BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2320
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2320 (Swanson) - As Amended: April 8, 2010
SUBJECT : Charter schools: accountability.
SUMMARY : Adds requirements to the charter school petition
process and limits the ability of county offices of education
(CBE) and the state board of education (SBE) to approve charter
petitions and appeals. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires charter school petitions to provide a reasonably
comprehensive description of:
a) The different and innovative teaching methods the school
will use;
b) How the implementation of the school's educational
program, notification to parents about course
transferability and the innovative teaching methods will
provide vigorous competition within the public school
system to stimulate continual improvement in all public
schools;
c) How the governance structure of the school will create
new professional opportunities for teachers, including the
opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at
the school site; and,
d) The means by which the school will achieve a balance of
pupils who receive free and reduced-price lunches, are
English language learners, or are individuals with
exceptional needs.
2)Specifies that a CBE may consider an appeal for a charter
school petition only if the appeal alleges that the school
district governing board committed a procedural violation in
the review process and specifies if a CBE finds, by
substantial evidence, that the school district governing board
committed a procedural violation in reviewing the petition,
the CBE may return the petition to the school district to
correct the violation.
AB 2320
Page 2
3)Deletes the authorization for charter school petitioners to
submit a petition to the SBE if a CBE denies the petition.
4)Deletes the authorization for a charter school to submit a
petition directly to a CBE.
5)Limits the SBE approval of a state wide benefit charter school
to a charter school that will operate in partnership with any
of the following entities: the federal Workforce Investment
Act of 1998; federally affiliated Youth Build programs;
federal job corps training or instruction provided pursuant to
a memorandum of understanding with the federal provider; or,
the California Conservation Corps or local conservation corps.
6)Deletes the authorization for a school district to convert all
of its schools to charter schools.
7)Specifies that a CBE may consider an appeal for a charter
school revocation only if the appeal alleges that the school
district governing board committed a procedural violation in
the revocation process and specifies if a CBE finds, by
substantial evidence, that the school district governing board
committed a procedural violation in the revocation process,
the CBE may return the petition to the school district to
correct the violation.
8)Deletes the authorization for charter school petitioners to
submit a revocation appeal to the SBE if a CBE denies the
appeal.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a CBE 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,
increased learning opportunities for all students, with
special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for students
who are identified as academically low achieving, the use of
different and innovative teaching methods, new professional
opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be
responsible for the learning program at the school site, and
vigorous competition within the public school system to
stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.
AB 2320
Page 3
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 CBE. Authorizes, if the CBE 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 CBE.
3)Authorizes a school that serves a statewide purpose to go
directly to the SBE and specifies that the SBE shall not
approve a petition for the operation of a state charter school
unless the SBE makes a finding, based on substantial evidence,
that the proposed state charter school will provide
instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot be
provided by a charter school operating in only one school
district, or only in one county.
4)Specifies that charter schools that operate in partnership
with the following entities are not required to meet the
jurisdictional and geographic limitations placed on other
charter schools: the federal Workforce Investment Act of
1998; federally affiliated Youth Build programs; federal job
corps training or instruction provided pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding with the federal provider; or, the
California Conservation Corps or local conservation corps.
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 four charter schools approved under the provisions
of the statewide benefit charter law and eight other
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
AB 2320
Page 4
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.
Innovative Teaching Techniques & School Competition. 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)Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching
methods.
2)Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including
the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at
the schoolsite.
3)Provide vigorous competition within the public school system
to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.
Innovative teaching techniques can be a cornerstone for unique
educational settings like charter schools. According to CTA,
one such example of innovative teaching is the Alameda Community
Learning Center (ACLC), which is a charter school located in
Alameda, California. At ACLC teachers are referred to as
"facilitators" and students are referred to as "learners." ACLC
is an educational laboratory that seeks to create a dynamic
learning community by embodying the best practices of teaching
and learning in a non-competitive manner that supports
individuals to actively discover their own potential, recognize
their own value and worth and practice responsibility to the
community. To this end, the ACLC provides a safe, connected,
and flexible learning community. One of the most unique aspects
of the ACLC Charter School is its method of governance that
substantially incorporates the learners and facilitators in a
broad array of organizational functions - legislative, judicial
and executive. This approach is congruent with the ACLC
philosophy that the learning is experiential and incorporates
not only the content but the process of the learning
environment. The committee should consider whether all charter
AB 2320
Page 5
schools should be required to include innovative teaching
techniques into their charter petition and whether they should
implement such teaching techniques in their school.
