BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1950
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1950 (Brownley)
As Amended April 28, 2010
Majority vote
EDUCATION 5-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano, |
| |Carter, Eng, Torlakson | |Bradford, |
| | | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Nestande, Arambula, |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| |Miller, Norby | |Nielsen, Norby |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes academic and fiscal accountability
standards related to charter schools. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the State Controller (Controller) to propose and the
Education Audits Appeal Panel to adopt a charter school
supplement to the audit guide in consultation with the
California Charter Schools Association; requires charter
schools to complete annual audits consistent with the audit
guide; requires the Controller to annually publish a directory
of public accountants that are qualified to conduct audits of
charter schools; and, requires the regular rotation of public
accounting firms used to complete these audits consistent with
the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
2)Prohibits a charter school from being operated as or by a
for-profit corporation.
3)Allows a charter school authorizer to consider during the
authorization of a new charter school, whether the charter
school petitioner has operated another charter school and any
of the following have occurred: the charter has demonstrated
academic achievement equivalent to a persistently
lowest-achieving school; the charter school has not been
AB 1950
Page 2
renewed; or, the school has had its charter revoked, as
specified.
4)Requires a chartering authority to consider, as one factor in
determining whether to grant a renewal, the degree to which a
charter school serves student populations that are similar to
local district student populations, especially related to
high-need students, including, but not limited to, students
with disabilities, students living in poverty and English
learners.
5)Changes the charter school renewal process to include the
following academic achievement requirements: a requirement
that charter schools achieve academic growth targets for each
student subgroup prior to renewal; a requirement that charter
schools in program improvement (PI) not be renewed for more
than three years; and, a requirement that charter schools in
PI year five not be renewed if the school has not exited PI
and did not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the year
prior to renewal.
6)Allows a charter school authorizer to renew a charter school
for between one and five years.
7)Deletes the authorization for a chartering authority to renew
a charter petition if the academic performance is equal to the
academic performance of the public schools that the charter
school students would otherwise have been required to attend.
8)Makes Legislative findings and declarations regarding the
importance of establishing academic performance targets and
sound fiscal management practices in charter schools.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, annual General Fund/Proposition 98 (GF/98) state
reimbursable mandated costs, likely $100,000, to local education
agencies (LEAs) to review and verify specified petition and
renewal information required under this bill. To the extent
that the information required for submission is more readily
available to an LEA than current law requirements, this cost may
be offset.
COMMENTS : This measure ensures successful conditions for high
performing charter schools by specifying how charter authorizers
AB 1950
Page 3
shall monitor and hold charter schools accountable, especially
with regard to student achievement.
Charter schools serving high need students: This bill requires
charter authorizers to consider, as one aspect of a charter
renewal petition, the extent to which the school serves similar
student populations as the local district, especially students
with disabilities, students living in poverty and English
learners. This requirement is consistent with the original
Legislative intent to establish charter schools to, among other
things, increase learning opportunities for all students, with
special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for students
who are identified as academically low achieving. The 2009
EdSource report on charter schools found that charter high
schools enroll 13% fewer students who are either English
learners or redesignated as fluent English proficient (RFEP)
students compared to noncharter schools; charter middle schools
enroll English learner and RFEP students at a 7% lower rate than
noncharter schools; and charter elementary schools enroll 11%
fewer English learner and RFEP students compared with noncharter
schools. Similarly, the EdSource report found that charter
schools serve lower proportions of students with disabilities
compared to noncharter schools at all grade levels. The study
also found that charter schools serve fewer students that
participate in the Free and Reduced-Price Meal Program in both
elementary and middle school compared to noncharter schools, but
slightly more students in high school compared to noncharter
schools.
Academic accountability: In creating charter schools, the
Legislature declared that the intent of charter schools was to
provide opportunities for teachers, parents, students and
community members to establish and maintain schools that operate
independently from the existing school district structure, as a
method to, among other things:
1)Improve student learning.
2)Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special
emphasis on expanded learning experiences for students who are
identified as academically low achieving.
3)Hold the schools established under this part accountable for
meeting measurable student outcomes, and provide the schools
AB 1950
Page 4
with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based
accountability systems.
4)Provide vigorous competition within the public school system
to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.
With legislative intent in mind, AB 1950 establishes academic
accountability standards that will ensure that charter schools
are providing opportunities for improved student learning. If
charter schools are not demonstrating improved student learning,
AB 1950 will establish a system to close those low-performing
charter schools. This bill will prohibit renewal of a charter
if the school is eligible for state intervention or if the
charter school is in federal PI year five and prohibit renewal
of a charter for more than three years if the school is in
federal PI. This bill will allow a charter authorizer to
consider track record, if any, a charter school petitioner has
made at other charter schools they operate as part of the
authorization process of new charter schools. The bill will
further delete the authorization for charter schools to be
renewed if the academic performance is equal to the academic
performance of the public schools that the charter school
students would otherwise have been required to attend. These
conditions for renewal will ensure that high quality charter
schools will thrive and low achieving charter schools will
close.
Fiscal accountability: This bill requires charter schools to
complete annual independent audits using a charter school
supplement to the audit guide and requires the same high quality
auditors to complete charter school audits that complete school
district audits. Existing law requires charter schools to have
annual audits, but does not provide a charter school supplement
to the audit guide and does not require charter schools to hire
qualified auditors approved by the Controller. Further, the
bill prohibits charter schools from being operated by for-profit
corporations. These requirements will ensure that state
taxpayer dollars spent in charter schools to educate public
school children are appropriately utilized to support student
instruction.
For-profit corporations: This bill would prohibit charter
schools from being operated by for-profit corporations. Because
charter schools are fully funded with state taxpayer dollars, it
AB 1950
Page 5
is inappropriate for a for-profit corporation to make a profit
off of state funded public schools. To avoid the misuse of
public funds, for-profit corporations must be prohibited from
operating charter schools.
Renewal timeline: This bill allows a charter authorizer to
grant a charter renewal for between one and five years.
Existing law requires that charter renewals be granted for five
years. By giving authorizers more flexibility to grant renewals
for between one and five years, authorizers will be able to more
closely monitor charter schools that are struggling. For
example, if a charter authorizer has reservations about renewing
a charter school for fiscal mismanagement, the authorizer would
have the flexibility to renew the charter school for a shorter
period of time enabling the authorizer to examine the schools
fiscal stability earlier than the current five year renewal
model. According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education,
permitting charter renewals for less than five years would
increase the likelihood of renewals by original authorizers and
appeal bodies. Requiring a five year renewal may not be prudent
when there is question as to the soundness of a charter school's
fiscal, educational, or management/governance status. A shorter
renewal length allows the charter to continue while the
authorizer monitors.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0004630