BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 329
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mendoza |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 26, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: April 22, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Charter schools: petition denials: competitive
bidding
SUMMARY
This bill 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. Additionally, the bill would require a
school district or county office of education, as part of its
review of a charter petition, to consider 1) a report assessing
its capacity to conduct oversight of the charter school and 2) a
report of the anticipated financial and educational impact on
the other schools that the school district has oversight
obligations for.
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
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 2
of ?
charter schools from many of the statutes and regulations that
apply to schools and school districts.
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 State 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
full-time education.
ANALYSIS
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 3
of ?
This bill:
1. Requires a school district governing board or county board
of education, as part of its review of a charter school
petition, to consider a report assessing whether school
district staff has the capacity to conduct oversight of the
charter school and a report of the anticipated financial
and educational impact on the other schools that the
governing board of the school district has oversight
obligations for.
2. Adds the finding that "the charter school would have a
negative fiscal impact on the school district" to the
findings upon which a district may base denial of a
petition for the establishment of a charter school.
A. Provides that a negative fiscal impact
on the school district may only be established, and is
deemed to be established, if any one of the following
conditions is met:
(1) The school district
has received a negative financial certification
pursuant to § 42131.
(2) The school district
has received an emergency apportionment or
loan and is operating under the oversight of a
state administrator or
trustee, as specified.
(3) The school
district, due to the declining enrollment of
pupils, is in
the process of closing a school that a charter
school petition has
identified as the proposed site for its charter
school and has
received a qualified financial
certification pursuant to § 42131, or
would receive a qualified certification if the
charter school petition is
approved.
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 4
of ?
3. Adds the finding that "the charter school would have a
negative fiscal impact on a school district" to the
findings upon which a county office of education may base
denial of a petition for the establishment of a charter
school.
A. Provides that a negative fiscal impact on a
school district may only be
established, and is deemed to be established, if any
one of the following
conditions is met:
(4) The school district
has received a negative financial certification
pursuant to § 42131.
(5) The school district
has received an emergency apportionment or loan
and is operating under the oversight of a state
administrator or trustee, as specified.
(6) The school
district, due to the declining enrollment of
pupils, is in the process of closing a school
that a charter school petition has identified as
the proposed site for its charter school and has
received a qualified financial certification
pursuant to § 42131, or would receive a qualified
certification if the charter school petition is
approved.
4. Applies the competitive bidding provisions regarding
contracts specified in
§ 20110 of the Public Contract Code to contracts awarded by
a charter school and for purposes of that part of the
Public Contract Code, provides that a charter school shall
be deemed a school district and the governing body of a
charter school shall be deemed the governing body of a
school district. Provides that a reference to a school
district or the governing board of a school district shall
be deemed to also reference a charter school or the
governing body of a charter school.
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 5
of ?
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office,
California's charter school law was established in 1992
when these schools were expected to be only a small
component of state systems of public education. A cap was
established to limit charter schools to only 100 throughout
the state. Although there are many charter schools that
greatly benefit communities, the exponential growth of the
charter school industry over the last twenty years has not
coincided with increased oversight, and there is a need to
revisit the impact of charter schools on neighborhood
schools. The author's office indicates that although
charter schools contribute to our state's public education
and bring a different approach that benefits many students,
there must still be oversight to ensure that children are
receiving the best education possible. There are cases
where small school districts, with only 30 students,
authorize a charter school that enrolls up to 3,000
students, making it difficult for staff that oversees 30
students to conduct oversight of a school that serves 100
times its size. Additionally, the author's office
indicates there are still some charter schools that do not
operate with the student's best interests in mind. This
bill seeks to bring accountability and transparency to
those institutions.
2. Charter schools. 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.
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 program at the school
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 6
of ?
site, and create competition within the public school
system to stimulate continual improvements in all public
schools.
3. Fiscal issues as a basis for denying charter petitions.
While this bill specifies criteria for how negative fiscal
impact would be defined, it does not require a school
district to make a factual finding about the extent of the
negative impact. Conceivably, a district could deny a
charter petition for any negative impact, even a relatively
small one. Opponents argue that allowing school districts
to use fiscal issues as a basis for denying charter school
petitions is counter to the Legislature's intent for
charter schools and shifts the focus from the educational
program to be offered by the charter school to the fiscal
condition of the school district. Opponents also argue
that authorizing governing boards to deny charters on the
basis of the fiscal impact to the district would have the
effect of restricting parental choice in choosing schools
that best meet their pupil's needs. For these reasons,
staff recommends that the bill be amended to remove the
provisions authorizing a school district and county office
of education to deny a charter petition if it finds the
charter school would have a negative fiscal impact on the
school district.
