BILL ANALYSIS Ķ SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Alan Lowenthal, Chair 2011-12 Regular Session BILL NO: SB 645 AUTHOR: Simitian AMENDED: April 25, 2011 FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 4, 2011 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill SUBJECT : Charter schools: charter renewal. SUMMARY This bill establishes new criteria for charter school renewal and makes the criteria inoperative if the State Board of Education adopts an academic accountability system for charter schools, as specified. 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. A charter school may be authorized by a school district, a county board of education, or the State Board of Education, as specified. (Education Code § 47601 et. seq.) 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. (EC § 47607) Existing law specifies that after a charter school has been in operation for four years, it shall meet at least one of the following criteria 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; SB 645 Page 2 (2) A ranking in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the API in the prior year or in two of the last three years. (3) A ranking in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the API for a demographically comparable school 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 (ASAM). (EC § 47607) Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) with approval of the State Board of Education (SBE) to develop an alternative accountability system for schools under the jurisdiction of a county board of education or county superintendent of schools, community day schools, nonpublic, nonsectarian schools, and alternative schools serving high-risk pupils, including continuation high schools and opportunity schools. Schools in the ASAM may receive an API score, are not included in API rankings. (EC § 52052) Existing law requires the Superintendent and the SBE to establish a list of low achieving and persistently lowest-achieving schools and provides that schools that have experienced academic growth of at least 50 points over the previous five years as measured by the Academic Performance Index may be excluded from the list. (EC § 53201) Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature that the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory Committee consider various ways to measure performance levels of cohort growth in which each pupil, subgroup, school, and school district make at least one year's academic growth in one year's time and whether that growth is sufficient to reach a performance level of proficient within the timeframes specified in the state's approved accountability plan required pursuant to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It further requires any measure of annual academic achievement growth by cohort approved for inclusion in the Academic Performance Index (API) or adopted through a state plan pursuant to the federal SB 645 Page 3 Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a requirement of receiving or allocating federal funds must utilize a growth model in the public domain that is not proprietary, be able to be replicated by an independent statistician, and be able to be fully and accurately explained in a document made available to the public. (EC § 52052.6) ANALYSIS This bill : 1) Prohibits an authorizer of a charter school that has been in operation for at least four years from considering or granting the renewal of the school's charter unless the school, based on data available as of October 1 of the fiscal year of renewal, meets one of the following criteria before having its charter renewed. a) Attain an API score of at least 700 in the most recent year. b) Attain a cumulative API growth of at least 30 points over the last three API cycles, and defines API growth for one cycle to mean the difference between a current year growth API and the prior year's base API. Specifies that the growth required shall not be measured as the difference between the most recent API score and the growth API score from three years prior to that score. c) Rank in deciles 6 to 10, inclusive, on the API for a demographically comparable school in the prior year or in two of the last three years for which demographically comparable school ranks are available. A school that does not generate a demographically comparable school rank is ineligible to meet this criterion. d) Participation in the alternative accountability system (ASAM). e) Receipt of a determination of academic eligibility for renewal from the State Board of Education (SBE) within the prior 12 months. 2) Makes the renewal criteria inoperative if the SBE adopts an SB 645 Page 4 academic accountability system and finds that the system it adopts is consistent with specified characteristics (subdivisions (b) and (c) of 52052.6). Requires the SBE to adopt regulations designating a level of annual academic achievement growth that qualifies a charter school for renewal. 3) Specifies that a charter school may apply to the SBE for a determination of academic eligibility for renewal of its charter by submitting evidence of the school's academic success. Evidence supporting an application may include, but is not limited to, information on individual pupil achievement, including longitudinal data that demonstrate individual pupil progress, analysis of similar pupil populations, or other relevant data as determined by the school. 4) Requires the advisory committee appointed by the SBE to recommend criteria for the determination of funding for nonclassroom-based instruction to publicly hear an application for a determination of academic eligibility for the renewal of a charter, and make a recommendation to the SBE on the application. 