BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 322
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leno |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 13, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: April 22, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Charter schools: pupils: suspension and expulsion:
admissions: departures
SUMMARY
This bill would prohibit a charter school from establishing
admission preferences and also requires charter schools to
comply with the existing pupil suspension and expulsion
provisions for traditional public schools. Additionally, this
bill would require a charter school, upon a student's expulsion
or departure, to report the reason within 10 days.
BACKGROUND
Charter Schools
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
SB 322 (Leno) Page 2
of ?
district structure that would afford parents and pupils with
expanded educational choices, offer new professional
opportunities for teachers to be responsible for the learning
program at the school site, and create competition within the
public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all
public schools.
Current 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.
Parents, teachers, or community members may initiate a charter
petition, which is typically presented to and approved by a
local school district governing board. The law also allows,
under certain circumstances, for county boards of education and
the State Board of Education to authorize charter schools. The
specific goals for a charter school are detailed in the
agreement (charter) between the authorizing entity and the
charter developer. The charter petition is also required to
include a description of the educational program of the school
and several other policies and procedures relating to employees,
pupils, and finances. Current law establishes procedures for
the renewal of charter schools, not to exceed five years.
If a pupil is expelled or leaves the charter school without
graduating or completing the school year for any reason, the
charter school is required to notify the superintendent of the
school district of the pupil's last known address within 30
days, and shall upon request provide that school district with a
copy of the cumulative record of the pupil, including a
transcript of grades or report card, and health information.
This provision applies only to pupils subject to compulsory
SB 322 (Leno) Page 3
of ?
full-time education.
Suspension Requirements
Existing law prohibits a pupil from being suspended or
recommended for expulsion unless the principal of the school
determines that the pupil has committed certain acts, and gives
schools the discretion to take action for most offenses. A
suspension shall be imposed only when other means of correction
fail to bring about proper conduct.
Suspension by the principal must be preceded by an informal
conference between the principal, pupil and whenever
practicable, the teacher, supervisor or school employee who
referred the pupil to the principal. School principals may
suspend a pupil without first holding an informal conference
with the pupil if an emergency situation exists. A school
employee is required to make a reasonable effort to contact the
pupil's parents at the time of suspension; however, whenever a
pupil is suspended from school (as opposed to suspension from a
class) the parent must be notified in writing.
(Education Code § 48900, et. seq.)
Schools may suspend a pupil for violating any number of acts,
some of which include:
1. Attempting to cause or threatening to cause physical
injury to another person. (Expulsion must be recommended
for causing serious physical injury.)
2. Being under the influence of a controlled substance.
(Expulsion must be recommended for possession or the sale
of controlled substances.)
3. Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property.
4. Possessed or used tobacco.
5. Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual
profanity or vulgarity.
6. Possessed, offered, arranged or negotiated to sell drug
paraphernalia.
SB 322 (Leno) Page 4
of ?
7. Engaged in, or attempted to engage in, hazing.
8. Disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully
defying the valid authority of supervisors, teachers,
administrators, school officials, or other school personnel
engaged in the performance of their duties.
9. Engaged in an act of bullying.
Pupils may be suspended for a first offense if the school
principal determines that the pupil committed certain acts or
that a pupil's presence causes a danger to persons or property
or threatens to disrupt the instructional process or the pupil
committed certain acts. (EC § 48900.5)
The governing board of a school district is required, unless a
request has been made to the contrary, to hold closed sessions
if the board is considering suspending or taking other
disciplinary action (other than expulsion) if a public hearing
would lead to the release of confidential information. School
districts are required to notify, in writing, the pupil and the
pupil's parent of the intent to call and hold a closed session.
(EC § 48912)
School district superintendents and school principals are
authorized to use discretion to provide alternatives to
suspension or expulsion, including counseling and an anger
management program. (EC § 48900(v))
Teachers may suspend pupils from class for the day and the
following day. If the pupil is to remain on campus during that
suspension, the pupil must be under appropriate supervision.
Teachers must ask the parent to attend a parent-teacher
conference regarding the suspension. Pupils are prohibited from
returning to the class from which he or she was suspended,
during the period of the suspension, without the concurrence of
the teacher and principal. (EC § 48910)
The number of days that a pupil may be suspended from school is
capped at five consecutive schooldays. With some exception, the
total number of days for which a pupil may be suspended is
capped at 20 schooldays per school year, unless the pupil
enrolls in or is transferred to another regular school, an
opportunity school or a continuation school, in which case the
SB 322 (Leno) Page 5
of ?
cap is 30 schooldays per school year. School districts are
authorized to count suspensions that occur while a pupil is
enrolled in another school district toward the maximum numbers
of days for which a pupil may be suspended in any school year.
(EC § 48903 and 48911)
Expulsion Requirements
Schools may expel pupils for various offenses, including
disruption and defiance, upon finding either of the following:
1. Other means of correction are not feasible or have
repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct.
2. Due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the
pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of
the pupil or others.
(EC § 48915(e))
If the governing board of a school district receives a request
from an individual who has been expelled from another school
district for enrollment, the school board shall hold a hearing
to determine whether that individual poses a continuing danger
either to the pupils or employees of the school district. A
district may request information from another school district
regarding a recommendation for expulsion or the expulsion of an
applicant for enrollment.
