BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 705
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
SB
705 (Hill) - As Amended May 5, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 21-13
SUBJECT: Charter school facilities: notification.
SUMMARY: Specifies that if a school district, upon receipt of a
charter school's reasonable projection of average daily
classroom attendance by in-district students for the following
year, reasonably anticipates that a public school facility
located in a district-operated school will be allocated to a
charter school, the school district shall, before allocating
that facility, notify, in writing, the district-operated school
and the parents or guardians of the pupils attending that
district-operated school.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Expresses the intent of the people that public school
facilities should be shared fairly among all public school
pupils, including those in charter schools. (Education Code
(EC) Section 47614)
2)Requires each school district to make available, to each
SB 705
Page 2
charter school operating in the school district, facilities
sufficient for the charter school to accommodate all of the
charter school's in-district students in conditions reasonably
equivalent to those in which the students would be
accommodated if they were attending other public schools of
the district. Facilities provided shall be contiguous,
furnished, and equipped, and shall remain the property of the
school district. The school district shall 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. (EC 47614)
3)Specifies that each year each charter school desiring
facilities from a school district in which it is operating
shall provide the school district with a reasonable projection
of the charter school's average daily classroom attendance by
in-district students for the following year. The district
shall allocate facilities to the charter school for that
following year based upon this projection. If the charter
school, during that following year, generates less average
daily classroom attendance by in-district students than it
projected, the charter school shall reimburse the district for
the over-allocated space at rates to be set by the State Board
of Education. (EC 47614)
4)Provides that facilities requests based upon projections of
fewer than 80 units of average daily classroom attendance for
the year may be denied by the school district. (EC 47614)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: In 2000, voters passed Proposition 39, which gave
districts the opportunity to seek approval of a local education
bond based on a 55% vote rather than a 2/3 vote under specified
conditions. The initiative also enacted provisions in the
SB 705
Page 3
Education Code to require school districts to make school
facilities available to charter schools operating in the
district. Facilities are required to be reasonably equivalent
to facilities pupils would receive if the pupils were to attend
district schools. School districts are required to make
reasonable efforts to provide the charter school with facilities
near where the charter school wishes to be located. Facilities
provided by the district shall be contiguous, furnished, and
equipped. School districts are allowed to charge a pro rata
share of any facilities costs the school district pays for with
general fund revenues.
Under regulations specified in Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations, charter schools and school districts are required
to comply with the following timeline:
1) On or before November 1, a charter school is required to
submit a written facilities request for facilities for the
following school year including a projection of the number
of in-district pupils who will be attending the charter
school.
2) On or before December 1, the school district is required
to express any disagreement with the projected number of
pupils and provide a projection the district considers
reasonable.
3) On or before January 2, the charter school responds to
the district's objections and either reaffirms or modifies
its previous projections.
4) On or before February 1, the school district provides a
written preliminary proposal regarding the space to be
allocated to the charter school.
5) On or before March 1, the charter school is required to
respond in writing to the school district's preliminary
SB 705
Page 4
proposal.
6) On or before April 1, the school district is required to
submit in writing a final notification of space offered to
the charter school.
What does this bill do? This bill requires a school district
to, prior to allocating a facility to a charter school, notify,
in writing, a district-operated school and the parents or
guardians of the pupils attending the district-operated school,
that the school district reasonably anticipates allocating that
facility to a charter school.
The author introduced the bill in response to parent and
community concerns following the San Mateo Union High School
District's decision to co-locate a charter school with an
existing high school, Mills High School, in Millbrae. According
to the author's office, members of the community expressed
concerns about the lack of community engagement and transparency
in the process and raised concerns about potential traffic,
scheduling and overcrowding problems at the schoolsite.
According to the California Department of Education (CDE), Mills
High School had an enrollment of 1,232 in 2013-14. According to
the author's office, the capacity at the schoolsite is 1,454.
The charter school opened with 140 ninth graders in the 2014-15
school year, but is expected to grow to about 600 when all four
grade levels are reached. The charter school was given six
classrooms, resulting in nine Mills High School teachers having
to share classrooms. Common areas such as the library and the
gym is also shared. The district ultimately formed a task force
to help the two schools determine how best to share the facility
for the 2014-15 school year. The task force found that keeping
the charter school at that schoolsite is not feasible long-term
and will impact the educational programs of both schools. The
local newspaper, The Daily Journal, reported teachers' concerns
that sharing classrooms will impact their ability to do prep
SB 705
Page 5
work and keep a classroom organized, which could potentially
impact the education of students.
Proposition 39 requirement. The premise behind the Proposition
39 requirement was to give charter schools access to district
facilities. Implementation has been challenging for some
districts, with lawsuits filed in several areas. Not all
districts have surplus property, and if they do, the property
may not be located where the charters wish to reside.
Co-locating charters with existing schools is not uncommon,
although logistically and administratively challenging. This
bill simply requires a district to notify a district school and
the parents and guardians of students at the school prior to
allocating the facility to a charter school. While it is
unclear the extent to which the lack of communication
exemplified in this situation is a problem on a statewide level,
ensuring that school district staff are communicating with
principals at existing schoolsites makes sense. It would not
only help with planning, but would enable school district staff
to better understand the impact of placing another school at the
same schoolsite and ease the co-location process. The author
may wish to consider strengthening the bill by requiring school
district staff to consult with a principal of a school where a
potential co-location may occur.
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has allocated over a
hundred district facilities to charter schools and has a
standard practice of providing written notification to a school
community of a possible co-location. LAUSD provides, and this
bill is intended to require, the notice to be sent out following
the November 1 notification by a charter school.
Other charter school facilities funding. In addition to
district facilities, charter schools have access to state bond
funds through the Charter School Facilities Program for the
construction of new schools or rehabilitation of existing
SB 705
Page 6
district schoolsites. Charter schools also have access to
almost $100 million from the general fund for the Charter School
Facilities Grant Program that pay the leases of charter schools
located in areas with high percentages of low-income students.
The Governor has proposed a $50 million increase the program in
the 2015-16 budget. There are also state and federal programs
that provide loans or grants.
According to the CDE, as of 2013-14, there were 1,125 charter
schools enrolling approximately 514,000 of the state's 6.2
million students.
Arguments in support. The author states, "Current law requires
school districts to provide reasonably equivalent facilities to
charter school. But existing law does not explicitly require
that schools and parents be notified when a charter school may
be co-located at an existing school. The bill does not change
the statutory obligation school districts have to provide
facilities to charter schools. The bill simply clarifies that
community members are notified at the beginning of the facility
allocation process, when a charter school may be co-located at
an existing school, before the final decision has been made."
Arguments in opposition. The California Charter Schools
Association Advocates states, "The voters placed very clear
limits on what kind of facility a school district must offer.
There is an explicit methodology to meet the parameters of the
law and select a Proposition 39 facility as well as legal
parameters concerning the location the school district must
offer. As a result, the allocation of space to a charter school
has become an administrative function that either is completely
vested in the district superintendent or is prepared by the
superintendent with validation by the school board. Requiring
early notification about the possible siting of a charter school
suggests that there is discretion afforded to the district as to
the facility offered that the law does not allow. Public
SB 705
Page 7
discussion about a location being considered for a charter
school would not constitute a legal basis to influence a
decision about a location that complies with Proposition 39."
Prior related legislation. AB 1032 (Gordon), held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2013, would
have made a number of changes to the procedures for allocating
Proposition 39 charter school facilities.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Federation of Teachers (prior version)
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Opposition
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916)
SB 705
Page 8
319-2087