BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1909
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1909 (Nestande) - As Amended: March 25, 2010
[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: community college governing boards.
SUMMARY : Allows the governing board of a community college
district (CCD) to authorize a petition to establish a charter
school within the county in which the district maintains a
campus; specifies that a charter school petition shall be
eligible for consideration by a CCD if the petition encourages a
partnership between a charter school and the CCD; allows a
maximum of ten charter schools be authorized state-wide by the
California Community Colleges (CCC); requires these charter
schools to be funded directly; and, requires the California
Department of Education (CDE) to prepare an analysis of the
program by January 1, 2014. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows the governing board of a CCD to authorize a petition to
establish a charter school within the county in which the
district maintains a campus.
2)Requires the governing board of a CCD 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)Specifies that a charter school petition shall be eligible for
consideration if its intent is to provide an innovative
approach that maximizes the educational opportunities
available to secondary school students and encourages a
partnership between a charter school and the community college
district that advances scholastic, college-level and
career-technical coursework, prepares the student for the high
school exit examination, and as appropriate, provides English
as a second language, basic skills remediation and drop-out
prevention.
4)Requires the charter school petition to meet all of the
AB 1909
Page 2
following criteria:
a) The purpose of the charter school is to provide students
with at least one of the following opportunities:
i) A college readiness program that provides educational
enrichment in a collegiate atmosphere and allows the
student to receive college course credit that is
transferable to the California State University or the
University of California.
ii) A career or vocational education program that leads
to a degree or certificate in the subject area covered by
the curriculum.
b) The charter school creates a blend of classes that
provides the student with the opportunity to meet all high
school graduation requirements while benefiting from
community college level courses for credit that are
designated as part of the Intersegmental General Education
Transfer Curriculum or apply toward the general education
breadth requirements of the California State University.
c) The governing board of the community college district
adopts a resolution affirming that the district has the
capacity to provide this charter school opportunity without
detracting from its other services.
d) The charter school employs appropriately credentialed
teachers for all courses required for high school
graduation.
5)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;
specifies that the process for directly funding the charter
schools pursuant to this section shall follow the existing
process established in the Education code; specifies the
direct funding notification requirement shall be given by a
charter school established pursuant to this section to the
county superintendent of schools of the county in which the
charter school operates; and, specifies for the transfer of
funds in lieu of property taxes, the "sponsoring district"
shall be the school district in which the charter school is
AB 1909
Page 3
located.
6)Requires the governing board of a CCD that decides to commence
the petition approval process for a charter school to inform
the state board of education (SBE); specifies that once the
SBE receives notices from CCDs that the petition approval
process has commenced for no more than ten petitions, the
board shall inform the California Community Colleges that no
community college district may commence the petition approval
process for any additional petitions for a charter school;
requires a CCD to advise the SBE if the petition process
ceases before the petition is granted by a CCD and the CCD
does not intend to further pursue approval of the petition;
and, requires the SBE to allow an additional charter school to
be approved pursuant to this section.
7)Requires, by January 1, 2014, the CDE to prepare an analysis
of the efficacy of CCDs authorizing petitions for charter
schools and provide the analysis to the SBE, the Governor, the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Senate
and Assembly Education Committees.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a county board of education or the 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.
AB 1909
Page 4
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 2008-09 count of operating charter schools is 746
with student enrollment of more than 285,000 in this state.
This includes 4 statewide benefit charters and 8 SBE-approved
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. A charter school is usually created or
organized by a group of teachers, parents and community leaders,
a community-based organization, or an education management
organization. Charter schools are authorized by school district
boards, county boards of education or the SBE. A charter school
is generally exempt from most laws governing school districts,
except where specifically noted in the law. Specific goals and
operating procedures for the charter school are detailed in an
agreement (or "charter") between the sponsoring board and
charter organizers.
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. California State
University (CSU) Northridge operates closely with the Vaughn
Learning Center; CSU Dominguez Hills has a relationship with New
Millennium Charter School of 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
AB 1909
Page 5
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 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 the California Community Colleges choose to authorize
charter schools ? It is not clear if CCCs will choose to become
charter school authorizers, especially since the measure
requires community colleges to assume all the responsibilities
of school districts when they authorize a charter school. CCCs
are suffering budget reductions, and have been hit hard during
the current economic crisis. Why would a CCC choose to
undertake a new and significant responsibility? CCCs have
expertise in educating adults, the committee should consider
whether CCCs equally have the expertise and are adequately
prepared to educate children in grades K-12.
College Ready versus Career Ready . This bill requires charter
schools seeking authorization by a CCD to either provide
students with a college readiness program or a career and
vocational education program, or to provide both types of
programs to students. In recent years, an ongoing debate over
whether to encourage more college preparatory courses or more
career technical training has dominated the policy discourse
over high school graduation requirements, high school course
offerings and postsecondary education opportunities for pupils.
Recent research has highlighted the importance and benefits of
providing pupils sequenced and integrated coursework that
AB 1909
Page 6
combine core academics with technical courses related to a
specific field and thus end the debate on whether pupils should
be prepared for college or the workforce. Students should be
prepared for both and not one or the other. Preparing students
for the workforce and for college will ensure that students have
multiple options upon graduating from high school.
California is experiencing a renewed interest in providing
increased support for career technical education (CTE) in high
schools, and there is considerable interest in the issue of
reforming high schools and increasing CTE opportunities for
pupils. Especially, since CTE has the potential of engaging
students who may be disengaged from school and at risk of
dropping out. On the other hand there is also concern over the
continued under-representation of Latinos and African Americans
in institutions of higher education. According to the
California Educational Opportunity Report, by the University of
California Los Angeles, Institute of Democracy, Education and
Access (UCLA/IDEA), "Over a million (1,049,414) California high
school students attend schools that do not offer enough A-G
courses for all students to take the college preparatory
curriculum. While over half of the high schools serving majority
white and Asian students lack sufficient A-G courses, more than
two-thirds of the high schools with a majority of
underrepresented students face this problem."
