BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 705
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hill |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 27, 2015 Hearing Date: |
| | April 8, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Charter school facilities: preliminary proposal:
public hearing
SUMMARY
This bill would require a school district to disclose at a
public hearing its preliminary proposal to offer facilities
for a charter school.
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.
Current law requires that charter schools: 1) are
SB 705 (Hill) Page 2 of ?
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.
School district provision of facilities to charter schools
under Proposition 39
Existing law requires that school districts make available, to
all charter schools operating in their school district with
projections of at least 80 units of average daily attendance
(ADA), facilities that will sufficiently accommodate all of
the charter's in-district students. It also requires that the
facilities be reasonably equivalent to other classrooms,
buildings, or facilities of the district. Facilities provided
shall be contiguous, furnished, and equipped, and shall remain
the property of the school district. Additionally, the school
district is required to make reasonable efforts to provide the
charter school with facilities near to where the charter
school wishes to locate, and shall not move the charter school
unnecessarily.
Existing law states that school districts may charge a charter
school a pro-rata share of the facilities costs which the
school district pays for with unrestricted general fund
revenues. The pro-rata share is based on the ratio of space
allocated by the school district to the charter school divided
by the total space of the district. Charter schools shall not
be otherwise charged for use of the facilities. (Education
Code § 47614)
ANALYSIS
SB 705 (Hill) Page 3 of ?
This bill would require a school district's preliminary
proposal regarding the space to be allocated to a charter
school to be disclosed at a public hearing that includes the
opportunity for public review and comment that is conducted at
a properly noticed and regularly scheduled meeting of the
governing board of the school district.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office,
existing law does not explicitly require community input
at the beginning of the allocation process for school
districts in providing reasonably equivalent facilities
to charter schools. This makes it almost impossible for
community input to be considered in the decision.
Specifically, in March 2014, a San Mateo based school
district approved, without sufficient time for community
input, the allocation of facilities for a charter school
on the campus of an existing high school. There are two
schools on one campus and due to the co-location, twelve
teachers at the existing high school have to share
classrooms. The author's office indicates that other
locations could have potentially housed the school
without the possibility of displacing present or future
students. This bill is intended to ensure that community
input is received in a timely manner.
2. How big is the problem? It is not clear whether this is
an isolated incident or if it is prevalent statewide. It
is also unclear how common it is for local school
district governing boards to weigh in on school facility
requests from charter schools. Absent this data, the
Committee may wish to consider whether this measure is
necessary. However, the bill could promote greater
transparency in the consideration of these Proposition 39
facility requests. Staff recommends an amendment to
remove the provision allowing the public "review" of a
school district's proposal to allocate facilities to a
charter school.
3. Proposition 39. This ballot initiative was passed by
California voters in November 2000 and amended current
law with the intent that public school facilities
constructed with state dollars be shared fairly among all
SB 705 (Hill) Page 4 of ?
public school students, including those in charter
schools. This coincided with another provision included
in Proposition 39 which reduced the threshold for the
state or a local school district to pass a facilities
bond from two-thirds to fifty-five percent, a
considerably easier standard to meet. Prior to the
passage of Proposition 39, charter school law permitted
charter schools to use, at no cost, school district
facilities which the school district was not using for
instructional or administrative purposes or which were
historically used as rental properties.
4. State-reimbursable mandate? By requiring a school
district's governing board to hold a public hearing for
any preliminary proposal of facilities to a charter
school under Proposition 39, this bill could potentially
impose a state-reimbursable mandate resulting in unknown
Proposition 98 General Fund costs.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
OPPOSITION
California Charter Schools Association
-- END --