BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 322
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 322
(Leno) - As Amended July 16, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill modifies current law regarding preferences for charter
school admissions and establishes requirements for suspension
and expulsion procedures. Specifically, this bill:
SB 322
Page 2
1)Authorizes a charter school to have admissions preferences if
certain standards are met. The preferences must be approved
at a public hearing, cannot result in limiting enrollment
access to specified pupil groups (such as low income, students
with disabilities, English learners), and cannot require
mandatory parental volunteer hours.
2)Requires a charter school petition's descriptions of
suspension and expulsion procedures to identify the list of
acts for which a pupil may be suspended or expelled; specify
the maximum length of time for which a pupil may be suspended;
and accommodate the rights of pupils with disabilities,
consistent with federal law.
3)Sets forth specific suspension and expulsion procedures that
charter schools must meet, including, timeframes by which
parents/guardians and pupils will be informed of the reasons
for the suspension or expulsion. Further sets forth a process
to inform the student of their due process rights, including a
right to a hearing and the right to view evidence and
interview witnesses.
4)Specifies that a pupil cannot be removed, involuntarily
dismissed, disenrolled, or terminated from a charter school
unless the charter school has complied with all of the
expulsion procedures specified in this bill.
5)Specifies that nothing in this bill is intended to restrict or
otherwise limit the rights available to pupils in charter
schools under other federal and state law. All such
protections must apply with full force and effect.
SB 322
Page 3
6)Authorizes a charter school to encourage parental involvement,
but requires the charter to notify the parents and guardians
of applicant pupils and currently enrolled pupils that
parental involvement is not a requirement for acceptance to,
or continued enrollment at, the charter school.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Proposition 98/GF state mandated costs to charter authorizers
(school districts and county offices of education), likely in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to review and approve
material revisions to charter petitions and to provide ongoing
oversight to ensure compliance with admissions, suspension and
expulsion requirements. These costs may be offset by existing
oversight fees charged to charter schools. Authorizers are
allowed to charge fees for oversight based on actual costs not
to exceed 1% or 3% of revenues, depending on facilities'
arrangements. As of 2014-15, there were 1,179 charter schools
enrolling approximately 544,900 of the state's 6.2 million
students.
2)Unknown costs to charter schools that may need to modify
existing admissions requirements and suspension and expulsion
procedures, consistent with the requirements of this bill. Any
additional costs would be absorbed locally since charters are
ineligible to claim reimbursement of costs resulting from
state mandates. Costs associated with suspension and
expulsion procedures may be offset by funding provided through
the K-12 Mandate Block Grant.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The American Civil Liberties Union, California
Federation of Teachers, California School Employees
SB 322
Page 4
Association, and the California Teachers Association are
co-sponsoring this bill. Supporters state that some charter
schools have selective admissions criteria, including
requiring parent volunteer hours as a condition of enrollment.
This bill seeks to clarify that charter school admission
preferences must be fair, transparent, and shall not limit
access to enrollment.
This bill also requires charter schools to follow specific
procedures regarding suspension and expulsion of a student.
Current law does not require charter schools to follow the
requirements that apply to school districts and COEs with
regard to suspension and expulsion, charter schools are only
required to delineate a process to address these issues in
their petition. Supporters state that existing charter
policies do not always ensure a child is provided their
Constitutional right to due process. The suspension and
expulsion provisions in this bill are not as prescriptive as
the current law requirements for school districts and COEs;
however, they are very similar and consistent.
2)Mandated costs. The K-12 Mandate Block Grant allows school
districts, COEs and charter schools to receive a per-pupil
allocation to conduct mandated activities rather than receive
full payment under the existing claims process. Not all
mandates in the block grant apply to charter schools;
therefore, charter schools receive a lower per pupil
allocation as compared to school districts and COEs. (School
districts receive $28.42 per student in grades K-8 and $56 per
student in grades 9-12.) Charter schools receive a rate of
$14.21 per student in grades K-8 and $42 per student in grades
9-12.
The existing suspension, expulsion and appeals mandate is
included in the block grant. Although charter schools are
prohibited from filing separate mandate claims, nearly all
charter schools receive block grant funding for a variety of
mandated activities, including suspension and expulsion
activities.
SB 322
Page 5
3)Costs associated with petition revision. The requirements of
this bill could constitute a material revision of a charter
petition. Any amendment that would constitute a material
revision of the charter school must be approved by the
governing board of the charter school and the governing board
of the charter authorizer pursuant to existing law. These
requirements could result in increased costs to the authorizer
to review and approve revised petitions. The requirements of
this bill would also create increased charter oversight duties
to ensure compliance with admission requirements and
suspension and expulsion policies.
4)Opposition. The California Charter Schools Association
Advocates (CCSAA) opposes this bill which they state strips
charter schools ability to establish their own suspension and
expulsion practices. They further state this bill is a
wholesale re-regulation of charter schools without any
presentation of facts that charter schools are violating
constitutional protections of students. According to CCSAA,
"The essential policy objective must be to ensure due process
for the expelled student, not to prescribe how due process was
achieved. While many charter schools follow the same process
as school districts by choice, there are charter schools that
have adopted other pathways to due process that pass
constitutional muster."
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 322
Page 6