BILL ANALYSIS
AB 284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 284 (Garrick) - As Amended: March 23, 2009
[This bill has been double referred to the Assembly Higher
Education Committee and will be heard as it relates to the
issues under its jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT : Charter schools.
SUMMARY : Allows the president of a campus of the California
State University, or the governing board of a community college
district to authorize a petition to establish a charter school
within the county in which the educational entity maintains a
campus; and, requires these charter schools to be funded
directly. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows the president of a campus of the California State
University, or the governing board of a community college
district, to authorize a petition to establish a charter
school within the county in which the educational entity
maintains a campus.
2)Requires the president of a campus of the California State
University and the governing board of a community college
district that grants a charter petition to assume all of the
duties, responsibilities, functions and obligations that the
governing board of a school district assumes when it grants a
charter petition.
3)Requires a charter school established pursuant to this section
to receive the state aid portion of the charter school's total
general-purpose entitlement, categorical block grant, other
state and federal categorical aid, and lottery funds directly.
4)Specifies that the process for directly funding the charter
schools pursuant to this section shall follow the existing
process established in the Education code.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
AB 284
Page 2
school district, a county office of education or the State
Board of Education (SBE) to approve or deny a petition for a
charter school to operate independently from the existing
school district structure as a method of accomplishing, among
other things, improved student learning.
2)Establishes a process for the submission of a petition for the
establishment of a charter school. Authorizes a petition,
identifying a single charter school to operate within the
geographical boundaries of the school district, to be
submitted to the school district. Authorizes, if the
governing board of a school district denies a petition for the
establishment of a charter school, the petitioner to elect to
submit the petition to the county board of education.
Authorizes, if the county board of education denies the
charter, the petitioner to submit the petition to the SBE.
Authorizes a school that serves a countywide service to submit
the charter petition directly to the county office of
education. Authorizes a school that serves a statewide
purpose to go directly to the SBE.
3)Authorizes a charter to be granted for not more than five
years. Authorizes a charter granted by a school district,
county board of education or SBE to be granted one or more
renewals by that entity for five years. Requires the renewals
and material revisions of the charter to be based on the same
standards for the original charter petition.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the California Department of Education
(CDE), the 2007-08 count of operating charter schools is 675
with student enrollment of more than 248,000. This includes 4
statewide benefit charters and 8 State Board of Education
charters. Some charter schools are new, while others are
conversions from existing public schools. Charter schools are
part of the state's public education system and are funded by
public dollars.
Current involvement of postsecondary education institutions in
charter schools . California's current system allows for
university involvement. Several universities are already
involved in the operation of charter schools. CSU Northridge
operates closely with the Vaughn Learning Center; CSU Dominguez
Hills has a relationship with New Millennium Charter School of
AB 284
Page 3
Carson; CSU Fresno has the University High School Charter
located on their campus; CSU Sacramento has relationships with
three charter schools in the Sacramento Unified School District;
CSU Santa Jose has a relationship with Pacific Collegiate School
in Santa Cruz; CSU Los Angeles has partnered with and plays an
active role in the operation of at least two charter schools; UC
San Diego has the Preuss Charter School located on their campus;
and, the University of Southern California (USC) works with
various magnet schools and provides teacher and technical
assistance to several nearby inner-city charter schools. The
examples above demonstrate the ability of universities and
colleges to have close involvement and even partner with local
school districts to operate charter schools on their campuses,
under the existing charter authorizing laws. With such
extensive involvement in charter schools already, why do
universities and community colleges need to be charter
authorizers to be involved with charter schools?
Higher education authorizers in other states . Currently there
are 15 states that allow multiple entities to authorize charter
schools. A smaller number of states currently incorporate
higher education institutions into their charter authorizing
system. The key difference is that universities and colleges
are often the primary authorizers of charter schools in most of
these states which include: Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New
York, Ohio and Wisconsin. In New York, charters are primarily
authorized by the State University of New York (SUNY) which may
authorize up to 100 schools. In Michigan, the state's colleges
and universities monitor the majority of the charter schools.
In Missouri, charter schools are limited to St. Louis and Kansas
City, but public universities in both cities are allowed to
authorize charter schools.
Would public postsecondary education institutions choose to
authorize charter schools ? It is not clear if the CSU's and
community colleges will choose to become charter school
authorizers, especially since the measure requires universities
and colleges to assume all the responsibilities of school
districts when they authorize a charter school. All segments
are suffering budget reductions, and have been hit hard during
the current economic crisis. Why would any segment choose to
undertake a new and significant responsibility? Universities
and colleges have expertise in educating adults, the committee
should consider whether universities and colleges equally have
the expertise and are adequately prepared to educate children in
AB 284
Page 4
grades K-12.
Proposition 39 Obligations . Would this measure include
Proposition 39 obligations to provide appropriate facilities as
well all oversight responsibilities? Is it appropriate to give
charter authorizing power to universities and colleges if they
are not responsible for charter facility obligations? This
measure would allow universities and colleges to authorize
charter schools within the boundaries of existing school
districts, however, the districts would not have any input into
the charter authorization process; and, districts would still be
obligated to provide furnished facilities for these new
charters? The committee should consider if it is appropriate to
grant universities and colleges with the authorization to grant
charter schools without also taking on the facilities
obligations of those schools.
