BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 401
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 401 (Ammiano) - As Introduced: February 14, 2011
SUBJECT : Charter schools.
SUMMARY : Establishes a state-wide cap of 1450 on the number of
charter schools that can operate until December 31, 2022;
establishes a 10% cap on the number of charter schools in any
individual school district, and, prohibits charter school
personnel with hiring authority from employing relatives.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies in the 2012-13 school year, and each successive
school year after until December 31, 2022, the maximum total
number of charter schools authorized to operate in the state
to be 1450.
2)Specifies that no more than 10% of the schools in a school
district may be charter schools; specifies that after that
limit is reached, the governing board of the school district
shall not approve additional charter petitions; and, specifies
that if the number of charter schools in a school district
exceeds this limit on July 1, 2012, those charter schools may
continue to operate but the governing board of the school
district shall not approve any other charter petitions.
3)Prohibits charter school personnel, that work for a charter
school operated by a private entity, to advocate for, appoint,
employ, promote, or advance any individual who is a relative
to a position in the charter school or for a contract with the
charter school over which that person exercises jurisdiction
or control; and, specifies that the approval of budgets does
not constitute jurisdiction or control.
4)Requires a petition for a charter school to include full
disclosure of the identity of all individuals who are
employed, plan to be employed by the charter school, or have a
contract with the charter school, who are related to the
charter school owner, president, chairperson of the governing
body, superintendent, governing body member, principal,
assistant principal, or any other person employed by the
charter school who has equivalent decision-making authority.
AB 401
Page 2
5)Defines charter school personnel as a charter school owner,
president, chairperson of the governing body, superintendent,
governing body member, principal, assistance principal or any
other person employed by the charter school who has equivalent
decision-making authority to appoint, employ, promote or
advance individuals.
6)Defines relative as a parent, child, sibling, uncle, aunt,
first cousin, nephew, niece, spouse, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law,
sister-in-law, stepparent, stepsibling, stepchild, half
brother or half sister.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a county board of education or the state
board of education (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 commencing in the 1998-99 school year, 250 charter
schools; and, in the 1999-2000 school year, and in each
successive school year thereafter, authorizes an additional
100 charter schools to operate.
AB 401
Page 3
COMMENTS : According to the California Department of Education
(CDE), the 2009-10 count of operating charter schools is 815
with student enrollment of more than 323,000 in the state. This
includes three statewide benefit charters and 20 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. A charter school is usually created or
organized by a group of teachers, parents and community leaders,
a community-based organization, or an education management
organization. Charter schools are authorized by school district
boards, county boards of education or the state board of
education. A charter school is generally exempt from most laws
governing school districts, except where specifically noted in
the law.
This bill will establish a state-wide cap of 1450 on the number
of charter schools that can operate and establish a 10% cap on
the number of charter schools in a single school district. This
bill also establishes anti-nepotism hiring standards for charter
schools operated by private entities. According to the author,
current law only provides an increasing cap on the number of
charter schools and little or no accountability. Many reports
including the Stanford Center for Research on Education Outcomes
(CREDO) report demonstrate that charter schools are not the
panacea for closing the achievement gap; however, they are
provided wide sweeping power and no true accountability. While
the current cap is much higher than the actual number of charter
schools in the state, the growth in the number charters is
accelerating. One of the many concerns with current law is the
lack of employment guidelines for these publicly funded schools.
In other states, like that of Florida, there are guidelines for
charter schools on hiring, promoting, and assigning relatives.
This bill attempts to address nepotistic hiring practices within
these schools.
Charter School Cap . This bill will establish a state-wide cap
of 1450 charter schools. The 2010-11 state-wide cap on charter
schools is 1450 and there are 911 existing charter schools that
have been authorized. Since this cap is well above the current
number of charter schools state-wide, the California Federation
of Teachers (CFT) argues that it will not inhibit the growth of
charter schools for many years. The committee should consider
AB 401
Page 4
whether a statewide cap of 1450 will inhibit charter school
growth. Typically, bills that contain a sunset date also
contain a report. The committee should consider whether it
would be appropriate to include a report to the Legislature on
the state-wide cap in the year prior to the sunset date.
