BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 329 (Mendoza) - Charter schools: petition and report and
review at public hearing: competitive bidding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 29, 2015 |Policy Vote: ED. 7 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 18, 2015 |Consultant: Jillian Kissee |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: This bill requires 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 for which
the school district has oversight obligations. This bill also
applies provisions of the Public Contract Code to contracts
awarded by a charter school.
Fiscal
Impact:
Mandate: Unknown, potentially significant costs in the low
millions to school districts and county offices of education
due to increased oversight responsibilities. See staff
comments.
Costs to charter schools: Unknown, potentially significant
costs, also in the millions to change existing procurement
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 1 of
?
practices and to comply with competitive bidding requirements.
See staff comments.
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.
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 (CDE), 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 CDE 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.
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 2 of
?
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 CDE 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 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 to assess the fiscal condition of the
charter school.
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 3 of
?
Proposed Law:
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) Applies the competitive bidding provisions regarding
contracts specified in
§ 20110 of the Public Contract Code to contracts awarded by
a charter school.
Related
Legislation: AB 1172 (Mendoza, 2012), would have authorized a
school district to deny a petition for the establishment of a
charter school if it the charter school would have a negative
fiscal impact on the school district. AB 1172 failed passage in
the Senate Education Committee.
AB 86 (Mendoza, 2011) would have expanded signature requirements
for charter school petitions to include classified employees.
This measure was vetoed by Governor Brown indicating that
existing law makes it hard enough for charters to be
established.
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 vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger
with a message indicating it would "grant school districts the
authority to punish charter petitioners because of the problems
caused by their own fiscal management issues or their
unwillingness to make tough decisions, or both."
Staff
Comments: This bill requires a school district or county office
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 4 of
?
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 for which
the school district has oversight obligations. These two
additional oversight activities will add unknown, but
potentially significant, costs if they are found to be a
reimbursable state mandate and create cost pressures to increase
funding provided through the mandates block grant. The existing
Charter Schools I-III mandates reimburse authorizers for
reviewing proposed charters, holding associated public hearings,
and monitoring charter schools after approval. The Charter
Schools IV mandate includes additional oversight activities,
including authorizing county offices of education that review
proposed countywide charter schools to claim reimbursement for
the activities associated with this review. Likewise, the
additional activities required for charter authorizers to do as
part of its review of a charter petition, may be found to be a
reimbursable state mandate.
Costs attributed to these activities would depend on a number of
factors, such as how many schools are within the authorizer's
jurisdiction for which they must consider the impacts of an
approval of a charter petition, and how much staff time is
invested in these assessments.
In addition, this bill applies provisions of the Public Contract
Code to contracts awarded by a charter school which could also
result in a reimbursable state mandate due to an increased level
of oversight responsibilities for the authorizer to ensure
charter procurement practices comply with competitive bidding
laws. Again, costs to the authorizer would vary depending on
such factors as how many charter schools exist within an
authorizer's jurisdiction.
Finally, this bill is likely to significantly increase costs to
charters as they would have to change their existing procurement
policies and provide staff training on new bidding requirements.
The fiscal impacts on future contracts entered into by charter
schools through the competitive bidding process is unknown.
-- END --
SB 329 (Mendoza) Page 5 of
?