Charter Approval and Denial Process . The current version of the
bill does not specify a process for universities and colleges to
consider charter applications for approval or denial. This
means that universities and colleges would be at liberty to
create their own unique charter approval process within each
segment. This could potentially mean that the charter approval
process at a university or college could be vastly different
than the current system set up for school districts to authorize
charter schools. Would charter petitions be held to the same
standards in terms of the assurances they are required to meet
under existing law with regard to student outcomes, racial and
ethnic balance, admission requirements, and school governance?
The committee should consider the process by which universities
and colleges could approve or deny charter petitions, and how a
different system might affect student outcomes in these schools.
What about Proposition 98 funding issues ? The bill requires
charters to be "direct-funded," which retains all Proposition 98
funds with the charter school. No funds are allocated to the
CSU or community colleges. This assumes that charter school
authorized by these intuitions would then be required to set up
contracts with these entities for all oversight payments
necessary under existing law. This bill will set up a system
where the state appropriates Proposition 98 funds to university
charter schools, but these funds will ultimately be transferred
to the CSU for oversight. Would this be an inappropriate cross
over of Proposition 98 funds to the CSU for oversight
AB 284
Page 5
responsibilities?
Minimum criteria and safeguards should be established prior to,
or in conjunction with, expanding the pool of authorizers . In
their January 2004 publication "Assessing California's Charter
Schools" the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) made
recommendations regarding multiple authorizers. They
recommended the Legislature modify charter school law to (1)
permit school districts to opt out of charter authorizing, (2)
allow for multiple authorizers, and (3) create safeguards
against potential misconduct.
To promote stronger accountability, the LAO recommended the
Legislature direct the California Department of Education (CDE)
to develop basic criteria that organizations must meet to become
charter authorizers. The CDE would then be directed to submit
these criteria back to the Legislature in the following
legislative session for review and codification. (At a minimum,
the criteria should include an understanding of contracts and
fiscal management as well as school assessment and
accountability.) These codified criteria would provide the
state the means by which to remove authorizing power from a
particular entity without having to institute a complex
licensing or regulatory process for approving charter
authorizers. Should the committee consider adopting these basic
criteria before expanding the pool of authorizing entities?
According to the sponsor of the bill, the California Charter
Schools Association, "Colleges and universities provide an often
more solid foundation for the creation and oversight of a
charter school. They are often incubators for innovative and
creative programs and in many ways are better positioned to
provide guidance and oversight for charter schools that school
districts cannot. Colleges and universities provide linkages
that can foster the development of model charter schools.
Community colleges already provide overlap services for young
people who are enrolled in both high school and community
college. California State University is the focus of teacher
preparation in our state. Central to many successful charter
schools is innovative pedagogy."
California Federation of Teachers opposes the bill and argues,
"First, California already provides a plethora of opportunities
for approval of charter schools which includes local boards,
county offices of education, and the State Board of Education.
AB 284
Page 6
Second, the bill is not necessary in order to further the idea
of partnerships between higher education and local schools,
current law already provides great opportunities. Finally,
there is no evidence that shows that charter schools as a group
are any better at obtaining increased achievement as measured by
state tests than traditional public schools." California School
Boards Association opposes the bill and argues, "Locally elected
school board members play an important role in the evaluation of
charter school petitions. School board members are members of
the community and understand the needs of the student
population. Existing law focuses on these assets - local
accountability, experience, and expertise - on the review of
charter school petitions in the best interests of students."
Previous legislation : AB 39 (Walters) from 2005 would have
authorized a pilot project for the chancellor of a campus of the
UC, the president of a campus of the CSU, or the governing board
of a community college district to approve a petition submitted
to establish a charter school within the county in which that
entity is located or maintains a campus. The pilot would have
permitted each segment of higher education to administer 1
charter school per campus, not to exceed 10 charter schools per
segment. The bill was referred but never heard by the Assembly
Education Committee.
AB 2764 (Bates) from 2004 would have authorized a pilot project
for the chancellor of a campus of the UC, the president of a
campus of the CSU, or the governing board of a community college
district to approve a petition submitted to establish a charter
school within the county in which that entity is located or
maintains a campus. The pilot would have permitted each segment
of higher education to administer 1 charter school per campus,
not to exceed 10 charter schools per segment. AB 2764 was held
on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense File. According to the
Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 2764 (Bates), was analyzed
as having "Potentially significant annual General Fund costs,
likely in excess of $400,000, to CSU and UC to adhere to the
various provisions outlined in the bill, including approval and
oversight of charter schools. Significant reallocation of
General Fund (Proposition 98) funds, likely in the tens of
millions from school districts, to CSU and UC. The actual
amount would depend on how many charter schools each of these
two segments authorized and the number of students enrolled."
AB 1464 (Bates) from 2003 would have authorized non-profit
AB 284
Page 7
charitable organizations, the governing body of a private
university or college that offers a specified teacher training
program, the chancellor of a campus of the UC, the president of
a campus of the CSU, or the governing board of a community
college district to approve a petition submitted to establish a
charter school within the county in which that entity is located
or maintains a campus. That bill would have also authorized the
mayor of a city having a population of 250,000, or more, to
approve a petition submitted to establish a charter school
within that city. AB 1464 was held in the Assembly Education
Committee at the request of the author.
AB 1137 (Reyes) Chapter 892, Statutes of 2003 repealed the
sunset on the charter school general purpose block grant,
specified several oversight duties of each chartering authority
and established criteria for renewal.
AB 1994 (Reyes) Chapter 1058, Statutes of 2002 made numerous
substantive changes to charter school statutes to address
oversight concerns.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Charter Schools Association (Sponsor)
Opportunities for Learning and Options for Youth Charter Schools
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
Los Angeles Unified School District
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087