BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1982
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1982 (Ammiano) - As Amended: April 5, 2010
SUBJECT : Charter schools.
SUMMARY : Establishes a state-wide cap of 1450 on the number of
charter schools that can operate; requires the Legislative
Analyst's Office (LAO) to make recommendations regarding the cap
by July 1, 2015; prohibits charter school personnel with hiring
authority from employing relatives; and, authorizes school
districts to approve a charter school only if the petition meets
specific criteria, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies in the 2010-11 school year, and each successive
school year after, the maximum total number of charter schools
authorized to operate in California to be 1450.
2)Requires the LAO to report to the Legislature by July 1, 2015
on the effectiveness of charter schools and recommend whether
to maintain the limit established by this bill or to instead
allow the expansion of charter schools.
3)Specifies that a governing board of the school district shall
not accept a petition for the establishment of a charter
school unless the petition sets forth specific facts to
support all of the following findings:
a) The charter school presents a sound educational program
for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.
b) The petitioners are demonstrably likely to successfully
implement the program set forth in the petition.
c) The petition contains the number of signatures required.
d) The petition contains an affirmation regarding
attendance requirements and requirements that the school be
nonsectarian.
e) The petition contains reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of specific aspects of the charter school's
planned operation.
4)Defines charter school personnel as a charter school owner,
president, chairperson of the governing board of directors,
superintendent, governing board member, principal, assistance
principal or any other person employed by the charter school
AB 1982
Page 2
who has equivalent decision-making authority to appoint,
employ, promote or advance individuals.
5)Defines relative as a parent, child, sibling, uncle, aunt,
first cousin, nephew, niece, spouse, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law,
sister-in-law, stepparent, stepsibling, stepchild, half
brother or half sister.
6)Prohibits charter school personnel, that work for a charter
school operated by a private entity, to advocate for, appoint,
employ, promote, or advance any individual who is a relative
to a position in the charter school over which that person
exercises jurisdiction or control; and, specifies that the
approval of budgets does not constitute jurisdiction or
control.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a county board 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 commencing in the 1998-99 school year, 250 charter
schools; and, in the 1999-2000 school year, and in each
successive school year thereafter, authorizes an additional
AB 1982
Page 3
100 charter schools to operate.
4)Specifies that a governing board of the school district shall
not deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school
unless it makes written factual findings to support one or
more of the following findings:
a) The charter school presents an unsound educational
program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter
school.
b) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to
successfully implement the program set forth in the
petition.
c) The petition does not contain the number of signatures
required.
d) The petition does not contain an affirmation regarding
attendance requirements and requirements that the school be
nonsectarian.
e) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of specific aspects of the charter school's
planned operation.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
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 four charter schools approved under the provisions
of the statewide benefit charter law and eight 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 state board of
education. 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.
This bill will establish a state-wide cap of 1450 on the number
of charter schools that can operate; requires the LAO to report
AB 1982
Page 4
to the Legislature on the efficacy of the cap on charter
schools; and, reverses the current presumption of approval in
the initial charter school petition process. This bill also
establishes anti-nepotism hiring standards for charter schools
operated by private entities. According to the author, current
law only provides an increasing cap on the number of charter
schools and little or no accountability. Many reports including
the Stanford Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO)
report demonstrate that charter schools are not the panacea for
closing the achievement gap; however, they are provided wide
sweeping power and no true accountability. While the current
cap is much higher than the actual number of charter schools in
the state, the growth in the number charters is accelerating.
One of the many concerns with current law is the lack of
employment guidelines for these publicly funded schools. In
other states, like that of Florida, there are guidelines for
charter schools on hiring, promoting, and assigning relatives.
This bill attempts to address nepotism within these schools.
Charter School Cap . This bill will establish a state-wide cap
of 1450 charter schools. The 2009-10 statewide cap on charter
schools is 1350. The California Federation of Teachers (CFT),
the sponsor of the bill, argues that a having a charter school
cap of 1450 will allow the state cap to rise above 10% of the
total number of schools in the state, allowing the state to
continue to qualify for federal Race to the Top funding. Since
this cap is well above the current number of charter schools
state-wide, CFT argues that it will not inhibit the growth of
charter schools for many years. The bill further requires the
LAO to report on the effectiveness of charter schools and this
new charter school cap by 2015. The committee should consider
whether a statewide cap of 1450 will inhibit charter school
growth. Typically, bills that contain a report also contain a
sunset date. The committee should consider whether it would be
appropriate to include a sunset date on the cap after the
release of the LAO report.
(Source: California Department of Education)
In the last 10 years, on average, there were 86 charter schools
approved each year. To date there are 866 charter schools
either in operation or approved and pending operation. If this
same rate of approval continues in the future, one could
estimate that the cap of 1450 established by this bill would be
AB 1982
Page 5
reached during the 2016-17 school year. If a sunset date for
the charter school cap is included in this bill after the LAO
report is released, it would likely coincide with the time that
the cap is reached.