(Source: California Department of Education)
In the last 10 years, on average, there were 86 charter schools
approved each year. If this same rate of approval continues in
the future, one could estimate that the cap of 1450 established
by this bill would be reached during the 2016-17 school year.
Because the sunset date for this bill is in 2022, the cap of
1450 will likely be reached before the sunset date. The
committee should consider whether it is appropriate to limit the
number of charter schools state-wide.
The bill also adds a 10% cap on the number of charter schools
operating in an individual school district. Currently, several
school districts already have more charter schools than would be
authorized with the 10% cap. While the bill grandfathers in
existing charter schools above the cap, this bill would prohibit
any more charter schools from being approved by these school
districts. CFT, the sponsor of the bill, argues that the 10%
district-wide cap does not impact the ability of county offices
of education or the SBE to approve charter schools in districts
that are currently above the 10% cap. The committee should
consider whether prohibiting the growth of charter schools
(approved by the district governing board) in districts such as
Los Angeles Unified and San Diego Unified, among others, is
appropriate.
Hiring Practices . This bill establishes anti-nepotism
employment standards for charter schools operated by private
entities. The provisions in this bill model existing charter
school law in Florida regarding employment prohibitions and
disclosure. Florida's charter law requires an initial petition
for a charter school to include full disclosure of any relatives
that have been hired by the decision makers at the school, and
it prohibits decision makers at operational charter schools from
hiring relatives.
Arguments in Support : According to CFT, there are groups,
foundations, and charter management organizations that are using
AB 401
Page 5
charter schools as a way to privatize public schools, accessing
tax payer money for the use and access of a few. For many,
charter schools have become a place to be the exception to the
rules: rules of accountability, public transparency, workers'
rights and most importantly students' rights. They should not
be exempted from public employment practices. They should be
financially responsible and transparent. Until charter schools
actually follow the rules of student access, academic financial
accountability, and employment laws, they should not be allowed
to grow to numbers that rob the resources of our neighborhood
schools.
Arguments in Opposition : According to the California Charter
Schools Association, AB 401 would reinstate a firm cap (1450) on
charter schools through 2022. This is an old issue that has
been resolved by the Legislature with the incremental cap
language currently in statute. While the charter school
movement is growing in California, there is universal agreement
that it is not growing as fast as the current limits allow.
Moreover, imposing a hard cap is a step backward, creating
unnecessary artificial and arbitrary limits on charter schools
after years of nurturing their responsible growth and embracing
them as an important resource in our public education system.
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the bill be amended in
the following ways:
1)Add a reporting requirement to the Legislature the year prior
to the sunset date.
2)Change the sunset date to December 31, 2016.
3)Delete the 10% district-wide cap on charter schools.
Previous legislation : AB 1982 (Ammiano) from 2010, which failed
passage in the Senate Education Committee, was similar to this
bill and established until December 31, 2016, a state-wide cap
of 1450 on the number of charter schools that can operate and
prohibits charter schools personnel with hiring authority from
employing relatives.
AB 8 X5 (Brownley) from 2009, which was held in the Senate
Education Committee at the request of the author, proposed
comprehensive changes to the Education Code consistent with the
federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program; and, deleted the
statewide charter school cap; proposed enhanced charter school
fiscal and academic accountability standards.
AB 401
Page 6
AB 3 X5 (Torlakson) from 2009 deleted the statewide charter
school cap and proposed changes to the measurable student
outcomes, renewal and revocation procedures for charter schools.
This bill was introduced but was not referred to a committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Federation of Teachers (Sponsor)
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
United Teachers Los Angeles
Opposition
California Charter Schools Association
K-12, Inc.
Los Angeles Unified School District
School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (SIATech)
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087