BILL ANALYSIS
AB 284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 11, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Anthony Portantino, Chair
AB 284 (Garrick) - As Amended: January 4, 2010
SUBJECT : Charter schools: petitions.
SUMMARY : Allows the governing board of a California Community
College District (CCCD) to authorize a petition to establish a
charter school (charter) within the county in which the CCCD
maintains a campus. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows a petition to establish a charter to be submitted for
approval to a CCCD governing board, if the petition proposes
to establish a charter within the county in which the CCCD
maintains a campus. Authorizes the CCCD governing board to
grant approval of the petition.
2)Requires the CCCD governing board 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 established pursuant to this legislation to
receive the state aid portion of the charter's total
general-purpose entitlement, categorical block grant, other
state and federal categorical aid, and lottery funds directly
and specifies that the process for directly funding the
charter pursuant to this section shall follow the existing
process established in the Education code.
4)Requires the CCCD governing board that decides to accept
petitions for charters to inform the State Board of Education
(SBE) and provides that once SBE receives notices from CCCD
that they have decided to accept ten petitions for charters,
SBE shall inform the California Community Colleges (CCC) that
no CCCD may agree to accept any additional petitions for a
charter.
5)Requires the California Department of Education to prepare an
analysis of the efficacy of CCCDs approving petitions for
charters and requires the analysis to be provided to SBE, the
governor, the CCC Chancellor, and the Senate and Assembly
Education Committees by January 1, 2013.
AB 284
Page 2
EXISTING LAW
1)Establishes CCC with the primary mission to offer academic and
vocational instruction at the lower division level of
postsecondary education for students, including those persons
returning to school, and not beyond the second year of
college.
2)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992, authorizing a
school district, a county office of education or SBE to
approve or deny a petition for a charter to operate
independently from the existing school district structure as a
method of accomplishing, among other things, improved student
learning.
3)Establishes a process for submitting a petition for the
establishment of a charter. Authorizes a petition,
identifying a single charter 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, 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 SBE. Authorizes a school
that serves a countywide service to submit the charter
petition directly to the county office of education.
Authorizes a charter that serves a statewide purpose to submit
the petition directly to SBE.
4)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 : Double referral : This bill is double referred to
the Assembly Education Committee. Thus, this analysis will
focus only on the role of CCC included in this bill and will not
discuss the broader issues related to K-12.
AB 284
Page 3
COMMENTS : Background : According to information provided by the
Assembly Education Committee, the 2008-09 count of operating
charters is 746 with student enrollment of more than 285,000 in
this state. Charters are part of the state's public education
system and are funded by public dollars.
Purpose of this bill : According to the author, existing law
fosters a conflict of interest in most cases. School districts
have their own schools to run, often placing charters on a much
lower priority; often don't have the resources or capacity to
oversee charters effectively; and, for some school districts
that are having difficulty meeting the educational needs of its
students, it is incongruous to be judging the ability of a
charter to educate its students. The author argues that
colleges provide an often more solid foundation for the creation
and oversight of a charter. They are often incubators for
innovative and creative programs and in many ways are better
positioned to provide guidance and oversight for charters that
school districts cannot.
Colleges and universities are authorizers in other states :
Currently there are 15 states that allow multiple entities to
authorize charters. 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 charters 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 charters. In Michigan, the state's colleges
and universities monitor the majority of the charters. In
Missouri, charters are limited to St. Louis and Kansas City, but
public universities in both cities are allowed to authorize
charters.
California colleges are currently involved with charter schools :
Several universities are already involved in the operation of
charters. 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 charters in the
Sacramento Unified School District; CSU San Jose has a
relationship with Pacific Collegiate School in Santa Cruz; CSU
Los Angeles has partnered with and plays an active role in the
AB 284
Page 4
operation of at least two charters; 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. These examples demonstrate the
ability of universities and colleges to have close involvement
with charters under the existing charter authorizing laws. With
such extensive involvement in charters already, the committee
should consider if CCCDs need to be authorizers in order to be
meaningfully involved with charters.
Are CCCDs appropriate charter authorizers ? A CCCD governing
board is elected to oversee and develop policies that deal with
community college issues. Under this bill, a CCCD that
authorizes a charter school would assume significant fiscal and
legal responsibilities associated with monitoring the charter's
performance. The committee may wish to consider whether CCCD
governing boards are prepared or have the staffing capacity to
take on this new responsibility. Additionally, it is not clear
as to whether any CCCD would choose to become a charter school
authorizer. The CCC system is suffering budget reductions and
has been hit hard during the current economic crisis. The
Committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate for
CCCDs to undertake new and significant responsibilities in the
current budget climate when the CCC system is being forced to
issue staff layoffs and eliminate large numbers of course
sections.
There is potential for inconsistencies in charter approval and
denial processes : This bill does not specify a process for CCCs
to use in considering charter applications for approval or
denial. This means that each CCCD could be at liberty to create
its own unique charter approval process. Additionally, this
could mean that the charter approval process at a CCC could be
vastly different than the current system set up for school
districts to authorize charters. This raises questions as to
whether charter petitions would 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
may wish to consider the process by which CCCDs could approve or
deny charter petitions, and how a different system might affect
student outcomes in these charters.
Role of the CCC Chancellor's Office : This bill does not specify
AB 284
Page 5
a role for the CCC Chancellor's Office but raises questions
about how the Chancellor's Office would oversee various
activities associated with this proposal. For example, the bill
requires that CCCDs notify SBE whenever there is a new charter
school petition approved by a CCCD. It is unclear if the
Chancellor's Office would be expected to perform this duty on
behalf of CCCDs, which is typically how state reporting is
handled. This bill also raises question about whether
Proposition 39 facilities funds are made available to
CCC-approved charter schools and how to disperse Proposition 98
education funds. Each of these issues would have to be analyzed
and overseen by the Chancellor's Office. The Committee may wish
to consider whether it is appropriate to add a significant new
responsibility to the Chancellor's Office, which has been hard
hit by budget cuts in recent years.
Previous efforts : AB 39 (Walters) of 2005, 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 CCCD 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 one charter school per campus,
not to exceed 10 charter schools per segment. The bill was
referred to but never heard by the Assembly Education or Higher
Education Committees.
AB 2764 (Bates) of 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.
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 CCCD 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
AB 284
Page 6
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Charter Schools Association (Sponsor)
Opposition
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
California County Boards of Education
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960