BILL ANALYSIS
AB 284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 13, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 284 (Garrick) - As Amended: January 4, 2010
[This bill has been double referred to the Assembly Higher
Education Committee and was heard as it relates to the issues
under its jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT : Charter schools.
SUMMARY : Allows the governing board of a community college
district (CCD) to authorize a petition to establish a charter
school within the county in which the district maintains a
campus; authorizes a maximum of ten charter schools be accepted
state-wide by the California Community Colleges (CCC); requires
these charter schools to be funded directly; and, requires the
California Department of Education (CDE) to prepare an analysis
of the program by January 1, 2013. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows the governing board of a CCD to authorize a petition to
establish a charter school within the county in which the
district maintains a campus.
2)Requires the governing board of a CCD that grants a charter
petition to assume all of the duties, responsibilities,
functions and obligations that the governing board of a school
district assumes when it grants a charter petition.
3)Requires a charter school established pursuant to this section
to receive the state aid portion of the charter school's total
general-purpose entitlement, categorical block grant, other
state and federal categorical aid, and lottery funds directly.
4)Specifies that the process for directly funding the charter
schools pursuant to this section shall follow the existing
process established in the Education code.
5)Requires the governing board of a CCD that decides to accept a
petition for a charter school to inform the state board of
education (SBE); specifies that once the SBE receives notices
from CCDs that ten petitions for charter schools have been
accepted, the board shall inform the California Community
AB 284
Page 2
Colleges that no community college district is authorized to
accept any additional petitions for a charter school.
6)Requires, by January 1, 2013, the CDE to prepare an analysis
of the efficacy of CCDs approving petitions for charter
schools and provide the analysis to the SBE, the Governor, the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Senate
and Assembly Education Committees.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a county office of education or the SBE to
approve or deny a petition for a charter school to operate
independently from the existing school district structure as a
method of accomplishing, among other things, improved student
learning.
2)Establishes a process for the submission of a petition for the
establishment of a charter school. Authorizes a petition,
identifying a single charter school to operate within the
geographical boundaries of the school district, to be
submitted to the school district. Authorizes, if the
governing board of a school district denies a petition for the
establishment of a charter school, the petitioner to elect to
submit the petition to the county board of education.
Authorizes, if the county board of education denies the
charter, the petitioner to submit the petition to the SBE.
Authorizes a school that serves a countywide service to submit
the charter petition directly to the county office of
education. Authorizes a school that serves a statewide
purpose to go directly to the SBE.
3)Authorizes a charter to be granted for not more than five
years. Authorizes a charter granted by a school district,
county board of education or SBE to be granted one or more
renewals by that entity for five years. Requires the renewals
and material revisions of the charter to be based on the same
standards for the original charter petition.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to CDE, the 2008-09 count of operating
charter schools is 746 with student enrollment of more than
285,000 in this state. This includes 4 statewide benefit
AB 284
Page 3
charters and 8 SBE-approved charters. Some charter schools are
new, while others are conversions from existing public schools.
Charter schools are part of the state's public education system
and are funded by public dollars.
Current involvement of postsecondary education institutions in
charter schools . California's current system allows for
university involvement. Several universities are already
involved in the operation of charter schools. CSU Northridge
operates closely with the Vaughn Learning Center; CSU Dominguez
Hills has a relationship with New Millennium Charter School of
Carson; CSU Fresno has the University High School Charter
located on their campus; CSU Sacramento has relationships with
three charter schools in the Sacramento Unified School District;
CSU Santa Jose has a relationship with Pacific Collegiate School
in Santa Cruz; CSU Los Angeles has partnered with and plays an
active role in the operation of at least two charter schools; UC
San Diego has the Preuss Charter School located on their campus;
and, the University of Southern California (USC) works with
various magnet schools and provides teacher and technical
assistance to several nearby inner-city charter schools. The
examples above demonstrate the ability of universities and
colleges to have close involvement and even partner with local
school districts to operate charter schools on their campuses,
under the existing charter authorizing laws. With such
extensive involvement in charter schools already, why do
community colleges need to be charter authorizers to be involved
with charter schools?