The bill further requires a charter school petition to include a
description of how the school will provide vigorous competition
among the public school system, which is consistent with the
original Legislative intent in creating charter schools. While
the Legislative intent is clear, the committee should consider
how a charter school will describe such a requirement in their
initial petition and whether it is appropriate to include this
type of description in the petition.
Charter Schools Serving High Need Students . This bill would
require charter schools to specify in their initial petition the
way the school will achieve balance among its students who
receive free and reduced-priced lunches, are English learners,
are individuals with exceptional needs. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------ (Source: Charter Schools in California: 2009 Update on Issues
AB 2320
Page 6
and Performance, EdSource)
A November 2009 report by The Civil Rights Project makes policy
recommendations with regard to segregation in charter schools.
They recommend that charter schools could "use many of the same
provisions that helped magnet schools use choice to increase
diversity. These include providing full and extensive
information, outreach to all racial/ethnic, socioeconomic and
linguistic groups, no admissions/attendance/parent involvement
requirements, and free transportation." They also recommend
that "tracking and publicly reporting basic information about
students should be a requirement for any school that receives
public funding. Charter schools should be evaluated to ensure
that they are enrolling, retaining, and graduating proportional
shares of students by race/ethnicity, ELL status, socioeconomic
status, and students with disabilities as their surrounding
districts. Schools could also be required to report the number
of students in different subgroups who apply to the charter
school compared to those who actually enroll, among schools that
are over-subscribed. OCR could and should do this. The federal
government should also reinstate its former practice of
providing annual reports on the state of charter schools."
The committee should consider, with this data in mind, whether
charter schools should be required to describe in the initial
petition, the means by which they will achieve balance of
students who receive free and reduced-price lunches, are English
learners, or are individuals with exceptional needs that is
reflective of the general population residing in the local
school district.
Statewide Benefit Charters . This bill will restrict the SBE's
ability to approve statewide benefit charter schools unless they
are operating in partnership with specified entities outlined in
Section 47612.1. The sponsor of the bill, the California
Teachers Association (CTA) contends that the original intent of
the statewide benefit charter law was to allow charter schools
that provide instructional services of a statewide benefit like
those listed in Section 47612.1 to become statewide benefit
charter schools authorized by the SBE. To date, the SBE has
authorized four charter schools under the provisions of the
statewide benefit charter school law. The committee should
consider whether it is important to grandfather in existing
statewide benefit charter schools, and only apply the
requirements established by this bill on future statewide
AB 2320
Page 7
benefit charter school petitions.
According to CTA, an example of the SBE's abuse in granting
state-wide benefit charter schools without regard to the current
parameters of the statute is currently the subject of litigation
in CSBA & CTA vs. SBE; Aspire Charter Schools , which is pending
in the Court of Appeal, First District. The suit was filed when
the SBE approved Aspire's statewide benefit charter petition
despite the fact that the petition offered no evidence that the
school "will provide instructional services of statewide benefit
that cannot be provided by a charter school operating only in
one district, or in one county." This directly violated
Education code 47605.8. The suit also complained that the SBE
was not authorized to approve the Aspire Charter because the
petition did not indicate that the charter school would serve
students in the California Conservation Corps., Federal
Workforce Investment Act and other programs described in
47612.1. The trial Court found current statute was not
sufficiently clear to require statewide charters to serve these
students, even though that was the original intent of the law.
Charter School Petitions, Appeals & Charter Districts . If a
charter school petition is denied by a school district, this
bill will delete the CBE's ability to approve the charter
school. This bill proposes, instead, to allow a CBE to consider
an appeal only if the appeal alleges that the school district
governing board committed a procedural violation and if the CBE
finds that the district board committed a procedural violation,
the CBE may return the petition to the school district to
correct the violation. This bill also limits a charter school
appeal of a revocation decision in a similar manner and removes
the SBE from the appeal process for both petition appeals and
revocation appeals. According to the sponsor of the bill, by
allowing the SBE or the CBE to authorize charter schools despite
having been thoroughly vetted through the locally elected
bodies, the ability for local communities to set local needs and
goals is undermined. The committee should consider whether this
will unnecessarily limit the opportunity for charter petitioners
to seek approval.
The bill deletes the authorization for a charter school to bring
a petition directly to a CBE for approval. According to the
sponsor of the bill, this bill limits the granting of charter
schools to school districts with locally elected school boards
for schools within the boundaries of the school district.
