BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1426
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Levine |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 24, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: July 1, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Charter schools: classroom-based and
nonclassroom-based instruction: blended learning charter
schools
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a funding determination process for
blended learning charter schools that offer classroom-based
instruction between 60 percent and 80 percent of the
instructional time.
BACKGROUND
Under existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992 provides for
the establishment of charter schools in California for the
purpose, among other things, to improve student learning and
expand 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. Some charter schools are new
while others are conversions from existing schools. Except
where specifically noted otherwise, California law exempts
charter schools from many of the statutes and regulations that
apply to schools and school districts. The legislative intent
of the Charter Schools Act was to provide opportunities for
teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish
and maintain schools that operate independently from a school
district structure that would afford parents and pupils with
expanded educational choices, offer new professional
opportunities for teachers to be responsible for the learning
AB 1426 (Levine) Page 2
of ?
program at the school site, and create competition within the
public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all
public schools.
Existing law requires that charter schools: 1) are nonsectarian
in their programs, admission policies, employment practices, and
all other operations; 2) not charge tuition; and 3) not
discriminate against any pupil on the basis of the
characteristics, as specified. Admission to a charter school
may not be determined according to the place of residence of the
pupil, or of his or her parent or legal guardian, within the
state, except that an existing public school converting to a
charter school must adopt and maintain a policy giving
admissions preference to pupils who reside within the former
attendance area of that public school. (Education Code § 47605,
et seq.)
According to the California Department of Education, there were
over 1,100 charter schools with an enrollment of approximately
514,000 pupils operating in the state in 2013-14.
Existing law:
1)Requires charter schools to offer, at a minimum, the following
number of minutes of instruction each fiscal year:
a) 36,000 minutes in kindergarten;
b) 50,400 minutes in grades 1 to 3, inclusive;
c) 54,000 minutes in grades 4 to 8, inclusive; and
d) 64,800 minutes in grades 9 to 12, inclusive.
2)Provides that "classroom-based instruction" in a charter
school occurs only when charter school pupils are engaged in
AB 1426 (Levine) Page 3
of ?
educational activities required of those pupils and are under
the immediate supervision and control of an employee of the
charter school who possesses a valid teaching certification.
3)Authorizes a charter school to receive a full classroom-based
instruction apportionment if it offers at least 80 percent of
the minimum instructional time and requires the attendance for
all pupils for whom a classroom-based apportionment is claimed
at the school site for at least 80 percent of the minimum
instruction time required.
4)Authorizes charter schools to offer nonclassroom-based
instruction, which includes, but is not limited to,
independent study, home schooling, and distance and
computer-based education.
5)Regulates the provision of funding to charter schools that
provide instruction in nonclassroom-based settings through a
funding determination process by the State Board of Education
(SBE) and provides that nonclassroom-based instruction shall
be funded at no more than 70 percent of the rate for
classroom-based instruction unless the SBE determines that a
greater or lesser amount is appropriate. (Education Code §
47634.2)
ANALYSIS
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 school site within the
geographic jurisdiction of the authority that granted its
charter, and has no more than one satellite facility, as
specified.
AB 1426 (Levine) Page 4
of ?
2)Requires a blended learning charter school that offers
classroom-based instruction no less than 60 percent and no
more than 80 percent of the instructional time offered by the
charter school to be subject to the determination of funding
requirement by the State Board of Education, as specified.
3)Requires a blended learning charter school that seeks a
funding determination to report its attendance as a
nonclassroom-based charter school.
4)Provides that a blended learning charter school that seeks a
funding determination shall not lose eligibility for
facilities assistance funding, as specified, based solely on
its status as a nonclassroom-based school, provided that the
charter school is otherwise eligible.
5)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt
regulations setting forth criteria for the determination of
funding for a blended learning charter school and shall
include facility costs as instructional costs for any funding
evaluation that considers the total instructional costs of the
school.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author's office, "while
blended learning innovations are occurring throughout the
state, they are not well supported by the existing policy
environment. Currently, our education policies support two
paths to instruction: the traditional classroom model and the
virtual/independent study model. Blended learning operates in
the middle of that spectrum. Both traditional and charter
public schools are engaging in blended learning but charter
schools have a hurdle that traditional schools do not. The
current 80 percent threshold that defines a nonclassroom-based
school creates unintentional challenges for a blended learning
charter school that remains mostly bricks and mortar."
2)Blended learning. Blended learning is a method of instruction
AB 1426 (Levine) Page 5
of ?
that combines traditional classroom-based instruction with
some form of independent study that utilizes online learning
outside of the classroom. It currently is offered by both
charter schools and traditional public schools. Charter
schools have the option of reducing classroom-based
instruction to 80 percent of the minutes otherwise required
and still receive full Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding
for their students.
