BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2320
AUTHOR: Swanson
AMENDED: May 28, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Charter schools: accountability.
SUMMARY
This bill adds new requirements to the charter school
petition process, deletes the authority of a charter school
petitioner to submit a petition to a County Board of
Education to serve pupils that would otherwise be served by
the County Office of Education, and eliminates the ability of
the State Board of Education to approve charter school
petition appeals.
BACKGROUND
Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, provides for
the establishment of charter schools in California for the
purpose, among other things, of improving student learning
and expanding learning experiences for pupils who are
identified as academically low achieving. (Education Code
47601 et. seq.)
Existing law authorizes anyone to develop, circulate, and
submit a petition to establish a charter school, and requires
charter developers to collect certain signatures in support
of the petition, as specified. Current law requires a
governing board to grant a charter if it is satisfied that
the charter is consistent with sound educational practice. A
governing board is precluded from denying a petition unless
it makes written factual findings that the petition fails to
meet one or more of the following:
1) The charter school presents an unsound educational program;
2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully
implement the program described in the petition;
AB 2320
Page 2
3) The petition does not contain the number of required
signatures;
4) The petition does not contain an affirmation it will be
nonsectarian, nondiscriminatory, shall not charge
tuition, and other affirmations, as specified.
5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of the 16 required elements of a charter
petition. (Education Code 47605)
Existing law authorizes a petitioner to submit a petition
directly to a county board of education (CBE) to establish a
charter school that will serve pupils for whom the county
office of education would otherwise be responsible for
providing direct education and related services. (EC
47605.5)
Existing law also authorizes a county board of education to
approve a petition for the establishment of a countywide
charter school that operates at one or more sites within the
geographic boundaries of the county that provides
instructional services that are not provided by a county
office of education. A petitioner may not elect to submit
the petition to the State Board of Education (SBE) if the
county board of education denies the petition. (EC
47605.6)
Existing law establishes an appeals process for charter
schools. Under current law, if a school district governing
board denies a petition, a petitioner may appeal to the
county board of education. If the county board of education
also denies the petition, the petitioner is authorized to
submit the petition to the State Board of Education for
approval. (EC 47605)
Existing law authorizes the state board to approve petitions
for state charter schools that operate at multiple sites
throughout the state. (EC 47605.8)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Deletes the authorization for charter school petitioners
to submit a charter school petition to the State Board
AB 2320
Page 3
of Education if a County Board of Education denies the
petition.
2) Expands charter school petition requirements by
requiring charter school petitions to provide reasonably
comprehensive descriptions 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 different and
innovative teaching methods will provide vigorous
competition within the public school system to
stimulate 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;
d) The means by which the school will achieve a
balance of students who receive free and
reduced-price meals, are English language learners,
or are individuals with exceptional needs.
3) Repeals the provision in current law authorizing a
petition to be submitted 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.
4) Deletes the requirement for the petitioner to notify the
CDE and the SBE that a CBE has approved a charter on
appeal.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the sponsor, the
California Teachers Association (CTA), recent reports on
charter school performance and enrollment trends, along
with findings from audits and investigations of charter
schools by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance
Team (FCMAT) and other entities raise "serious concerns
about whether California is meeting the goals of the
AB 2320
Page 4
Charter Schools Act of 1992." According to the author,
AB 2320 is designed to strengthen statutes governing
charter schools to ensure that these public schools
remain consistent with the Legislature's original
intent.
2) Limits the appeal process . Under current law, a charter
school petition denied by a school district may be
submitted on appeal to the county board of education.
If the CBE upholds the school district's decision, the
petitioner has the right to appeal the denial by
submitting the charter proposal to the State Board of
Education for approval. This bill removes that right.
Given the "conflict of interest" that can occur between
an authorizer and a petitioner, an argument could be
made that this bill could make it more difficult for
charter schools to gain approval.
According to the sponsor of the bill, the granting of a
charter should be limited to school districts with
locally elected school boards for schools within the
boundaries of the school district. CTA also maintains
that allowing the SBE to overturn decisions made by
locally elected bodies undermines the ability for local
communities to set and meet local needs and goals.
The Little Hoover Commission is currently reviewing the
roles and entities that authorize school charters as
well as the accountability and oversight measures in
place to ensure the success of charter schools. In
light of this work, the Committee may wish to discuss
whether this provision of the bill is premature.
The Committee should consider whether deleting the SBE
appeal will unnecessarily limit the opportunity for
charter petitioners to be approved.
3) Expands petition requirements . According to the
sponsor, the purpose of expanding the petition
requirements is to ensure that charter schools use
different and innovative teaching methods and address
the needs of academically low-performing students as
intended by the Charter Schools Act. Although current
law does not specifically address the requirements
specified in this bill, it could be argued that the
additional requirements can be addressed under the
current petition requirements. It would be reasonable
AB 2320
Page 5
to expect, for example that a petitioner's description
of the educational program and would include a
description of the different and innovative teaching
methods the school will use. Good charter school
developers should provide rich and detailed descriptions
of their educational programs and strong governing
boards should require petitioners to provide
comprehensive responses in order to assure the public
that the proposed charter will be of high quality.