If a pupil has been expelled from his or her previous school, as
specified, the parent, guardian, or pupil shall, upon
enrollment, inform the receiving school district of his or her
status with the previous school district. If this information
is not provided and the school district later determines the
pupil was expelled from the previous school, the lack of
compliance shall be recorded and discussed in the hearing.
School district governing boards are required to set a date, not
later than the last day of the semester following the semester
in which the expulsion occurred, when the pupil shall be
reviewed for readmission to a school within the district or the
school the pupil last attended. (EC § 48916(a))
ANALYSIS
SB 322 (Leno) Page 6
of ?
This bill:
1. Adds the intent of the Legislature to do all of the
following:
A. Ensure equal access to interested pupils at
charter schools and prohibit
practices that discourage enrollment or
disproportionately push out
segments of already enrolled pupils.
B. Ensure that charter school discipline policies
are fair and transparent.
C. Ensure that a pupil's constitutional right to due
process is protected at
charter schools.
D. Consistent with Section 5 of Article IX of the
California Constitution,
ensure that charter schools operate within the system
of common schools by remaining"?free, nonsectarian and
open to all students?," as stated in Wilson v. State
Board of Education (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1137-38
2. Removes "admission requirements" from the petition for the
establishment of a charter school that a proposed charter
school is required to provide a comprehensive description
of.
3. Removes "other preferences" from being permitted by a
charter school in the event a public random drawing is
necessary in determining the admission of students to the
school, and instead provides that preferences shall be
limited to pupils currently attending the charter (current
law), siblings of pupils currently attending, children of
employees at the charter, and pupils who reside in the
school district (current law).
4. Requires a charter school, upon a student's expulsion or
departure, to report the reason for the expulsion or
departure to the superintendent of the school district of
the pupil's last known address within 10 days.
SB 322 (Leno) Page 7
of ?
5. Reduces the timeline (from 30 days to 10 days) in which a
charter school is currently required to notify the school
district if a student is expelled or leaves the charter
school and also requires the charter school to provide a
copy of the cumulative record of the pupil, including a
transcript of grades or report card and health information.
6. Provides that charter schools shall not be exempt from the
existing pupil suspension and expulsion laws governing
school districts, as specified, and defines a school to
include a charter school for purposes of that article.
Removes the specification of "pupil" as including a pupil's
parent or guardian or legal counsel.
7. Requires school districts to draft and implement a policy
to annually collect data about teacher turnover at each of
its schools and at each charter school it authorizes.
Provides that the data collected shall be classified as
public records subject to the California Public Records Act
and subject to existing state and federal law regarding
privacy and personal directory information.
8. Adds legislative findings and declarations, as specified,
regarding the public's interest in charter school operation
and transparency.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office, "some
charter schools establish admission requirements and
preferences designed to allow only the most "desirable"
students and to screen out students who may have lower
standardized test scores. Examples of discriminatory
admission policies include mandatory parental volunteer
hours, minimum English proficiency requirements or a
minimum GPA. Additionally, some students are "counseled
out" during the school year in order to boost test scores.
The California Department of Education recently weighed in
on one such practice by issuing an advisory opinion stating
that California law forbids charter schools from requiring
mandatory parental volunteer hours as a criterion for
admission or continued enrollment. These discriminatory
practices are systematically harming students of color and
SB 322 (Leno) Page 8
of ?
students from low-income families. Data shows that
low-income students, English language learners, and
populations in need of special education services are
served far less often at public charter schools than at
traditional public schools. These students deserve equal
access to all public schools and should not have any
barriers to their academic success."
2. Guidance on the federal Charter School Program. Federal
guidance provides that charter schools receiving federal
Charter Schools Program (CSP) funds must use a lottery if
more students apply for admission to the charter school
than can be admitted. Weighted lotteries, which give
preference to one set of students over another, are
permitted only when they are necessary to comply with title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the equal protection clause of
the Constitution, or applicable State law.
In addition, a charter school may weight its lottery in
favor of students seeking to change schools under the
public school choice provisions of title I, part A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the limited
purpose of providing greater choice to students covered by
those provisions. For example, a charter school could
provide each student seeking a transfer under title I with
two or more chances to win the lottery, while all other
students would have only one chance to win. (20 U.S.C.
7221i(1)(H))
A charter school that is oversubscribed and, consequently,
must use a lottery, generally must include in that lottery
all eligible applicants for admission. A charter school
may exempt from the lottery only those students who are
deemed to have been admitted to the charter school already
and, therefore, do not need to reapply. Specifically, the
following categories of applicants may be exempted from the
lottery on this basis:
A. Students who are enrolled in a public school
at the time it is converted into a public charter
school;
SB 322 (Leno) Page 9
of ?
B. Students who are eligible to attend, and are
living in the attendance area of, a public school at
the time it is converted into a public charter school;
C. Siblings of students already admitted to or
attending the same charter school;
D. Children of a charter school's founders,
teachers, and staff (so long as the total number of
students allowed under this exemption constitutes only
a small percentage of the school's total enrollment);
and
E. Children of employees in a work-site charter
school, (so long as the total number of students
allowed under this exemption constitutes only a small
percentage of the school's total enrollment).