While proponents of CTE argue that not all students will go to
college upon high school graduation, the issue of providing
equal access to higher education opportunities is still an issue
of concern. UCLA/IDEA and UC/ACCORD recently released a series
of research papers that examined the promise of providing high
school students "multiple pathways." Multiple pathway programs
combine core academics with technical courses related to a
specific field. The research suggests that the concept of
"multiple pathways" would end "the tired debate about whether
high school students need more rigorous academics or a more
relevant career-focused curriculum.
The committee should consider whether it is appropriate to allow
CCD authorized charter schools to choose to either provide
college readiness programs or provide career and vocational
education programs, or if they should be required to do both.
Proposition 39 Obligations . Would this measure include
Proposition 39 obligations to provide appropriate facilities as
AB 1909
Page 7
well all oversight responsibilities? Is it appropriate to give
charter authorizing power to community colleges if they are not
responsible for charter facility obligations? This measure
would allow community 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, would districts still be obligated
to provide furnished facilities for these new charters? The
committee should consider if it is appropriate to grant
community colleges with the authorization to grant charter
schools without also taking on the facilities obligations of
those schools.
Charter Appeal Process . This bill does not specify an appeal
process for charter school petitions that CCDs deny. According
Legislative Counsel, the existing appeal process for charter
petitions would not apply to CCD authorized charter schools,
because it is not specifically referenced in this bill. This
makes sense, because it appears that the author's intent is to
only permit a total of 10 CCD authorized charter schools.
If the existing appeals process were to apply to the CCD charter
approval process, then a charter school petitioner that has a
petition denied by a CCD could appeal the decision to the county
office of education and to the SBE. This would mean that many
more charter school petitions could be approved on appeal,
beyond the 10 initially authorized by statute. This could also
put CCD's in an awkward position if a charter school petition
specifically names them as a possible partner with the charter
school, but the petition is approved by either the county office
of education or the SBE.
Charter Approval Process . The bill specifies that CCD's shall
approve charter schools using the same process that currently
exists for school districts. The existing charter approval
process requires a school district to approve a charter petition
unless it makes written factual findings that the petition has
not provided enough description on specified topics. This
process has created a presumption of approval for charter
schools. The committee should consider whether it is
appropriate to continue the presumption of approval for charter
petitions brought to CCDs in the same way as school districts.
If a CCD is unwilling or unable to do proper oversight of
charter schools, is it appropriate to have a presumption of
approval for CCDs to authorize and oversee charter schools?
AB 1909
Page 8
Charter Petition Requirements . The bill states that a charter
petition submitted to a CCD must include a CCD adoption of a
resolution affirming the CCD has the capacity to provide this
charter school opportunity without detracting from its other
services. It is unclear why the petition itself would need to
include this. Is it the author's intent that a CCD shall not
commence the petition review process and/or authorize a charter
school unless it has adopted such a resolution? Or is the
intent that the charter school must express interest in having
the CCD pass such a resolution? The placement of this
requirement seems out of place and the author's intent is not
clear.
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
community colleges. This assumes that charter schools
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 charter
schools, but these funds will ultimately be transferred to the
community college for oversight. The bill also requires funds
to be transferred to the charter school in lieu of property
taxes. Would this be an inappropriate cross over of the split
in Proposition 98 funding between K-12 and community colleges,
since resources allocated to K-12 will be shifted to the
community colleges?
Lack of Sunset Date . The bill requires the CDE to complete an
analysis of the community college authorization program by
January 1, 2014, but the bill does not have a sunset date.
Generally, an evaluation of a program accompanies a sunset date
so the Legislature can review the results of the program
evaluation while they consider whether or not to extend the
program. The committee should consider whether to include a
sunset date for the program.
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)
AB 1909
Page 9
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 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?
Arguments in Support . According to the sponsor of the bill, the
California Charter Schools Association, "Community Colleges
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. Community Colleges 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."
Arguments in Opposition . The 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. 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. Additionally, community colleges are not set up
to add to their charge K-12 education nor for the academic and
fiscal responsibility. 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."
The California School Boards Association opposes the bill and
AB 1909
Page 10
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. Finally, the Center for Public Education recently
issued "Charter Schools: Finding Out the Facts." Among the key
findings, this report notes that states with multiple
authorizers of charter petitions had the weakest student
achievement data for charter students when compared with
students at traditional public schools. When petitioners are
able to go "shopping" for the authorizer most likely to approve
their petition, their programs may not be sufficiently rigorous.
Previous legislation : AB 284 (Garrick) from 2010, which was
held in the Assembly Higher Education Committee at the request
of the author, would have allowed the governing board of a CCD
to authorize a petition to establish a charter school within the
county in which the district maintains a campus; authorized a
maximum of ten charter schools be accepted state-wide by the
CCC; required these charter schools to be funded directly; and,
required the CDE to prepare an analysis of the program by
January 1, 2013.
AB 39 (Walters) from 2005, which was referred to the Assembly
Education Committee, was substantially similar to AB 2764
(Bates) from 2004.
AB 2764 (Bates) from 2004, which was held on the Assembly
Appropriations Suspense File, 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 1464 (Bates) from 2003, which was held in the Assembly
Education Committee at the request of the author, would have
authorized non-profit 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
AB 1909
Page 11
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 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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Charter Schools Association (Sponsor)
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087