BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1741|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1741
Author: Coto (D)
Amended: 8/20/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/23/10
AYES: Romero, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Huff, Emmerson, Hancock, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-27, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School districts
SOURCE : Californians Together
DIGEST : This bill authorizes a governing board to deny a
petition for the establishment of a charter school if the
petitioner reasonably expects that at least 15 percent of
the pupils who will be served by the school will be English
learners (ELs), and the petition does not contain a
reasonably comprehensive description of certain program
requirements relating to the needs of ELs. This bill also
requires the entity that granted the charter, prior to
renewing it, to consider the degree to which the school
implemented those programs in determining whether the
school's academic performance is at least equal to that of
the other schools in the school district. This bill
requires that if a school district or charter school
authorizer intervenes to turn around a persistently
lowest-achieving school, including a charter school, as
CONTINUED
AB 1741
Page
2
specified, or if a school, including a charter school, is
eligible to be included in the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, and that
school has pupils who are ELs, the school district or
authorizer take certain actions relating to the provision
of services for ELs.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 (1) require school
districts or charter school authorizers to ensure that
specified low achieving schools serving ELs (a) provide ELs
with programs and core courses to meet their academic,
language and cultural needs, (b) have teachers that are
qualified to teach ELs, and (c) reach out to parents and
assist them in being involved in the school and in
participating fully as partners in the pupils education;
and (2) add a mandated cost disclaimer and make other
technical and conforming changes.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes one or more persons
seeking to establish a charter school within a school
district to submit a petition to the governing board of the
school district for review. The governing board may deny
the petition if it makes certain findings.
This bill also authorizes a governing board to deny a
petition for the establishment of a charter school if the
petitioner reasonably expects that at least 15 percent of
the pupils who will be served by the school will be ELs,
and the petition does not contain a reasonably
comprehensive description of certain program requirements
relating to the needs of ELs. This bill also requires the
entity that granted the charter, prior to renewing it, to
consider the degree to which the school implemented those
programs in determining whether the school's academic
performance is at least equal to that of the other schools
in the school district.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school
district, county superintendent of schools, or the
governing body of a charter school or its equivalent to
implement one of four specified intervention options for
schools identified by the Superintendent of Public
Instruction as persistently lowest-achieving, as specified.
Existing law establishes the Immediate
AB 1741
Page
3
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, which is a
voluntary program in which underperforming schools may
participate for the purpose of improving pupil achievement.
This bill requires that if a school district or charter
school authorizer intervenes to turn around a persistently
lowest-achieving school, including a charter school, as
specified, or if a school, including a charter school, is
eligible to be included in the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, and that
school has pupils who are ELs, the school district or
authorizer take certain actions relating to the provision
of services for ELs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/23/10)
Californians Together (source)
Association of California School Administrators
California Council on Teacher Education
California Federation of Teachers
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages
Californians Together
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Public Advocates
Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators
United Teachers of Los Angeles
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/23/10)
California Charter Schools Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
the purpose of this bill is to ensure that charter schools
have the resources and capacity to provide appropriate and
quality education to ELs. As local education agencies move
to implement interventions for turning around low achieving
schools, the author contends that this measure will help
ensure that a PLAS converting to a charter school is
AB 1741
Page
4
positioned to address the needs of ELs who will be enrolled
in the school.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that this bill
is not necessary because current law gives governing
boards' the responsibility and authority to deny petitions
that do not contain a comprehensive description of the
students the school will educate and the educational
programs to be provided to those students. Opponents also
point out that governing boards have the authority to
restructure or not to renew a school's charter if specific
groups within the charter school's student enrollment are
not performing, or there is evidence their needs are not
being addressed.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nestande, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada,
John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher,
Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Harkey, Jeffries,
Knight, Logue, Miller, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, Silva,
Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Hagman, Skinner, Vacancy
PQ:mw 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****