Perris Union High School District (Choice 2000 Charter School) v. California State Board of Education


The State denied funding to the Choice 2000 Charter School which operates a computer-based instructional program, claiming that as a nonclassroom-based program, it had to comply with independent study regulations.

  • Print

Case Overview

Choice 2000 is a charter school authorized by, and operated by, the District since 1994. Choice 2000 uses technology to provide direct education to its students, whose teachers directly supervise them throughout the school day. Classes are interactive, allowing students to ask questions of the entire class and enabling teachers to take role, call on students, and conduct pop quizzes.

For ten years, the state funded Choice 2000 based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA). However, in 2006, the state ordered an independent attendance auditor to deem the charter school to be an independent study program. Independent study programs require a student contract and are subject to additional regulations. Relying on State Board of Education Regulation 11963.1--which requires that nonclassroom-based instruction charter schools to comply with the quality control standards that apply to independent study programs--the auditor determined that Choice 2000 was ineligible for funding. Although the District concedes that Choice 2000 is a nonclassroom-based instruction, it maintains that nonclassroom-based instruction is distinct from independent study programs and that the SBE's regulations exceed their statutory authority. Nonetheless, the superior court construed the definition of independent study programs broadly and found that Choice 2000 was subject to Regulation 11963.1 and had failed to meet its requirements.

The District appealed the superior court decision and oral argument is set for December 16 at Division 3 of the 4th District Court of Appeal.

CCSA filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Choice 2000 and in the interest of all charter schools that strive to offer an innovative educational experience envisioned by the Legislature. We argued that the Legislature intended charter schools to offer innovative programs and provide greater public school options. Further the Charter Schools Act specifically allows charter schools to offer nonclassroom-based instruction that is not independent study.

Case Activity

  • 12-16-13: Oral Argument at the appellate court.
  • 2-17-13: CCSA filed AC Brief.
  • 1-28-13: District filed Reply Brief
  • 12-17-12: Respondents Briefs filed.
  • 9-13-12: District filed Opening Brief.
  • 3-6-12: District filed Notice of Appeal filed.
  • 1-10-12: Judgment entered against the District.
  • 3-6-09: District filed Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at Riverside county Superior Court

Ask A Question