Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Statewide Charter School Board denies Ben Gamla revised application, cites nonsectarian law and court mandamus
Loading...
Summary
The Statewide Charter School Board voted March 9 to deny the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s revised application after finding remaining religious components conflicted with Oklahoma’s statutory nonsectarian requirement; the board referenced a writ of mandamus and staff-reported deficiencies.
The Statewide Charter School Board voted to deny the revised application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation at its March 9, 2026, regular meeting in Oklahoma City. Board staff reported the applicant had addressed nine of ten prior deficiencies but that the application still included religious elements that conflicted with Oklahoma’s statutory requirement that charter schools be nonsectarian.
Deputy General Counsel Thomas Schneider called attention to a material enrollment-projection discrepancy in the application — an initial Letter of Intent estimate of 40 students versus a revised potential of about 400 — and noted that the legal and statutory environment, including an Oklahoma Supreme Court writ of mandamus referenced on the record, constrained the board’s review. Board members agreed the sectarian components were decisive in their determination.
Bill Pearson moved to deny the revised application; after procedural steps including an amended motion and a second, the board approved the denial. The motion carried with the following votes recorded: Kitty Campbell — Yes; Jared Buswell — Yes; Bill Pearson — Yes; Courtney Anderson — Yes; Damon Gardenhire — Yes; Brian Shellem — Yes; Amber Wise — Yes; Britni Tomcho — Yes. David Rutkauskas was absent.
Board staff reported the denial was made “based on the reasons stated on the record by board staff, the mandamus order from the courts, and the secular clause contained within Title 70” of Oklahoma law. The board did not adopt or vote on a remedial or alternative authorization; staff indicated the action was a denial of the revised initial-authorization application and that any further legal or procedural steps would follow the board’s and state law’s processes.
The meeting record shows the board’s decision arose after staff and counsel highlighted unresolved statutory conflicts; members discussed both factual elements of the revised application and the controlling legal framework before voting. The board also took a separate action later in the meeting to retain outside counsel for potential litigation related to this denial.