4. Limits the establishment of charter schools? Twice a year,
the California Department of Education (CDE) receives
Notice of Interim Certifications on the financial status of
the state's approximately 1,100 local educational agencies
(LEAs). Based on the first interim report that was
published by the CDE in February 2015, 43 LEAs are either
in negative or qualified financial status. Of these, 5
LEAs have a negative certification which means they will
not be able to meet their financial obligations for 2014-15
or 2015-16 and 38 LEAs have a qualified certification and
may not be able to meet their financial obligations for
2014-15, 2015-16, or 2016-17.
This bill could give governing boards a basis to deny charter
school renewals, because renewals must include a
comprehensive description of any new requirement of charter
schools enacted into law after the charter was originally
granted or last renewed. It is unclear how many existing
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 7
of ?
charter schools could be denied renewal because the
authorizing school district could meet the definition of
negative fiscal impact. It also seems unlikely that
denying the renewal of these schools would solve the fiscal
problems of these districts.
5. Current oversight for charter authorizers. Existing law
requires a charter school to promptly respond to all
reasonable inquiries, including, but not limited to,
inquiries regarding its financial records, from its
chartering authority, the county office of education that
has jurisdiction over the school's chartering authority, or
from the Superintendent of Public Instruction and to
consult with these entities regarding any inquiries. Each
chartering authority is also required to do all of the
following with respect to a charter school under its
authority:
A. Identify at least one staff member as a contact
person for the charter school.
B. Visit each charter school annually.
C. Ensure that each charter school complies with all
reports required of charter schools by law.
D. Monitor the fiscal condition of each charter
school under its authority.
E. Provide timely notification to the State
Department of Education if any of the following
circumstances occur or will occur with regard to a
charter school for which it is the chartering
authority:
(1) A renewal of the charter is granted or
denied.
(2) The charter is revoked.
(3) The charter school will cease operation
for any reason.
Existing law requires each charter school to annually
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 8
of ?
prepare and submit reports to its chartering authority and
county superintendent of schools or only to the county
superintendent of schools if the county board of education
is the chartering authority. These reports include a
preliminary budget, interim financial reports, and audits.
Current law also requires the chartering authority to use
any financial information it obtains from the charter
school, including, but not limited to, the reports required
by this section, to assess the fiscal condition of the
charter school.
By requiring a school district to assess its capacity prior
to approving a charter petition, this bill could provide a
mechanism for a district in determining whether it has the
necessary capacity to provide effective oversight.
6. Competitive bidding. This bill would apply the competitive
bidding provisions specified in § 20110 of the Public
Contract Code to contracts awarded by a charter school.
This could affect how various equipment, materials, and
supplies are purchased or leased and according to opponents
of the bill, charter schools would be subject to a
time-consuming, labor-intensive process with no
justification.
7. Related and prior legislation.
AB 1172 (Mendoza, 2012), similar to this measure, would
have authorized a school district 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. AB 1172 failed passage in this Committee.
AB 86 (Mendoza, 2011) would have expanded signature
requirements for charter school petitions to include
classified employees. This measure was passed by this
Committee and subsequently vetoed by Governor Brown with
the following message:
Charter schools are a small but very important part of
the California public school system. They vary by
size, mission, governing structure and educational
philosophy. Their purpose is to allow parents,
teachers and other interested citizens to form public
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 9
of ?
schools outside the more detailed regulatory framework
of the regular school system.
They are profoundly difficult to establish and even
more difficult to maintain and grow in excellence.
Having started two myself, I know whereof I speak.
Notwithstanding the important contributions classified
staff make to the operation of a school, this bill
would unnecessarily complicate an already difficult
charter school petition process.
I believe the existing law is tough enough.
AB 2954 (Liu, 2006) would have added "negative fiscal
impact" to the reasons a governing board could deny a
charter school petition and required petitions to describe
how the charter school would provide free and
reduced-priced meals to eligible students. That measure
was passed by this Committee and subsequently vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, whose veto message read, in part:
While I understand the plight of school districts
faced with fiscal challenges of declining enrollment
and other management issues, I cannot condone allowing
them to deny parents and students their rights to
petition for the establishment of a charter school.
In essence, this bill would grant school districts the
authority to punish charter petitioners because of
problems caused by their own fiscal management issues
or their unwillingness to make tough decisions, or
both.
In sum, this bill runs counter to the intent of
charter schools, which is to provide parents and
students with other options within the public school
system and to stimulate competition that improves the
quality not only of charter schools, but of
non-charter schools as well.
SUPPORT
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association (sponsor)
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 10
of ?
OPPOSITION
California Center for Parent Empowerment
California Charter Schools Association
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy
Charter Schools Development Center
EdVoice
StudentsFirst
Letters from individuals
-- END --