are enumerated appellate procedures in accord with which a charter applicant can obtain review of the CAB’s decision. As noted cogently by Appellants, however, conspicuously absent from the statute is a procedure to amend the material terms of a charter, a time frame or substantive standard governing a local school board’s evaluation of an amendment request, or an appellate procedure conferring jurisdiction upon the CAB when a school district acts or fails to act on a charter amendment request. Regardless of any policy reasons which may favor the creation of a mechanism through which the material terms of a charter can be amended, it is not the province of the judiciary to augment the legislative scheme. See Burke v. Independence Blue Cross, 628 Pa. 147, 103 A.3d 1267, 1274 (2014) (<HOLDING>); Karoly v. Mancuso, 619 Pa. 486, 65 A.3d 301,
holding that courts must decide pure questions of statutory construction holding that the court may not under the guise of statutory construction rewrite a statutory provision holding that a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency holding that a court may not rewrite the statute to insert an additional requirement not placed there by the legislature holding that a court may not rewrite the insurance contract under the guise of judicial interpretation