BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1172
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1172 (Mendoza)
As Amended January 26, 2012
Majority vote
EDUCATION 7-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, | | |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | | |
| |Eng, Williams | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Beth Gaines, | | |
| |Halderman, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the charter school approval process.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that a chartering authority may deny a charter
petition if it makes a written factual finding that the
charter school would have a negative fiscal impact on the
school district.
2)Specifies that a negative fiscal impact on a school district
may only be established, and is deemed to be established, if
any of the following conditions are met:
a) The school district has received a negative financial
certification;
b) The school district has received an emergency
apportionment or loan and is operating under the oversight
of a state administrator or trustee; or,
c) The school district, due to the declining enrollment of
pupils, is in the process of closing a school that a
charter school petition has identified as the proposed site
for its charter school and has received a qualified
financial certification or would receive a qualified
financial certification if the charter school is approved.
EXISTING LAW : Current law establishes the Charter Schools Act
of 1992 which authorizes a school district, a county board of
AB 1172
Page 2
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,
increased learning opportunities for all students, with special
emphasis on expanded learning experiences for students who are
identified as academically low achieving, holding charter
schools accountable for meeting measurable student outcomes, and
providing the schools with a method to change from rule-based to
performance-based accountability systems.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS : 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 local education agencies (LEAs) or the SBE. A
charter school is generally exempt from most laws governing
school districts, except where specifically noted in the law.
Specific goals and operating procedures for the charter school
are detailed in an agreement (or "charter") between the
sponsoring board and charter organizers.
The Charter Schools Act of 1992 originally authorized an LEA or
the SBE to approve a petition for a charter school. Subsequent
legislation, AB 544 (Lempert), Chapter 34, Statutes of 1998,
requires the LEA or SBE to approve a petition for a charter
unless it makes one or more of the following findings:
1)The charter school presents an unsound educational program.
2)The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully
implement the program set forth in the petition.
3)The petition does not contain the required number of
signatures.
4)The petition does not satisfactorily address requirements
regarding admissions policies and employment practices.
5)The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of the school's educational program, measurable
AB 1172
Page 3
pupil outcomes, governance structure and other operational
requirements.
This change shifted the burden of proof in the petition process
from the petitioners to the LEA or SBE. Districts are required
to support their decision to deny a charter petition with
written, factual findings, and the decision to deny may be
appealed to the county board of education. This bill adds the
finding that the proposed school would have a negative fiscal
impact on the district to the list of reasons for which a
petition may be denied.
Arguments in support: Proponents argue that this bill is needed
to allow districts to deny a charter petition if creating the
school would have a negative impact on the district's ability to
maintain programs and services for its remaining, non-charter
students. They argue that "funding of charter schools should
not negatively impact the educational program of the school
district in which the charter school is located" and that the
"bill is necessary to ensure the fiscal solvency of school
districts."
Arguments in opposition: Opponents say the bill is too broadly
written and that most districts would be able to claim a
negative financial impact under its provisions. In addition,
the financial impact on the school district, regardless of how
it would be measured, should not be a factor in the charter
school approval process. They argue that this undermines the
original intent of the charter school law by taking away
"parental and student choice whenever a school district decides
that a charter would have a negative fiscal impact on the
district."
Previous legislation: AB 2954 (Liu) of 2006, would have added
negative fiscal impact to the reasons that a school district may
cite as the basis for refusing to initially approve a charter
school, but prohibited this as a basis to deny renewal of a
charter. Further, the bill authorized a school district to
require that a charter school describe how it will provide free
and reduced price meals to eligible pupils as a condition for
initial charter approval. The bill was vetoed by the Governor
with the following veto message:
While I understand the plight of school districts faced
with fiscal challenges of declining enrollment and other
AB 1172
Page 4
management issues, I cannot condone allowing them to deny
parents and students their rights to petition for the
establishment of a charter school. In essence, this bill
would grant school districts the authority to punish
charter petitioners because of problems caused by their own
fiscal management issues or their unwillingness to make
tough decisions, or both.
In addition, allowing school districts to require, as a
condition of approval, that the petition describe how the
charter school will provide free and reduced-priced meals
to eligible pupils would simply provide districts with
another pretext on which to deny a charter. Charter
schools are generally exempt from most laws and regulations
governing school districts and they should continue to be
exempt from this one.
In sum, this bill runs counter to the intent of charter
schools, which is to provide parents and students with
other options within the public school system and to
stimulate competition that improves the quality not only of
charter schools, but of non-charter schools as well.
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003076