BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1426
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1426 (Levine) - As Amended May 5, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill modifies the State Board of Education (SBE) funding
determination for blended learning charter schools that offer
classroom-based instruction no less than 60 percent of the
instructional time and no more than 80 percent. Specifically,
AB 1426
Page 2
this bill:
1) Defines "blended learning charter school" as a charter
school that offers a formal education program in which a
pupil learns at least in part through online delivery of
content and instruction with some element of pupil control
over time, place, and pace and at least in part at a
supervised location away from home, operates a single
schoolsite within the geographic jurisdiction of the
authority that granted its charter, and has no more than
one satellite facility.
2) Requires the SBE to adopt criteria for the determination
of funding for blended learning charter schools that
include facilities costs.
3) Provides that a blended learning charter school shall be
deemed a classroom-based school for purposes of eligibility
for specified facilities funding.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Proposition 98/GF cost pressure in the millions of dollars
related to expanded access to facility programs. For example,
under current law, the state provides facility funding for
certain charter schools under the Charter School Facility
Grant Program. In 2014-15, the program provided $29.6 million
to 292 charter schools. Currently, non-classroom based
charter schools are not eligible for funding under this
program. This bill would increase the pool of eligible charter
schools, placing pressure on existing resources.
AB 1426
Page 3
2)General Fund administrative costs to CDE of approximately
$75,000 to review additional funding determinations.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Under current law, charter schools can receive full
average daily attendance (ADA) funding if they offer
classroom-based instruction at least 80% of the time. This
allows the charter to provide differentiated instructional
models, such as blended learning, without a reduction in
funding. Once a charter school falls below 80%
classroom-based, the charter is required to seek a funding
determination from the State Board of Education. In making
its determination, the SBE is required to consider a number of
factors, including the amount of the school's total budget
spent on certifications, employees' salaries and benefits, and
on schoolsites, and the teacher-to-pupil ratio in the school.
This review provides important safeguards to ensure the state
is investing the appropriate amount of resources for this type
of instruction.
This bill establishes a new "zone" of charter schools that
provide at least 60% classroom-based instruction time but not
more than 80% classroom-based instruction, and makes funding
for these schools subject to a determination by the SBE.
Existing law already requires these charter schools to seek an
SBE funding determination. The bill modifies this requirement
for this subset of charter schools by adding the additional
requirement that the SBE include facility costs. The bill also
makes these schools eligible for facilities funding if they
are otherwise eligible.
Supporters of this bill, the California Charter Schools
Association, state blended learning programs are not well
AB 1426
Page 4
supported by the existing policy environment. They state the
current SBE funding determination process has forced blended
learning charter schools to "severely curtail their blended
learning innovation". They further state the current process
is "arbitrary and artificially constraining when applied to
blended learning charter schools."
2)Opposition. The California Teachers Association, (CTA), is
opposed to this bill. CTA states there is no research
highlighting the importance of the zone between 60% to 80% of
students instructional time that necessitate special
consideration. A high quality charter school using a blended
model of instruction has the potential to be a valuable
alternative for certain targeted students for whom the
traditional classroom model is not feasible. However, too
often this approach is neither targeted nor high quality.
They note charter schools that move into the online learning
environment interact more with for profit companies who have a
responsibility to their shareholders, taking the focus away
from students. CTA believes charter schools that seek to
provide more online instruction out of class should utilize
the existing process for non-classroom based instruction
apportionments.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1426
Page 5