Annette John-Hall: Why is the district trying to thwart a successful charter school?

Their eyes seem to follow you wherever you go, the penetrating eyes of citizen advocates.

Martin Luther King. Sacagawea. César Chávez. Albert Einstein. Cecil B. Moore. Judy Wicks. Murray Friedman. Angel Ortiz.

The eyes belong to more than 400 20-foot paintings of social activists that hang throughout the hallways of the Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Charter School's main campus in North Philadelphia.

It's fitting that students attending the only school in Philadelphia that focuses on social justice and character development would offer a portrait of inspiration at every turn.

And the most important one, at least in this fight, is that of the school's founder himself. Palmer, 77, longtime professor of social policy and urban studies at Penn, onetime gang leader-turned-educator, lawyer, and community activist, is embroiled in a legal battle that could determine whether his dream charter school lives or dies.

At the heart of the dispute is $1.7 million the school says the district owes it for increasing its enrollment from 675 to 925, reflecting the high school students the school added since 2007.

The school district refuses to pay Palmer, arguing that an enrollment cap was written in the school's 2005 charter and signed by Palmer.

Palmer says that he never agreed to anything and that a cap was unilaterally imposed by the School Reform Commission.

Everyone has sided with Palmer - from State Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola, powerful chairman of the education committee, to a slew of city legislators and independent educators.

Most important, the law is on his side. Commonwealth Court ruled last month that the school district does not have legal authority to impose enrollment caps.

Not only that, but the court ordered the state Department of Education to send Palmer $775,000 in state aid that it has withheld from the district because of the dispute.

To which, the knee-jerk school district promptly appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Without the additional funding, "we're barely making it," Palmer says, "and I think that's what the district is hoping. . . . I've played by the rules, and the district has been nothing but obstructionist."

The question is: Why?

I couldn't get the answer. The district isn't commenting because of pending litigation.