BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1982
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 1982 (Ammiano)
          As Amended  May 11, 2010
          Majority vote 

           EDUCATION           5-4                                         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano,        |     |                          |
          |     |Carter, Eng, Torlakson    |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Nestande, Arambula,       |     |                          |
          |     |Miller, Norby             |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Establishes a state-wide cap of 1,450 on the number of  
          charter schools that can operate until December 31, 2016;  
          requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to make  
          recommendations regarding the cap by July 1, 2015; and,  
          prohibits charter school personnel with hiring authority from  
          employing relatives.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Specifies in the 2010-11 school year, and each successive  
            school year after until December 31, 2016, the maximum total  
            number of charter schools authorized to operate in California  
            to be 1,450.

          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)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 or for a contract with the  
            charter school over which that person exercises jurisdiction  
            or control; and, specifies that the approval of budgets does  
            not constitute jurisdiction or control.

          4)Requires a petition for a charter school to include full  
            disclosure of the identity of all individuals who are  
            employed, plan to be employed by the charter school, or have a  








                                                                  AB 1982
                                                                  Page  2


            contract with the charter school, who are related to the  
            charter school owner, president, chairperson of the governing  
            body, superintendent, governing body member, principal,  
            assistant principal, or any other person employed by the  
            charter school who has equivalent decision-making authority. 

          5)Defines charter school personnel as a charter school owner,  
            president, chairperson of the governing body, superintendent,  
            governing body member, principal, assistance principal or any  
            other person employed by the charter school who has equivalent  
            decision-making authority to appoint, employ, promote or  
            advance individuals.

          6)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.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  This bill is keyed non-fiscal.


           COMMENTS  :  This bill will establish a state-wide cap of 1,450 on  
          the number of charter schools that can operate and requires the  
          LAO to report to the Legislature on the efficacy of the cap on  
          charter schools.  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:  The 2009-10 statewide cap on charter  
          schools is 1,350.  The California Federation of Teachers (CFT),  








                                                                  AB 1982
                                                                  Page  3


          the sponsor of the bill, argues that a having a charter school  
          cap of 1,450 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.  Both of these provisions will  
          sunset on December 31, 2016.
           
           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 1,450 established by this bill would be  
          reached during the 2016-17 school year.  The sunset date for the  
          charter school cap that is included in this bill would likely  
          coincide with the time that the cap is reached.

          Hiring Practices:  This bill establishes anti-nepotism  
          employment and contracting 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.  

          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  
          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.
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 

                                                               FN:  0004298








                                                                  AB 1982
                                                                  Page  4