Higher education authorizers in other states . Currently there
are 15 states that allow multiple entities to authorize charter
schools. A smaller number of states currently incorporate
higher education institutions into their charter authorizing
system. The key difference is that universities and colleges
are often the primary authorizers of charter schools in most of
these states which include: Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New
York, Ohio and Wisconsin. In New York, charters are primarily
authorized by the State University of New York (SUNY) which may
authorize up to 100 schools. In Michigan, the state's colleges
and universities monitor the majority of the charter schools.
In Missouri, charter schools are limited to St. Louis and Kansas
City, but public universities in both cities are allowed to
authorize charter schools.
Would the California Community Colleges choose to authorize
AB 284
Page 4
charter schools ? It is not clear if CCCs will choose to become
charter school authorizers, especially since the measure
requires community colleges to assume all the responsibilities
of school districts when they authorize a charter school. CCCs
are suffering budget reductions, and have been hit hard during
the current economic crisis. Why would a CCC choose to
undertake a new and significant responsibility? CCCs have
expertise in educating adults, the committee should consider
whether CCCs equally have the expertise and are adequately
prepared to educate children in grades K-12.
Proposition 39 Obligations . Would this measure include
Proposition 39 obligations to provide appropriate facilities as
well all oversight responsibilities? Is it appropriate to give
charter authorizing power to community colleges if they are not
responsible for charter facility obligations? This measure
would allow community colleges to authorize charter schools
within the boundaries of existing school districts, however, the
districts would not have any input into the charter
authorization process; and, districts would still be obligated
to provide furnished facilities for these new charters? The
committee should consider if it is appropriate to grant
community colleges with the authorization to grant charter
schools without also taking on the facilities obligations of
those schools.
Charter Approval and Denial Process . The current version of the
bill does not specify a process for community colleges to
consider charter applications for approval or denial. This
means that each community college district would be at liberty
to create their own unique charter approval process. This could
potentially mean that the charter approval process at a
community college could be vastly different than the current
system set up for school districts to authorize charter schools.
Would charter petitions be held to the same standards in terms
of the assurances they are required to meet under existing law
with regard to student outcomes, racial and ethnic balance,
admission requirements, and school governance? The committee
should consider the process by which community colleges could
approve or deny charter petitions, and how a different system
might affect student outcomes in these schools.
What about Proposition 98 funding issues ? The bill requires
charters to be "direct-funded," which retains all Proposition 98
funds with the charter school. No funds are allocated to the
AB 284
Page 5
community colleges. This assumes that charter schools
authorized by these intuitions would then be required to set up
contracts with these entities for all oversight payments
necessary under existing law. This bill will set up a system
where the state appropriates Proposition 98 funds to charter
schools, but these funds will ultimately be transferred to the
community college for oversight. Would this be an inappropriate
cross over of the split in Proposition 98 funds from funds
allocated to K-12 to the community colleges?
Lack of Sunset Date . The bill requires CDE to complete an
analysis of the community college authorization program by
January 1, 2013, but the bill does not have a sunset date.
Generally, an evaluation of a program accompanies a sunset date
so the Legislature can review the results of the program
evaluation while they consider whether or not to extend the
program. The committee should consider whether to include a
sunset date for the program.
State-wide limit of 10 Charter schools accepted by the CCCs ?
The bill specifies that once 10 charter school petitions have
been accepted by the CCCs, the SBE shall inform the CCCs that no
CCD is authorized to accept any additional charter school
petitions. It is unclear whether the term "accept" refers to
the CCD receiving an application to review, or whether it refers
to the charters school "approval" process clearly outlined in
the Education Code. As written, it is unclear whether the
author intends to authorize CCCs to approve 10 charter school
petitions state-wide, or whether the intention is to authorize
CCCs to receive 10 charter school petitions for review. If this
measure is passed by the committee, the committee should
consider clarifying the term "accept."
Minimum criteria and safeguards should be established prior to,
or in conjunction with, expanding the pool of authorizers . In
their January 2004 publication "Assessing California's Charter
Schools" the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) made
recommendations regarding multiple authorizers. They
recommended the Legislature modify charter school law to (1)
permit school districts to opt out of charter authorizing, (2)
allow for multiple authorizers, and (3) create safeguards
against potential misconduct.
