BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2320
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2320 (Swanson)
As Amended May 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 : Adds requirements to the charter school petition
process and eliminates the ability of the State Board of
Education (SBE) to approve charter school petition 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
AB 2320
Page 2
students who receive free and reduced-price meals, are
English language learners, or are individuals with
exceptional needs.
2)Deletes the authorization for charter school petitioners to
submit a charter school petition to the SBE if a CBE denies
the petition.
3)Deletes the requirement for the county board of education
(CBE) or the petitioner to notify the California Department of
Education (CDE) and the SBE upon the approval of a charter
appeal.
4)Deletes the authorization for a charter school to submit a
petition directly to a CBE for a charter school that will
serve students for whom the county office of education would
otherwise be responsible for providing direct education and
related services.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee,
1)General Fund/Proposition 98 (GF/98) state reimbursable
mandated costs, likely less than $50,000, to school districts
to review petition information required under this bill.
2)This bill limits the charter school petition appeal process to
the SBE. These provisions will likely lead to GF
administrative cost savings, likely less than $100,000,
statewide.
3)There is a current GF/98 state reimbursable mandate of $2.3
million annually paid to local education agencies (LEA) to
review charter school petitions and renewals, notify charter
schools of reasons for revocation, and administer facility
rentals. The cost associated with this measure will be added
to the existing mandate. According to a May 2006 decision by
the Commission on State Mandates (CSM), charter schools are
not eligible to claim mandate reimbursements. In denying
charter schools' mandate claims, the CSM repeatedly cites the
fact that charter schools are "voluntarily" created.
COMMENTS : Innovative teaching techniques & school competition:
AB 2320
Page 3
This bill requires a charter school petition to include a
description of the different and innovative teaching methods the
school will use and how the school will provide vigorous
competition among the public school system. Both of these
requirements are consistent with the original Legislative intent
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 school site.
3)Provide vigorous competition within the public school system
to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.
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 meals, 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
AB 2320
Page 4
high school compared to noncharter schools.
Charter school petitions & appeals: If a charter school
petition is denied by a school district and a CBE, this bill
will delete the SBE's ability to approve the charter school.
This will allow an initial charter petition to be considered by
a local school district and a CBE on appeal, but will not allow
the SBE to consider the appeal. The bill also deletes the
authorization for a charter school to bring a petition directly
to a CBE for approval for a charter school that will serve
students for whom the county office of education would otherwise
be responsible for providing direct education and related
services. According to the California Teachers Association
(CTA), the sponsor of the bill, by allowing the SBE to authorize
charter schools on appeal despite having been thoroughly vetted
through the locally elected bodies, the ability for local
communities to set local needs and goals is undermined.
Arguments in support: According to 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 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.
AB 2320
Page 5
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
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0004673