BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1982
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1982 (Ammiano)
As Amended May 20, 2010
Majority vote
EDUCATION 5-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, | | |
| |Carter, Eng, Torlakson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Nestande, Arambula, | | |
| |Miller, Norby | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes a state-wide cap of 1450 on the number of
charter schools that can operate until December 31, 2016; 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 1450.
2)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.
3)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
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.
4)Defines charter school personnel as a charter school owner,
president, chairperson of the governing body, superintendent,
AB 1982
Page 2
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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill will establish a state-wide cap of 1450 on
the number of charter schools that can operate. 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 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. This provision 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
AB 1982
Page 3
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
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: 0004391