To promote stronger accountability, the LAO recommended the
Legislature direct the CDE to develop basic criteria that
AB 284
Page 6
organizations must meet to become charter authorizers. The CDE
would then be directed to submit these criteria back to the
Legislature in the following legislative session for review and
codification. (At a minimum, the criteria should include an
understanding of contracts and fiscal management as well as
school assessment and accountability.) These codified criteria
would provide the state the means by which to remove authorizing
power from a particular entity without having to institute a
complex licensing or regulatory process for approving charter
authorizers. Should the committee consider adopting these basic
criteria before expanding the pool of authorizing entities?
According to the sponsor of the bill, the California Charter
Schools Association, "Community Colleges provide an often more
solid foundation for the creation and oversight of a charter
school. They are often incubators for innovative and creative
programs and in many ways are better positioned to provide
guidance and oversight for charter schools that school districts
cannot. Community Colleges provide linkages that can foster the
development of model charter schools. Community colleges
already provide overlap services for young people who are
enrolled in both high school and community college. Central to
many successful charter schools is innovative pedagogy."
The California Federation of Teachers opposes the bill and
argues, "First, California already provides a plethora of
opportunities for approval of charter schools which includes
local boards, county offices of education, and the State Board
of Education. Second, the bill is not necessary in order to
further the idea of partnerships between higher education and
local schools, current law already provides great opportunities.
Finally, there is no evidence that shows that charter schools
as a group are any better at obtaining increased achievement as
measured by state tests than traditional public schools." The
California School Boards Association opposes the bill and
argues, "Locally elected school board members play an important
role in the evaluation of charter school petitions. School
board members are members of the community and understand the
needs of the student population. Existing law focuses on these
assets - local accountability, experience, and expertise - on
the review of charter school petitions in the best interests of
students."
Previous legislation : AB 39 (Walters) from 2005 would have
authorized a pilot project for the chancellor of a campus of the
AB 284
Page 7
UC, the president of a campus of the CSU, or the governing board
of a community college district to approve a petition submitted
to establish a charter school within the county in which that
entity is located or maintains a campus. The pilot would have
permitted each segment of higher education to administer 1
charter school per campus, not to exceed 10 charter schools per
segment. The bill was referred but never heard by the Assembly
Education Committee.
AB 2764 (Bates) from 2004 would have authorized a pilot project
for the chancellor of a campus of the UC, the president of a
campus of the CSU, or the governing board of a community college
district to approve a petition submitted to establish a charter
school within the county in which that entity is located or
maintains a campus. The pilot would have permitted each segment
of higher education to administer 1 charter school per campus,
not to exceed 10 charter schools per segment. AB 2764 was held
on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense File. According to the
Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 2764 (Bates), was analyzed
as having "Potentially significant annual General Fund costs,
likely in excess of $400,000, to CSU and UC to adhere to the
various provisions outlined in the bill, including approval and
oversight of charter schools. Significant reallocation of
General Fund (Proposition 98) funds, likely in the tens of
millions from school districts, to CSU and UC. The actual
amount would depend on how many charter schools each of these
two segments authorized and the number of students enrolled."
AB 1464 (Bates) from 2003 would have authorized non-profit
charitable organizations, the governing body of a private
university or college that offers a specified teacher training
program, the chancellor of a campus of the UC, the president of
a campus of the CSU, or the governing board of a community
college district to approve a petition submitted to establish a
charter school within the county in which that entity is located
or maintains a campus. That bill would have also authorized the
mayor of a city having a population of 250,000, or more, to
approve a petition submitted to establish a charter school
within that city. AB 1464 was held in the Assembly Education
Committee at the request of the author.
AB 1137 (Reyes) Chapter 892, Statutes of 2003 repealed the
sunset on the charter school general purpose block grant,
specified several oversight duties of each chartering authority
and established criteria for renewal.
AB 284
Page 8
AB 1994 (Reyes) Chapter 1058, Statutes of 2002 made numerous
substantive changes to charter school statutes to address
oversight concerns.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION on the March 23, 2009 version :
Support
California Charter Schools Association (Sponsor)
Opportunities for Learning and Options for Youth Charter Schools
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges
California County Boards of Education
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Los Angeles Unified School District (Previous Version)
Superintendent/President of the College of the Sequoias
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087