BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Gloria Romero, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session BILL NO: AB 1950 AUTHOR: Brownley AMENDED: April 28, 2010 FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill SUBJECT : Charter schools: accountability. SUMMARY This bill establishes various academic and fiscal accountability standards related to charter schools. BACKGROUND Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, provides for the establishment of Charter schools in California for the purpose, among other things, of improving student learning and expanding learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving. (Education Code 47601 et. seq.) Existing law authorizes anyone to develop, circulate, and submit a petition to establish a charter school and requires charter developers to collect certain signatures in support of the petition, as specified. Current law requires governing boards to grant a charter unless the petition fails to meet one or more of the following: (Education Code 47605) 1) The charter school presents an unsound educational program; 2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program described in the petition; 3) The petition does not contain the number of required signatures; 4) The petition does not contain an affirmation that it will be nonsectarian in its programs and policies, shall AB 1950 Page 2 not charge tuition, shall not discriminate, and other affirmations, as specified. 5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of, among other things: The educational program, including educational goals, students to be served, measurable outcomes and methods by which the school will determine that pupils have met educational goals. School operations and procedures, including governance structure of the school, qualifications of staff, health and safety procedures, student admission and discipline procedures, the manner by which annual, independent financial audits will be conducted, employee personnel rights and retirement system, and procedures to be followed if the charter school closes. Existing law requires a charter school to annually prepare specified financial reports to its chartering authority, and requires the chartering authority to use any financial information to assess the fiscal condition of the charter school. (EC 47604.33) Existing law requires the State Controller, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to recommend statements and other information to be included a school district audit guide. The guide and any supplements are to be adopted by the Education Audits Appeal Panel pursuant to rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act. (EC 14502.1) Existing law authorizes a charter to be granted for not more than five years and specifies that each renewal shall be for five years. Existing law requires the renewal and any material revision of the provisions of the charter to be made only with the approval of the authority that granted the charter and be based on the same standards as the original charter. (EC 47607) Existing law requires a charter school to meet at least one of the following performance standards in order to be renewed: (1) attainment of the school's Academic Performance Index (API) growth target in two of the last three years or in the aggregate last three years; (2) an API decile ranking AB 1950 Page 3 of four or better in the prior year or in two of the last three years; (3) a Similar Schools API ranking of four or better in two of the last three years; (4) academic performance that is at least equal to the academic performance of the public schools that the charter school pupils would otherwise been required to attend; or (5) qualification for participation in the Alternative School Accountability Model. (EC 47607) Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education to establish a list of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools and requires the governing board to implement for any school so identified one of four school intervention models beginning in the 2010-11 school year. (EC 53202) The four models are: Turnaround model in which the Local Education Agency (LEA) undertakes a series of major school improvement actions including replacing the principal and rehiring no more than half of the staff. Restart model in which the LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school as a charter school. School closure model in which the LEA closes a school and enrolls students in another school. Transformation model in which the LEA implements a series of required school improvement strategies, including replacing the principal and increasing instructional time. ANALYSIS This bill : Fiscal and operational accountability 1) Requires the State Controller (Controller) to propose and the Education Audits Appeal Panel to adopt a charter school supplement to the audit guide in consultation with the California Charter Schools Association; requires charter schools to complete annual audits consistent with the audit guide; 2) Prohibits a charter school from being operated as or by AB 1950 Page 4 a for-profit corporation. 3) Allows a charter school authorizer, when authorizing a new charter school, to consider whether the petitioner has operated another charter school for at least three consecutive years and any of the following has occurred: a) The charter school demonstrated academic achievement equivalent to a PLAS; b) The charter school completed its first cycle and was not renewed by the authorizing entity, the county board of education, or the SBE; c) The school has ever had its charter revoked and the charter was not restored by the county board of education or the SBE. 4) Requires the State Controller to publish a directory of certified public accountants as specified, deemed by the Controller to be qualified to conduct audits of the charter schools; requires charter school audits to be conducted by a certified public accountant (CPA) or public accountant selected by the charter school from the directory published by the Controller; and requires the regular rotation of public accounting firms used to complete these audits consistent with the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 5) Makes it unlawful for a public accounting firm to provide audit services to a charter school if the lead audit partner or coordinating audit partner having responsibility for the audit has performed audit services for that charter school in each of the six previous fiscal years. Academic accountability and renewals 6) Requires a chartering authority to consider, as one factor in determining whether to grant a renewal, the degree to which a charter school serves student populations that are similar to local district student populations, especially related to high-need students, including, but not limited to, students with disabilities, students living in poverty and English learners. AB 1950 Page 5 7) Changes the charter school renewal process as follows: a) Allows an authorizer to renew a charter school for a period of one to five years; b) Requires a charter school to attain its Academic Performance Index schoolwide and subgroup growth targets in the prior year or in two of the last three years; c) Specifies that a charter school in program improvement (PI) not be renewed for more than three years; and d) Prohibits the renewal of a charter school in PI year five if the school has not exited PI and did not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the year prior to renewal. 