1. Admission policies. While eliminating the authority of a
charter authorizer to permit admission preferences may
reduce the authority of some schools to screen out
students, this bill could reduce the flexibility of charter
schools to target certain student populations that may
benefit from the unique educational programs offered at a
particular charter school. Notwithstanding the concerns
some have raised about racial and income imbalances in some
charter schools, should charter authorizers continue to
have the discretion to allow charter schools to serve
specific populations such as students with special needs,
low-income students, English learners or low-performing
students who need to focus on credit recovery? Staff
recommends amendments that would authorize the chartering
authority to also permit admission preferences on an
individual school basis, provided that the preferences: 1)
are approved in a public hearing; 2) ensure students with
disabilities, academically low-achieving pupils, English
learners, and low income students who are eligible for free
and reduced price meals will be served; 3) are consistent
with federal law and the California Constitution; and 4) do
SB 322 (Leno) Page 10
of ?
not require mandatory parental volunteer hours as a
criterion for admission or continued enrollment.
2. Charter school requirements. Charter schools are exempt
from most laws governing school districts and schools in
order to allow the charter school the flexibility to
innovate and be responsive to the educational needs of the
student population served. Charter schools are required
however, to have credentialed teachers in core and college
preparatory courses, meet statewide standards, and consult
with parents, guardians, and teachers regarding the
school's programs.
Charter schools establish their own student discipline
procedures and articulate those procedures in their charter
petition. School districts, as charter authorizers, are
responsible for ensuring that the suspension and expulsion
procedures described in the charter are reasonably
comprehensive. An argument could be made that a district
could require charter petitions to include suspension and
expulsion procedures that provide for pupils' due process
and appeal rights. A school district and charter school
could also articulate additional expectations with regard
to how the charter school and school district will
communicate about students who are referred back to the
district in a Memorandum of Understanding that specifies
operational agreements between the charter and the
district. Given these avenues already exist, could this
bill unnecessarily subject all charter schools to a set of
statutes that may limit their ability to operate
independently from school district structures as the
Legislature intended in enacting the Charter School Act?
3. What is the problem? It is not clear if the root of the
problem is the inadequacy of the procedures or schools that
do not follow the procedures. If the problem is that
students in some charter schools do not have due process
rights when they are to be suspended or expelled, would it
be more appropriate to amend the Charter School Act to
require a charter's description of the procedures by which
pupils can be suspended or expelled to specifically address
the offenses for which a student may be suspended or
expelled as well as a description of a student's due
SB 322 (Leno) Page 11
of ?
process and appeal rights during those procedures? An
argument can also be made that charter schools are already
required by state and federal constitutional law to afford
a pupil due process when he or she has been recommended for
expulsion.
If the problem is that some charter schools are not complying
with the provisions of their charter or the notification
provisions of the Charter School Act, is that a problem
that requires a different remedy? If the problem is that
current law does not provide sufficient guidance to charter
schools and school district governing boards, amending the
Charter Schools Act may be a more appropriate remedy.
Additionally, while requiring charter schools to comply
with the expulsion and suspension provisions of the
Education Code could provide greater consistency regarding
student discipline, could it limit a charter school's
flexibility to require students to follow rules that are
integral to the theme, culture, or focus of the school?
For example, would a charter school that requires its
students to wear uniforms be precluded from expelling a
pupil who refuses to wear the uniform?
For these reasons, as the bill moves forward, the author
may wish to consider amending the bill to delete the
requirement that charter schools comply with the existing
expulsion and suspension provisions for traditional public
schools and instead require charters under the Charter
School Act, in outlining the procedures by which pupils can
be suspended or expelled, to specify the acts for which a
pupil may be suspended or expelled and a pupil's due
process rights.
4. Related and prior legislation.
SB 329 (Mendoza) would authorize a school district and
county office of education to deny a petition for the
establishment of a charter school if it finds the charter
school would have a negative fiscal impact on the school
district (or a district within the county), as specified.
This bill is also scheduled to be heard in this Committee
on April 22, 2015.
SB 433 (Liu, 2012) would have required charter schools to
SB 322 (Leno) Page 12
of ?
comply with state statutes governing the suspension and
expulsion of pupils. This bill failed passage in this
Committee.
AB 1034 (Gatto, 2011) proposed to require charter schools
to report specified pupil data and make changes to statutes
governing charter school admission practices. AB 1034
passed this Committee but was eventually vetoed by Governor
Brown with the following veto message:
Charter schools are established to encourage the
widest possible
range of innovation and creativity. Their governing
charters reflect
the ideas and aspirations of those willing to
undertake this
profoundly difficult challenge. It is critical that
they have the
flexibility to set admission criteria and parent
involvement
practices that are consistent with the school's
mission.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
GSA Network of California
San Francisco Unified School District
OPPOSITION
California Center for Parent Empowerment
California Charter Schools Association
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy
Charter Schools Development Center
EdVoice
Letters from individuals
-- END --
SB 322 (Leno) Page 13
of ?