5) Requires the SBE to issue a positive determination of academic eligibility if the SBE finds that the charter school adequately demonstrates that the academic performance of the charter school meets or exceeds its predicted performance based on a statistical evaluation of similar pupil populations. STAFF COMMENTS 1) Need for the bill : According to the sponsor of this bill, the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), the state needs to establish an accountability framework for charter schools that includes standards that effectively measure the success of charter schools and a mechanism to ensure swift, objective, and unbiased action on persistently low-achieving schools. According to the author's office, SB 645 seeks to remedy two failures in the current renewal process: measurements of school success that are too forgiving and tolerant of persistent failure, and charter school authorizers that succumb to political pressure and renew the charters of failing schools. SB 645 Page 5 In its recently released report, Portrait of the Movement: How Charters are Transforming California Education, the CCSA introduces a performance framework for charter schools and describes the Similar Students Measure, which assesses school performance while filtering out many non-school effects on student achievement through the use of regression-based predictive modeling. The measure compares a school's Academic Performance Index to a predicted API that controls for the effects of student background on performance. According to the CCSA, the framework includes absolute status and growth over time on the API with the SSM to "create a more comprehensive approach to classifying the performance of charter schools." SB 645 reflects this framework in the proposed renewal criteria and in the process the state board would use to determine academic eligibility. 2) Hoover Commission findings and recommendations . In November 2010, the Little Hoover Commission released a report "Smarter Choices, Better Education: Improving California Charter Schools" that contained findings and recommendations regarding the charter school authorization, renewal, and appeal process. The Commission found that there was broad agreement that the current renewal criteria for charter schools must be improved. During the study, the Commission was told "repeatedly" that the state's renewal criteria are too vague and the bar is set too low, making it difficult for authorizers to close down poor performing schools. Under current law, a school can be renewed if the school's performance is comparable to that of district schools its students would otherwise attend. If all schools within a neighborhood are performing poorly but the charter school provides a safe haven for students, parents and students may pressure the local school board to keep the school open even if it is not meeting its academic goals. Since achievement test scores may not provide a complete picture of student learning, the Commission recommended that the state expand the renewal criteria to include other factors, such as graduation rates, employment readiness, as well as college attendance and completion rates. The Commission urged the state to "raise the bar for charter school renewal while still maintaining options for certain charter schools serving the most difficult student populations." 3) Academic Performance Index . The Academic Performance Index SB 645 Page 6 (API) is single number on a scale of 200 to 1,000 that is an annual measure of test score performance in schools. The API is used to summarize the performance of students and a school, and is based on results of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE). The system is based on a two-year cycle that gives a "base" score for the first year and a "growth" score in the second year. The Base API is released in the spring and is derived from the previous spring's test scores. The Growth API, which is released in the fall, comes from the previous spring's test scores. The SBE has established a statewide target of 800 for the API. Schools with API scores below 800 are expected to improve and are given a "growth target" that is 5 percent of the difference between their API score and 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. (Schools with an API above the statewide target are expected to stay above 800.) A school's Base API score plus its growth target becomes that school's goal for its next Growth API. For example, a school with a Base API of 320 would be expected to improve its performance by 24 points in the next cycle, or attain an API of 344. 4) How are the new process and criteria different ? Current law requires charter schools to meet at least one of the specified academic criteria prior to being renewed. This bill would specifically prohibit authorizers from granting the renewal of a charter unless the school meets the academic criteria specified in this bill, essentially providing for a "default closure" for charter schools that fail to meet the success criteria specified in the bill. According to the author's office, this default closure is intended to eliminate the emotional and political pressures that may occur when a school board considers renewal of a failing charter school. Under current law, a charter school can be renewed if it is meeting its API growth targets, is ranked in API deciles 4-10 in the prior year or in two of the previous three years, is ranked in deciles 4-10 for similar schools, or has an academic performance that is "at least equal" to other public schools in the district. Under SB 645, charter schools would not be eligible for renewal unless they attain an API score of at least 700 in the most recent year, growth of at least 30 points over three API cycles, or rank in deciles 6-10 for a demographically comparable SB 645 Page 7 school. As is currently the case, charter schools that operate under the ASAM would qualify for renewal. Thus, SB 645 creates a default "non-renewal" of any charter school that fails to meet the criteria. A charter school that meets the criteria but is not renewed would be able to appeal the non-renewal decision to the county board of education and the SBE. While this bill establishes higher standards for charter school renewals than is specified in current law, it is not clear that the minimum cumulative growth of 30 points over three years would indicate quality. A school with a Base API of 320 could meet the 30 points minimum for cumulative API growth and still have a relatively low API score. For example: ----------------------------- | | Base |Growth |Growth | | | |Target | API | | | | | Goal | |------+------+-------+-------| |Year | 320| 24| 344| |1 | | | | |------+------+-------+-------| |Year | 344| 21| 365| |2 | | | | |------+------+-------+-------| |Year | 365| 20|385 | |3 | | | | ----------------------------- Given that charter schools are afforded significant flexibility and autonomy in return for accountability for improved student achievement should the cumulative growth criteria be higher? Should this option be available only to charter schools with a base API of 500 or those that are not included in the list of persistently lowest-achieving schools established pursuant to Education Code § 53201? At the same time, could the default closure reduce the flexibility of local governing boards to renew charters