable results.

Boards should establish clear processes for:

Reviewing student achievement data at regular public meetings.
Aligning curriculum with state academic standards while preserving the school’s distinctive educational approach.
Addressing achievement gaps or underperformance through policy adjustments rather than solely operational directives from management.
Ensuring special education and English learner programs comply with federal and state requirements while remaining integrated into the broader curriculum.

When a school underperforms, the local district or CAB may consider nonrenewal. Demonstrating that the board actively oversaw curriculum and made data-informed decisions strengthens the school’s position. Passive reliance on a management company’s reports does not.

Common Pitfalls Boards Should Avoid

Several recurring problems undermine board authority over curriculum:

Overly broad management contracts that grant the EMO unilateral power to change instructional materials or sequence without board approval.
Failure to document board deliberation and votes on curriculum matters in meeting minutes.
Allowing management company employees to dominate academic policy discussions without independent board analysis.
Neglecting to update the educational program description when the school expands grades or shifts instructional models.
Treating curriculum as a purely operational issue rather than a core governance responsibility.

Boards that treat curriculum decisions as routine administrative matters risk both legal vulnerability and diminished educational quality. The opposite error—micromanaging daily lesson plans—is equally unwise. Effective boards set clear academic goals, approve the framework, monitor results, and hold leadership accountable.

Practical Steps for Strong Curriculum Governance

Charter school boards can operationalize their legal authority through consistent practices:

Adopt a written curriculum policy that defines the board’s role in adoption, revision, and evaluation.
Require the chief academic officer or principal to present proposed changes with supporting data, alignment analysis, and implementation plans.
Schedule periodic curriculum reviews aligned with charter renewal cycles.
Include parent and teacher input through committees or public comment while retaining final decision-making power.
Maintain independent access to student performance data systems.
Consult education counsel when negotiating or amending management agreements that touch curriculum.

These steps convert the abstract legal standard of “real and substantial authority” into daily practice. They also create a clear record that the board, not an external vendor, governs the school’s educational program.

Lessons from Fell Charter and Related Cases

The original Fell Charter litigation and subsequent renewal proceedings illustrate both the resilience of independent board governance and the practical challenges of district-charter relations. Fell has continued operating for more than two decades, navigating multiple renewal cycles, some of which required CAB intervention when the local district declined to renew. Throughout, the principle established in 2003 has held: the board of trustees holds ultimate responsibility for academic decisions.

Later decisions citing Fell reinforce that curriculum detail must be sufficient for the grades offered, that for-profit involvement is acceptable when control remains with the nonprofit board, and that CAB reviews applications and renewals under a de novo standard that prioritizes the statutory requirements over local political preferences.

These precedents give boards a solid foundation. They also remind founders and management organizations that governance structure is not a formality. Courts and the CAB examine substance over form.

Conclusion

Fell Charter Board of Trustees curriculum decisions rest on a clear legal foundation: under the Pennsylvania Charter School Law and the Commonwealth Court’s ruling in Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School, the independent board of trustees retains ultimate authority over curriculum and educational policy. Management organizations may provide expertise and operational support, but they cannot displace the board’s real and substantial responsibility for academic decisions. Charter school leaders who understand and actively exercise this authority strengthen both legal compliance and educational quality. Board members, administrators, and counsel should review existing management contracts, curriculum policies, and meeting practices against these standards. Consult experienced education counsel to evaluate your school’s governance structure and ensure it meets the requirements established by Pennsylvania law and the Fell precedent.

Frequently Asked Questions

What specific authority does a Pennsylvania charter school board of trustees have over curriculum?
Section 1716-A of the Charter School Law grants the board authority to decide matters related to the operation of the school, including curriculum, subject to the school’s charter. Official curriculum actions require a recorded majority vote of all voting members.

Can a charter school contract with a for-profit management company for curriculum services?
Yes, provided the school remains a nonprofit entity, the board of trustees retains real and substantial authority over educational decisions, and teachers are employees of the charter school. The Fell Charter School decision confirms this arrangement is lawful when control stays with the board.

Does the board need to approve every textbook or lesson plan?
No. Boards typically approve the overall curriculum framework, major instructional programs, and significant changes. Day-to-day implementation and individual resource selection usually fall to school leaders and teachers under board-approved policy.

What happens if a management organization effectively controls curriculum decisions?
Such an arrangement risks violating the requirement of real and substantial board authority. It can become a factor in charter renewal proceedings or legal challenges, because the board cannot lawfully abdicate its statutory responsibilities.

How detailed must the curriculum description be in a charter application?
The application must describe the curriculum for the grades the school will serve in its first year of operation. Later grades may be developed subsequently, as clarified in the Fell Charter School case, so long as the board retains control over the development process.

Are charter school trustees required to receive training on academic programs?
Yes. Under Act 55 of 2017 and subsequent requirements, new trustees must complete approved training that includes instruction and academic programs, among other topics.

How does the Sunshine Act affect curriculum decisions?
Board meetings at which curriculum is discussed or voted upon must comply with the Sunshine Act’s open meeting requirements, including public notice and the opportunity for public comment.