While existing law already authorizes a charter school to
offer nonclassroom-based instruction and go through a funding
determination process by the SBE in which it could receive
full ADA funding for its students, this bill creates new
statutory provisions for charter schools that provide between
60 percent and 80 percent of classroom-based instruction time
which is a lower threshold than what is currently authorized
for nonclassroom-based instruction. Funding for blended
learning programs would also be subject to a funding
determination process by the SBE. However, the SBE would be
required to include facility costs (as instructional costs) as
part of its consideration. Currently, the Charter School
Facility Grant Program which was established by SB 740
(O'Connell, Chapter 892, Statutes of 2001) and provides
assistance to charter schools with facilities rent and lease
expenditures, explicitly prohibits the use of non-classroom
based ADA. The author's office and supporters of the bill
argue that these charters will have facility needs, such as
providing some courses in a classroom setting or for teachers
to meet with students on a scheduled basis.
3)Effectiveness of online instruction? Studies on the use of
online instruction, which has grown in recent years, as
compared to traditional face-to-face instruction, have been
inconclusive and some have even gone on to suggest that online
instruction is not as effective as regular classroom
instruction. For example, a 2011 study of charter school
performance in Pennsylvania by the Center for Research on
Education Outcomes at Stanford University found that each of
AB 1426 (Levine) Page 6
of ?
that state's eight online charter schools significantly
underperformed brick and mortar schools and regular
(non-virtual) charter schools in reading and math. A 2011
report from the Ohio Department of Education only rated three
of the state's 27 virtual schools as effective or excellent.
Notwithstanding these studies, with recent advances in
technology combined with local workforce needs, blending
learning programs could allow for more innovative and
experimental paths to instruction that benefit student
outcomes. Additionally, by requiring a blended learning
charter school to go through a funding determination process
through the State Board of Education (SBE), this could help
ensure adequate state fiscal oversight and prevent the
potential for these schools to reduce spending on
instruction-related activities.
4)Pilot program. Absent a comprehensive analysis on the
effectiveness of blended learning, it appears to be premature
at this point to expand these programs as prescribed by this
measure. Staff recommends the following amendments:
a) Provide that the bill's provisions be implemented as a
pilot program administered by the California Department of
Education (CDE) for a three-year period, commencing with
the 2016-17 school year.
b) Require the CDE to establish an application process with
up to 10 charter schools selected for participation.
c) Require that the application be based on, at minimum, a
written proposal describing the blended learning program
and population to be served, evidence of the applicant's
track record of success in operating a blended learning
program, and a written plan for documenting and reporting
its practices and pupil outcomes for the duration of the
pilot program, including specific educational goals and
outcomes that are aligned with the applicant's local
control and accountability plan.
AB 1426 (Levine) Page 7
of ?
Staff also recommends that the bill be amended to require the
CDE to contract for an independent evaluation of the pilot
program that assesses the effectiveness of charter school
blended learning programs on student performance and includes
recommendations on whether this model of instruction should be
implemented on a statewide basis. The evaluation shall
include recommendations on funding instructional and facility
costs and the effectiveness of the funding determination
process. This could help inform future discussions on the
possibility of permanently authorizing blended learning at the
reduced threshold of classroom time that this measure
proposes.
5)Funding for facilities. This bill provides that a blending
learning charter school that seeks a funding determination
shall not lose eligibility for facilities assistance under
Proposition 39, the Charter School Facility Grant Program, and
the State School Facilities Program, provided the school is
otherwise eligible for the facilities funding pursuant to
those programs. As previously mentioned in Comment No. 2,
current law explicitly prohibits eligibility for Charter
School Facility Grant Program funds for nonclassroom-based
instruction. Because the bill would require the SBE's funding
determination to include facility costs as part of its
consideration and also to be consistent with the existing
Charter School Facility Program, staff recommends that the
provision allowing a blended learning charter school to retain
its eligibility for facilities assistance pursuant to the
Charter School Facility Grant Program be deleted.
6)Arguments in support. Supporters of this bill, the California
Charter Schools Association, state blended learning programs
are not well 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."
7)Arguments in opposition. The California Teachers Association,
(CTA), which is opposed to this bill, states there is no
AB 1426 (Levine) Page 8
of ?
research highlighting the importance of the zone between 60
percent to 80 percent 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.
8)Related and prior legislation. AB 2178 (Levine, 2014)
proposed to establish the Blended Learning Pilot Program,
administered by the State Board of Education for the purpose
of exploring best practices in blended learning. This bill
failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
California Charter Schools Association
EdVoice
StudentsFirst
OPPOSITION
California Federation of Teachers
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
-- END --