8) Deletes the authorization for a chartering entity to renew a charter petition if the academic performance is equal to the academic performance of the public schools that the charter school students would otherwise have been required to attend. 9) Makes Legislative findings and declarations regarding the importance of establishing academic performance targets and sound fiscal management practices in charter schools. STAFF COMMENTS 1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office, the purpose of this bill is to encourage high levels of academic performance and sound fiscal management practices among charter schools. The fiscal accountability standards are intended to ensure that charter schools receive thorough audits conducted by the same auditors that conduct school district audits and clarify that for-profit corporations are prohibited from operating charter schools. The academic accountability standards are intended to ensure that charter schools are not simply demonstrating student achievement that is equal to neighborhood schools, but are demonstrating improved student achievement compared to their neighborhood schools. AB 1950 Page 6 2) Charter schools . Charter schools are public schools that provide instruction in any combination of grades, kindergarten through grade 12. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), there are 870 active and pending charter schools (fifty-one of these schools are "pending" because they will not claim funding until the 2010-11 school year). Of the 870 charter schools, 25 currently operate based on SBE approval. Parents, teachers, or community members may initiate a charter petition, which is typically presented to and approved by a local school district governing board. The law also allows, under certain circumstances, for county boards of education and the State board of Education to authorize charter schools. The specific goals and operating procedures for a charter school are detailed in the agreement (charter) between the authorizing entity and the charter developer. Current law establishes 16 different operational and educational quality indicators that need to be included in a charter school petition. A governing board may deny a charter school proposal that does not comprehensively address each of those 16 elements. Charter schools are exempt from most laws governing school districts and schools in order to allow the charter school the flexibility to innovate and be responsive to the educational needs of the student population served. Charter schools are required however, to have credentialed teachers in core and college preparatory courses, meet statewide standards, participate in state testing programs required for the Academic Performance Index (API), and consult with parents, guardians, and teachers regarding the school's programs. 3) Fiscal accountability . This bill focuses on two primary areas of fiscal accountability for charter schools: (1) establishes new audit practices for charter schools, and (2) it prohibits a charter school from being operated as or by a for-profit corporations. Audit practices: According to the author's office, existing law requires charter schools to have annual audits, but does not provide for an appropriate audit guide supplement specific to charter schools and does not AB 1950 Page 7 require charter schools to hire qualified auditors approved by the State Controller. The measure requires charter school audits to be conducted by Controller-approved auditors and requires audits to follow the supplemental audit guide that would be developed pursuant to this measure. The supplement could provide schools and authorizers with uniform guidance relative to appropriate fiscal management practices. For-profit prohibition: Since nonprofit firms can also misuse public funds, the primary issue in this prohibition appears to be preventing a for-profit corporation from making a profit off of state funded public schools. One opponent notes that many school districts contract with for-profit firms for data management support, transportation, food services, or professional development. Arguably, some of these firms exist for the sole purpose of providing goods and services to public schools and are not, just because they receive state funds, expected to provide those services to the schools "at cost." At the same time, an argument can be made that as part of the public school system, it may be reasonable to require charter school operators to reinvest any net revenue into the California school or schools it operates. With appropriate disclosures, is this a decision that could be left to the authorizing body? Staff recommends that the Committee discuss this. 4) Academic accountability . According to the author, various studies indicate that while there are many outstanding and diverse charter schools, there are also charter schools that are not "living up to the promise" to improve student learning and expand learning experiences for academically low-achieving pupils. A July 2003 RAND study concluded that charter and noncharter students generally performed similarly on statewide achievement tests, with differences in some grades and subject areas. A 2009 EdSource report concluded that after "adjusting for differences in student demographics, charter high schools scored modestly higher than noncharter schools in English, but lagged in mathematics." This bill addresses some of the issues identified in these reports. Performance record: Under current law, an authorizer may AB 1950 Page 8 only consider the extent to which a petitioner has provided comprehensive responses to each of the 16 elements required in a charter school application. While some authorizers may consider past performance in evaluating the soundness of the petitioner's educational program, it is not clear that a governing board could deny a charter on the basis of known information about the quality of other charter schools operated by the petitioner. This measure provides explicit authority for governing boards to consider a petitioner's track record in granting the initial charter. While opponents contend that each petition should be evaluated on its own merits, this information could help governing boards determine the capacity of the developer to deliver on the promises made in the charter petition and wider latitude to consider the quality of a petitioner's previous or concurrent charter school efforts. High-needs students: A 2009 EdSource report found that California charter high schools serve 13% fewer students who are either English learners or redesignated as fluent English proficient (RFEP) compared to noncharter schools, and found that charter schools serve lower proportions of students with disabilities compared to noncharter schools at all grade levels. The EdSource study also found that charter schools serve fewer students that participate in the federal Free and Reduced-Price Meal Program in both elementary and middle school compared to noncharter schools. This bill requires the