Charter Approval Process . This bill will reverse the current
presumption of approval in the initial charter school petition
process. Current law specifies that a chartering authority
shall approve a petition unless it makes certain written factual
findings. This bill will reverse the requirement that a
chartering authority shall not accept a petition unless the
petition sets forth specific facts and findings. This will
shift the burden of evidence from the authorizer to the
petitioner. Under existing law, the authorizer has the burden
to make findings such that the petition shall be denied. Under
this bill, the petitioners would have the burden to provide
facts and findings such that the petition should be approved.
The committee should consider whether the existing system
functions appropriately, or whether changes are necessary. The
committee should also consider whether this change will
positively or negatively affect the number of charter schools
approved.
Hiring Practices . This bill establishes anti-nepotism
employment standards for charter schools operated by private
entities. The provisions in this bill model existing charter
school law in Florida regarding employment prohibitions and
disclosure. Florida's charter law requires an initial petition
for a charter school to include full disclosure of any relatives
that have been hired by the decision makers at the school, and
it prohibits decision makers at operational charter schools from
hiring relatives. This bill only includes the employment
prohibition for operational charter schools and does not require
disclosure as part of the initial charter school petition. The
committee should consider whether this disclosure in the initial
petition is necessary. The committee should consider whether
this prohibition on nepotistic employment practices extends
beyond those individuals that are directly employed by the
charter school and whether it should also include contracts that
the governing body enters into with outside private entities.
According to CFT, there are groups, foundations, and charter
management organizations that are using charter schools as a way
to privatize public schools, accessing tax payer money for the
use and access of a few. For many, charter schools have become
AB 1982
Page 6
a place to be the exception to the rules: rules of
accountability, public transparency, workers' rights and most
importantly students' rights. They should not be exempted from
public employment practices. They should be financially
responsible and transparent.
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the bill be amended in
the following ways:
1)Include a disclosure statement regarding the employment of
relatives in the initial charter school petition.
2)Correct references to the charter school governing board and
instead use the term governing body.
3)Extend the prohibition on hiring practices to contracts
entered into by the governing body of a charter school.
4)Add a sunset date to the charter school cap after the LAO
report is submitted.
5)Reinstate existing law regarding the charter approval process.
Related legislation : AB 1950 (Brownley), pending in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee, requires the Audit Appeal
Panel to adopt a charter school supplement to the audit guide;
prohibits a charter school from being operated by a for-profit
corporation; allows a charter authorizer to consider the track
record of a charter petitioner; requires a charter authorizer to
consider the degree to which a charter school serves similar
student populations; requires a charter school to meet academic
growth targets for each student subgroup prior to renewal;
requires a charter school in program improvement (PI) not be
renewed for more than 3 years; requires a charter school in PI
year 5 not be renewed if the school has not exited PI and did
not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the year prior to
renewal.
AB 1991 (Arambula) from 2010, which failed passage in the
Assembly Education Committee, requires charter school petitions
to be granted for 5 years; authorizes charter school renewals to
be granted for 5 to 10 years; establishes an alternative renewal
process for charter schools identified as persistently lowest
achieving and schools that do not meet specified academic
criteria; authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to establish alternative academic accountability standards
for charter schools; and, combines the renewal appeals process
with the revocation appeals process.
AB 2320 (Swanson) from 2010, pending in the Assembly
AB 1982
Page 7
Appropriations Committee, requires charter school petitions to
describe the different and innovative teaching methods the
school will use, how the school will provide vigorous
competition and stimulate continual improvements within the
public school system, and the means by which the school will
achieve a balance of pupils who live in poverty, are English
learners or are individuals with exceptional needs; limits the
role of county boards of education (CBE) and the state board of
education (SBE) in the initial petition and renewal appeal
process, and deletes the authorization for a charter school to
present a petition directly to a CBE in certain circumstances.
AB 572 (Brownley) from 2009, pending on the Senate Floor,
requires charter schools to comply with the same conflict of
interest requirements as school districts.
Previous legislation : AB 8 X5 (Brownley) from 2009, was held in
the Senate Education Committee at the request of the author,
proposed comprehensive changes to the Education Code consistent
with the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program; and, deleted
the statewide charter school cap; proposed enhanced charter
school fiscal and academic accountability standards.
AB 3 X5 (Torlakson) from 2009 deleted the statewide charter
school cap and proposed changes to the measurable student
outcomes, renewal and revocation procedures for charter schools.
This bill was introduced but was not referred to a committee.
AB 2115 (Mullin) from 2008, which was vetoed by the Governor,
required charter schools to adopt and comply with a conflict of
interest policy that required its governing board members to
abide by the same conflict of interest requirements as local
education agency governing board members.
AB 1772 (Garcia) from 2008 required charter schools to adopt and
comply with a conflict of interest policy that required its
governing board members to abide by the same conflict of
interest requirements as local education agency governing board
members. The March 13, 2008 version of AB 1772 (Garcia)
required that the governing body of a charter school give its
approval before hiring a family member of a management employee
who would have direct or indirect authority over that family
member. The measure was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee at the author's request.
AB 1982
Page 8
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Federation of Teachers (Sponsor)
California Labor Federation
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Opposition
California Charter Schools Association
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087