that are meeting the needs of students or are meeting other criteria that the board deems important? This bill enables a charter school that obtains an eligibility certificate from the SBE to be renewed by a local authorizing board. Could this create a different type of political pressure for local boards to renew a SB 645 Page 8 charter that has first obtained approval from the SBE? Although the intent of this "second look" process is to provide charter schools subject to default closure an alternative means to demonstrate academic accountability, there appears to be nothing in the bill that would preclude a charter school from obtaining SBE certification as a measure of insurance when seeking renewal from a local governing board. Should the avenue be open only to those schools that do not meet the one of the first four criteria and are subject to default closure? This bill allows a "determination of academic accountability" to qualify for renewal. Since it is the intent that only those charter schools that receive a positive determination be renewed, staff recommends adding the word "positive" to paragraph (5) in subdivision (b). To ensure that the "second look" review works as intended and to provide greater clarity in the SBE certification process, staff recommends the following amendments: a) Limit the "second look" option to those charter schools that do not qualify for renewal under the first four criteria specified in subdivision (b) of 47607 of the bill. b) Add the word "positive" to subparagraph (5) of subdivision (b) to be consistent with the requirement that the SBE issue a "positive determination of academic eligibility." 5) Reduces legislative authority . This bill establishes new and presumably stronger renewal criteria for charter schools, yet makes these criteria inoperative if the SBE adopts an accountability system and regulations based on the recommendations of the Superintendent's Public School Accountability Act Advisory Committee for annual academic achievement growth. While delegating authority over charter school accountability criteria to the state board may allow the state to more quickly respond to changes in federal law (or changes in a governor's agenda), members of the SBE are not accountable to the electorate as are members of the Legislature. Could this bill result in the establishment of one set of accountability standards for charter schools and another for all other public schools? Given that the members of the state board are appointed by SB 645 Page 9 the Governor, could those regulations change depending on the composition and interests of those who are appointed to the state board? Staff recommends that this provision be deleted from the bill. 6) Related and prior legislation : SB 433 (Liu) would require charter schools to comply with state statutes governing the suspension and expulsion of pupils. This measure is scheduled to be heard in this Committee on May 4, 2011. AB 86 (Mendoza) requires charter school petitioners to obtain the signatures of classified employees, as specified. This measure is pending on the Assembly Floor. AB 401 (Ammiano) limits until January 1, 2023, the total number of charter schools authorized to operate at 1,450 and adds additional criteria relating to the disclosure of relatives of charter school personnel. This measure is pending in the Assembly Education Committee. AB 360 (Brownley) makes charter schools subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act or Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, depending on the entity operating the school. Also subjects charters to the California Public Records Act and the Political Reform Act. AB 440 (Brownley) establishes various academic and fiscal accountability standards related to charter schools. This measure is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 1034 (Gatto) requires charter schools to report specified information relating to pupil demographics and academic progress, requires charter schools to collect data regarding pupils who transfer out of the school, and modifies existing law regarding charter school admissions. This measure is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 1741 (Coto, 2010), would have required charter schools that expect 15% of their pupil population to be English SB 645 Page 10 learners to meet additional petition requirements relating to the education of those students. This bill was heard and passed as amended by the Senate Education Committee and was subsequently held in the Senate Rules Committee. AB 1982 (Ammiano, 2010), would have limited 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. This bill was heard by the Senate Education Committee and failed passage on a 3-4 vote. AB 1991 (Arambula, 2010) would have authorized charter school renewals to be granted for five to ten years. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Education Committee. AB 2320 (Swanson, 2010) would have added 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 was heard by the Senate Education Committee and failed passage on a 2-3 vote. AB 2363 (Mendoza, 2010) would have required 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. This bill was heard by the Senate Education Committee and failed passage on a 2-6 vote. AB 572 (Brownley, 2009) would have required charter schools to comply with the Brown Act open meeting law, the California Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. This bill was passed by the Senate Education Committee and subsequently vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. 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, and the authorization, renewal and revocation of charter schools. The Senate Education Committee hearing for this bill was canceled at the request SB 645 Page 11 of the author and the bill was subsequently held by the Committee. SUPPORT ACE Charter Schools Bullis Charter School California Charter Schools Association Charter Academy of the Redwoods Classical Academies Darnall Charter School Fenton Avenue Charter School Fenton Primary Center Green Dot Public Schools Guajome Park Academy Inland Leaders Charter School King-Chavez Neighborhood of Schools KIPP Bay Area Schools Lewis Center for Educational Research New Vision Middle School Oakland Military Institute - College Preparatory Academy Pacific Collegiate School Para Los Niņos Rocketship Education SOAR Charter Academy Sycamore Academy of Science and Cultural Arts OPPOSITION California School Boards Association California Teachers Association Charter Schools Development Center K12, Inc.