chartering authority to consider, as one factor in determining whether to grant a renewal, the degree to which a charter school serves pupil populations that are similar to local district pupil populations, especially high-needs students. Opponents contend that this requirement is contradictory to the requirement that charter schools admit all pupils who wish to attend and conduct admission lotteries if they are oversubscribed. Further, some opponents have indicated that AB 1950 could unintentionally impede access to up to $50 million in federal start-up funds because the rules that govern those funds explicitly prohibit charter school enrollment to be determined by type of students. Since the enrollment requirement proposed by this bill is one that applies to a renewal petition, it is not clear that this requirement would make a school ineligible for those funds. Given that AB 1950 Page 9 some charters are established for to provide specific educational programs or to serve underserved or high need student groups (such as those normally served by a county office of education), this measure appears to provide authorizers with sufficient flexibility to evaluate a charter school's enrollment balance in light of the educational program and student population described in the charter agreement and the extent to which the charter school to met those goals. Student performance: This bill changes existing law regarding student performance criteria a charter school must meet prior to renewal. Under current law, charter schools can demonstrate attainment of API growth target in the prior year or in two of the last three years, or in the aggregate for the prior three years. This bill would instead require the charter school to meet API schoolwide and subgroup targets. Under this bill, charter schools would no longer be able to demonstrate performance that is at least equal to the schools the students would otherwise attend. Opponents argue that the criteria to include subgroup growth targets could place a charter school in a "potentially precarious position" if one of the subgroups does not achieve its target but the other subgroups and school wide targets are met. Do the changes in student performance criteria impose an unreasonable burden on charter schools? Staff recommends the Committee discuss this. 5) Renewals . This bill would allow governing boards to renew a charter for less than five years. This practice is similar to that used by various accrediting bodies, which often use shorter accreditation periods along with a process for requiring or "stipulating" changes to be made within a specified period of time, to monitor institutional quality and prompt improvement. While the flexibility to grant a renewal for less than five years could give authorizers greater ability to monitor school quality and leverage change, opponents maintain that this change could result in charter schools always being in "renewal mode" rather than teaching students. 6) Fiscal impact . Although this bill is not flagged as having mandated costs, the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis indicates that this measure could result in reimbursable mandated costs, likely $100,000 to local education agencies (LEAs) for costs associated AB 1950 Page 10 with reviewing and verifying specified petition and renewal information required under this bill. 7) Related and prior legislation . AB 1991 (Arambula) requires charter school petitions to be granted for five years and authorizes charter school renewals to be granted for five to ten years. This bill was held in the Assembly Committee on Education. AB 2320 (Swanson) adds new requirements to the charter school petition process, deletes the authority of a charter school petitioner to submit a petition to a County Board of Education to serve pupils that would otherwise be served by the County Office of Education, and eliminates the ability of the State Board of Education to approve charter school petition appeals. This bill is scheduled to be heard by this Committee on June 30, 2010. AB1982 (Ammiano), limits until January 1, 2017, the total number of charter schools authorized to operate at 1450 and prohibits charter schools operated by a private entity from employing relatives, as specified. AB 1741 (Coto), requires charter schools that expect 15% of their pupil population to be English learners to meet additional petition requirements relating to the education of those students. The Committee passed this bill as amended on a 5-0 vote on June 23, 2010. AB 2363 (Mendoza), requires charter school petitioners to obtain the signatures of permanent classified employees, as specified. The Committee was held in Committee on June 16, 2010 and is scheduled for "vote only" on June 30, 2010. AB 572 (Brownley, 2009) makes a charter school board subject to the Brown Act open meeting law, the California Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. This bill was passed by this Committee on a 6-1 vote is in the Senate inactive file. ABX5 8 (Brownley, Fifth extraordinary session of 2009) would have deleted the cap on charter schools and would have made other changes to provisions governing audit and fiscal standards, authorization, renewal and revocation of charter schools. This bill was held in AB 1950 Page 11 Committee. AB 1772 (Garcia, 2008) would have established a conflict of interest standard based on the Corporations Code for school boards. AB 2115 (Mullin, 2008) would have established a conflict of interest standard and would have prohibited employees from serving on governing boards of charter schools. This measure was passed by this Committee on a 6-2 vote and subsequently vetoed by the Governor with the following statement: "Not only would this bill create state mandated costs for charter schools to comply with its provisions, the measure runs counter to the intent of charter schools, which were created to be free from many of the laws governing school districts." 8) Policy arguments . Proponents of this measure contend that AB 1950 will ensure high levels of academic performance and prudent fiscal management among charter schools, by specifying how charter authorizers are to monitor and hold charter schools accountable and by establishing fiscal management standards for charter schools that are as rigorous as those for other public schools and school districts. Opponents of this measure argue that while it is important to have an accountability system that weeds out poor-performing charter schools, AB 1950 does not reflect the unique characteristics and challenges of charter schools. In particular, they contend that requiring a charter school to serve the same student population that the local district serves is inconsistent with existing law requiring lotteries and could impede access to federal funds for start-up charter schools. Finally, they note that the for-profit prohibition would inappropriately limit the discretion currently available to charter school governing boards. SUPPORT AB 1950 Page 12 California Federation of Teachers California School Boards Association California School Employees Association California Teachers Association OPPOSITION Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services California Charter Schools Association EdVoice K12 Inc.