41-4. Colorado Supreme Court on a charter school &
　 　　Planning of new schools of new type in Japan

1. In its complaint, Academy alleged that the District breached the charter contract in several
　 ways, including withholding of promised support, retaining state and federal funds belonging
　to Academy by law, and violating Academy's statutory and contractual authority by interfering
　with Academy opearations, including budgeting, hiring, and contracting.

2. Academy initially sought enforcement of the contact from the State Board of Education,
　 which declined to exercise juristiction, concluding that Academy's remedy lay in enforcing
　the contract in district court.

3. The district court dismissed Academy's complaint pursuant to the District's C.R.C.P.motion to
　dismiss,concluding that charter schools lack the authority to enforce their charter contracts.
　The district court further held that the Charter Schools Act does not give charter schools
　authority to sue because charter schools are subordinate to their districts.

4. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that, without an explicit expression of legislative
　 intent to the contrary, subordinate agencies cannot sue their superior bodies.

5. In 1999, the General Assembly amended section 22-30.5-104, describing the power of charter
　 schools to enter into various types of service contracts with their local school district of other
　 third parties. In that amended section, the legislature also expressly granted standing to charter
　 schools to sue for enforcement of contracts formed under that paragraph.
　 Finally, in House Bill stated that the legislative declaration behind the bill was to clarify the
　 General Assembly's intent concerning the empowerment of charter schools to enter into
　 contracts.
　 The General Assembly also enacted section 22-30.5-107.5. That section outlines the dispute
　resolution process to resolve disputes that may arise concerning the implementation of the
　 charter contracts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 1999 amendments to section 22-30.5-104 were clarifications of the law, and
change. As such, Academy has standing to enforce the facilitiies operation and maintenance and
service portions of the contract relating to the provision of services equal to twenty percent of its
PPOR. The power to enter into those contractual service provisions stemmed from the grant of
authority in section 22--30.5-104, and therefore, the ability to seek judicial enforcement of that
service contract also stems from that section.

However, as to Academy's governing policy claims, the enactment of section 22-30.5-107.5
served as a retroactive change to the Act. Because that section authorizes an aggrieved party
to seek appellate review from the State Board, and because the State Board's decision is not
subject to review. Academy lacks standing to pursue its claims concerning the governing
policy provisions of the charter contract. Finally, as to the Association's standing to sue the
District, the Association was not a party to the charter contract, and thus, may not seek
enforcement of that conract.

Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment insofar as it denied Academy standing to
pursue its service contract claims and remand this case with directions to allow the parties to
litigate the service claims. However, we affirm that portion of the court of appeal's decision
dismissing Academy's claims, as related to the governing policy provisions entered into under
the section 22-30.5-105 and -106, for a lack of standing. We also affirm the court of appeals'
conclusion that Association lacks standing to enforce the charter contract with the District.
Therefore, we remand this case to the court of appeals for return to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Ministry added 5 more schools to 32 Experimental schools of new type in the 2002 fisical
year, and expects each prefectural board of education to plan such schools in Japan.
Outline
1. Community should take part posibility in the school management more than previously.
2. Principal has the right to employ staff, consulting wiht the management team of the school.
3. Community has the right of evaluation of the school.

They are called Community schools.

As I described, Education Reform is slow, but steady in Japan.
There is not the planning like the following cases in the U.S.
　If the schools continue to fail, after three years, children could use federal funds to get help
　through services like private tutoring. After the fourth year, if not enough progress is made,
　the school would have to reconstitue, either by becoming charter schools, forcing the state
to take them over or hiring a new staff to manage the school.

Hamony of the control of community schools (charter schools) by the school boards with
freedom of the schools is very difficult, but in Japan, I think the following principle is better
and effective.
The schools boards' control will have a little more power than the individual community
schools' freedom.