Could the expanded requirements proposed by this bill
create a potential barrier for the establishment of
charter schools?
4) High needs students . A variety of studies have
indicated that the pupil population at many charter
schools does not reflect the population in the local
community. A 2009 EdSource report found that charter
high schools enroll 13% fewer students who are either
English learners (ELs) 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. The EdSource report also found that
charter schools serve lower proportions of students with
disabilities compared to noncharter schools at all grade
levels. Similarly, the EdSource report 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.
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 admission/attendance/parent
involvement requirements, and free transportation." The
Project also recommended 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
AB 2320
Page 6
are enrolling, retaining, and graduating proportional
shares of students by race/ethnicity, EL 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."
While the intent for requiring petitioners to address the
means by which the school will achieve enrollment
balance that is reflective of local pupil populations is
to help charter schools be more consistent with the
original legislative intent to expanded learning
experiences for students who are identified as
academically low-achieving, the requirement could pose a
challenge for schools in carrying out an admission
lottery, and may be inconsistent with the requirement
that charter schools serve all pupils who wish to
attend.
5) County Offices of Education . County Offices of
Education provide instructional and related services to
many students, including severely disabled special needs
pupils; adjudicated, incarcerated, and expelled students
served through court and community schools; migrant
students, and career technical education students
through Regional Occupational Programs. This bill
deletes the ability to establish a CBE-authorized
charter school to serve those students.
While the sponsor has expressed concerns about the
accountability of governing boards that are not
democratically elected, the Los Angeles County Board of
Education is the state's only appointed CBE. Given that
the educational services provided by a county office of
education are under the jurisdiction of a county board
of education, it makes sense they should retain the
authority to approve charter schools to provide those
services. The Committee should consider whether
repealing this section will make it more difficult for a
county's most vulnerable pupils to benefit from
attending a charter school that could help them
transition to general education.
6) Related and prior legislation .
AB 2320
Page 7
AB 1950 (Brownley), which is scheduled to be heard by this
Committee on June 30, 2010, establishes academic and
fiscal accountability standards relating to charter
schools.
AB1982 (Ammiano), limits until January 1, 2017, the total
number of charter schools authorized to operate at 1450
and prohibits charter schools operated by a private
entity from employing relatives, as specified.
AB 1741 (Coto), requires charter schools that expect 15% of
their pupil population to be English learners to meet
additional petition requirements relating to the
education of those students. The Committee passed this
bill as amended on a 5-0 vote on June 23, 2010.
AB 2363 (Mendoza), requires charter school petitioners
to obtain the signatures of permanent classified
employees, as specified. The Committee was held in
Committee on June 16, 2010 and is scheduled for "vote
only" on June 30, 2010.
AB 572 (Brownley, 2009) makes a charter school board
subject to the Brown Act open meeting law, the
California Public Records Act, and the Political Reform
Act. This bill was passed by this Committee on a 6-1
vote is in the Senate inactive file.
ABX5 8 (Brownley, Fifth extraordinary session of 2009)
would have deleted the cap on charter schools and would
have made other changes to provisions governing audit
and fiscal standards, authorization, renewal and
revocation of charter schools. This bill was held in
Committee.
AB 1772 (Garcia, 2008) would have established a conflict
of interest standard based on the Corporations Code for
school boards.
AB 2115 (Mullin, 2008) would have established a conflict
of interest standard and would have prohibited employees
from serving on governing boards of charter schools.
This measure was passed by this Committee on a 6-2 vote
and subsequently vetoed by the Governor with the
following statement:
"Not only would this bill create state mandated
AB 2320
Page 8
costs for charter schools to comply with its
provisions, the measure runs counter to the intent
of charter schools, which were created to be free
from many of the laws governing school districts."
7) Policy arguments .
Opponents of this measure argue that AB 2320
adds new petition requirements that are either in
law already or are unnecessary and make dramatic
changes in the ability of a charter school
petitioner to seek authorization for its petition.
Proponents of this measure argue that the bill
is necessary to make charter schools more
accountable and transparent and make these schools
more reflective of their authorizing school
districts.
1) Amendments . If the Committee chooses to pass this bill,
staff recommends the following amendments:
a) Delete provisions that eliminate the SBE
appeals.
b) Delete the expanded petition requirements with
the exception of the requirement that charter
schools address the means by which the
school will achieve a balance of pupils who receive
free and reduced-price meals, are English language
learners, or are individuals with exceptional needs
that is reflective of the general population within
the territorial jurisdiction of the school
district.
c) Reinstate 47605.5 to enable county boards of
education to approve charter schools to serve
pupils for whom the county office of education
would otherwise serve.
SUPPORT
AB 2320
Page 9
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
San Francisco Unified School District
OPPOSITION
Charter Schools Association
School for Integrated Academics and Technologies