AB 2320
Page 8
Decisions to establish charter schools should be limited to the
locally elected school board, and should not be devolved to
appointed or elected boards, such as CBEs or the SBE, that are
not immediately connected to and accountable to the school
community. The committee should consider whether limiting
charter approvals to school districts will unnecessarily limit
the charter approval process and limit the ability of charter
schools to seek approval.
The bill also eliminates the authorization for a school district
to convert all of its schools to charter schools. According to
the sponsor, this section was inadvertently deleted. Staff
recommends the bill be amended to reinstate this section as it
currently reads.
Arguments in Support . According to the sponsor of the bill, the
CTA, the promise of charters schools has been the freedom to
innovate and experiment in exchange for accountability and
results. Unfortunately, this promise is yet to be met. The
federal Race to the Top initiative, recent studies of charter
school performance, enrollment trends, as well as audits and
investigations of charter schools by FCMAT and other entities
have demonstrated the need to refocus attention on charter
schools in order to return to the original intent of the law.
We believe AB 2320 (Swanson) will benefit the refocused
attention of charter schools and will renew the engagement of
all impacted stakeholders as we seek to strengthen California's
educational system in a manner that will benefit all of
California's students and stakeholders.
Arguments in Opposition . According to the California Charter
Schools Association, that opposes the bill, AB 2320 makes a
dramatic change in the ability of a charter school petitioner to
appeal an adverse decision by a local school district. This
change, which cuts the state board of education from the
process, seriously undermines due process for the petitioner.
The value of due process in the case of charter school petitions
is that objective third parties are given authority to review a
decision made by a less objective party. AB 2320 adds to the
charter school petition requirements. The petition is already a
very dense collection of documents that covers the gamut of
pedagogical, organizational, financial and governance issues.
The burden on petitioners should not be increased unless there
is a gap that must be filled. Every time a requirement is
added, it forces the petitioners to provide additional
AB 2320
Page 9
information, even if the additional information is redundant.
Each new requirement also gives the authorizer one more basis on
which to reject a charter school petition.
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the bill be amended to
change the reference to free and reduced priced lunches in
Section 47605(b)(5)(G), to free and reduced priced meals. To
maintain local control of school district governing boards,
staff recommends the bill be amended to reinstate the
authorization for school districts to convert all of there
schools to charter schools. Staff further recommends the bill
be amended to delete the sections changing the charter school
appeal process and application process and instead reinstate the
existing charter approval process at CBEs, the appeal process
involving CBEs and the SBE, and the statewide benefit charter
process.
Related legislation : AB 1741 (Coto), pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee, requires a local educational agency
(LEA) that identifies a persistently lowest-achieving school
(PLAS) and chooses to implement a restart model, as described in
federal regulations, by converting the school or closing and
reopening the school under a charter school operator or a
charter management organization (CMO), to select a charter
school operator or CMO that demonstrates specified requirements
relative to meeting the needs of English learners (ELs).
AB 1982 (Ammiano) from 2010, pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, 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.
AB 1950 (Brownley) from 2010, pending in the Assembly Education
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
AB 2320
Page 10
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, pending referral 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 2363 (Mendoza), pending on the Assembly Floor, requires, in
addition to the existing signature requirements for charter
school petitions, a charter school petition to include
signatures from at least 50% of the number of classified
employees the petitioner estimates that will be employed by the
charter school in the first year of operation; requires a
conversion charter school petition to include 50% of the
permanent classified employees currently employed at the school
that is to be converted to a charter school; and, requires the
signature petition to prominently display a statement that the
classified employee has a meaningful interest in working at the
charter school.
AB 2543 (Lowenthal), pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, requires the governing board of a school district or
a CBE to approve or deny a charter school renewal petition no
later than December 1 of the renewal year; and, authorizes a
charter school to appeal a district board's denial of a renewal
petition to the CBE, or a CBE's denial of a renewal petition to
the state board, within 30 days of the date of the denial.
Previous legislation : AB 8 X5 (Brownley) from 2009 proposed
comprehensive changes to the Education Code consistent with the
federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program; this bill addressed the
four RTTT policy reform areas of standards and assessments, data
systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders and
turning around the lowest-achieving schools. Deleted the
statewide charter school cap; proposed enhanced charter school
fiscal and academic accountability standards. This bill was
AB 2320
Page 11
held in the Senate Education Committee at the request of the
author.
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Teachers Association (Sponsor)
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
Opposition
California Charter Schools Association
School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (SIATech)
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087