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.