Board of Educ. v. State Board of Educ.

• Decision Date: 30 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 17445.,17445.
• Citation: 898 A.2d 170,278 Conn. 326
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF HAMDEN v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

Page 170

898 A.2d 170

278 Conn. 326

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF HAMDEN v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

No. 17445.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 3, 2006.

Decided May 30, 2006.

Jennifer D. Janelle, with whom was Erik J. Ness, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Ralph Urban, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Richard J. Lynch, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).

Christopher M. Licari, Haven, for the appellee (defendant Highville Mustard Seed Charter School).

Kelly Balser Moyher filed a brief for the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education as amicus curiae.

SULLIVAN, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.^*

ZARELLA, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether a local or regional public school district, in which a charter school is located, is required to provide transportation services to preschool children residing within the district and enrolled in the charter school. The plaintiff, the board of education of the town of Hamden (town board), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal from a decision of the defendant state board of education (state board), which reversed the decision of the town board to discontinue transportation services¹ for preschool children residing within the Hamden school district (district) and enrolled at the defendant Highville Mustard Seed Charter School (Highville).² The town board claims that, under the relevant statutory provisions, preschool children attending charter schools within the district are not entitled to the provision of transportation services by the town board. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in the memorandum of decision of the trial court. "Highville . . . is a state public charter school located in [the town of] Hamden . . . [and] organized and operat[ed] pursuant to [General Statutes § 10-66aa et seq.] [Highville's] grade levels range from prekindergarten whose students are three and four years old, through eighth grade. The organization of [Highville] in terms of the ages and grade levels was approved by the [state board] pursuant to [General Statutes § 10-66bb(d)(7)]. Highville has operated continuously since the 1998-1999 school year.

"On or about August 1, 2003, Alida D. Begina, superintendent of schools for the town of Hamden . . . sent a letter to Lyndon Pitter, Highville's executive director, advising him that [the town board] would not provide transportation to preschool students enrolled at Highville during the 2003-2004 school year ....³

"A number of parents of [the] preschool students who resided in Hamden pursued an appeal to [the town board] ... and via letter dated September 26, 2003 ... [the town board] notified [the] parents that, on October 3, 2002, it would conduct a hearing pursuant to the provisions of [General Statutes § 10-186].

"[The town board] held a hearing on the aforementioned date .... A written decision dated October 13, 2000, was issued, [in which the town board ruled] that [it was] not required, pursuant to [General Statutes § 10-66ee(f)], to provide transportation to preschool students residing in [the district] and enrolled at Highville. . . .

"By way of letters dated October 28, 2003, a number of the parents who appealed to [the town board] pursued an appeal to the [state board]. . . .

"On November 25, 2003, the state board, acting through a designated impartial hearing officer, conducted a hearing pursuant to the provisions of § 10-186(b)(2) . . . . Highville requested and was granted interested party status at the aforementioned hearing.

"The state board rendered its decision [in favor of the parents] via written memorandum dated March 17, 2003 . . . . [The town board] thereafter filed [an appeal to the Superior Court] in conjunction with which it sought a stay of the state board's decision ordering it to provide transportation to preschool students residing in [the district] and enrolled at Highville.⁴ The application for a stay was the subject of a May 11, 2004 hearing. . . . After receiving testimony and entertaining arguments of counsel, [the court] ordered the decision stayed only for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year."

Thereafter, the trial court concluded that, under the plain language of § 10-66ee(f), the town board was required to provide transportation services to preschool students residing within the district and enrolled at Highville. The court thus rendered judgment dismissing the town board's appeal on the ground that, "[t]o strictly construe the [relevant] statutes as is argued by [the town board] would be to frustrate the legislation that gives boards of education the power to approve charter schools that vary in their educational makeup on the bases of age and grades as it provided for in the enabling legislation." The town board appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199(c) and Practice Book § 65-1.

The town board claims that it is not required by law to provide transportation services to preschool children who reside within the district and who are enrolled at Highville. It claims that Connecticut's education statutes limit the obligation of local public schools to provide transportation to children of kindergarten age or to children no younger than five years old. The state board and Highville respond that the plain language of the relevant statutory provisions requires that the town board provide transportation to preschool children enrolled at Highville who reside within the district. We agree with the town board.

We begin our analysis with the applicable standard of review. The issue before the court requires us to interpret several statutory provisions pertaining to the transportation of children enrolled in charter schools. "[Although] [o]rdinarily, this court affords deference to the construction of a statute applied by the administrative agency empowered by law to carry out the statute's purposes ... when a state agency's determination of a question of law has not previously been subject to judicial scrutiny ... the agency is not entitled to special deference .... [I]t is for the courts, and not administrative agencies, to expound and apply governing principles of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 274 Conn. 119, 127, 874 A.2d 776 (2005). In the present case, the pertinent statutory provisions previously have not been subject to judicial scrutiny insofar as they relate to the provision of transportation services to preschool children attending charter schools. The standard of review is therefore plenary.

"[O]ur fundamental objective [in statutory interpretation] is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alexson v. Foss, 276 Conn. 599, 604-605, 887 A.2d 872 (2006). General Statutes § 1-2z provides that "[t]he meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered." With these principles in mind, we turn to the statutes in question.

General Statutes § 10-66dd(b)(1) provides in relevant part that "charter schools shall be subject to all federal and state laws governing public schools." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 10-66ee(f) provides in relevant part that "[t]he local or regional board of education of the school district in which the charter school is located shall provide transportation services for students of the charter school who reside in such school district pursuant to section 10-273a unless the charter school makes other arrangements for such transportation ...." Because § 10-66ee(f) does not define the term "students," we seek additional guidance from General Statutes § 10-273a, which is incorporated by reference into § 10-66ee(f).

General Statutes § 10-273a provides for the reimbursement of public school transportation costs and applies to "[a]ny town transporting children to and from any public elementary school, including kindergartens, or to and from any public secondary school within said town ...." (Emphasis added.) In light of the fact that § 10-66ee(f) requires that transportation services be provided "pursuant to" § 10-273a, that the latter statute applies to children of kindergarten age or older and that General Statutes § 10-66dd(b)(1) provides that charter schools "shall be subject to all federal and state laws governing public schools," we conclude that § 10-66ee(f) cannot be read more broadly than § 10-273a to require that local or regional boards of education provide transportation services to preschool children enrolled in charter schools.

This conclusion is supported by other language in General Statutes § 10-66ee(f), which instructs that "[t]he parent or guardian of any student denied the transportation services required to be provided pursuant to this subsection may appeal such denial in the manner provided in sections 10-186 and 10-187." (Emphasis added.) Sections 10-186 and 10-187 in turn permit appeals on behalf of children "five years of age and over and under twenty-one years of age"; General Statutes § 10-186(a); who are enrolled in public schools and allege the denial of school accommodations to which they are entitled under the statutory scheme. To interpret § 10-66ee(f) as being applicable to preschool children would create an immediate incongruity within ...