BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2543
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2543 (Lowenthal) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
SUBJECT : Charter schools: renewal.
SUMMARY : Requires the governing board of a school district or
a county board of education 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 county board of education,
or a county board's denial of a renewal petition to the state
board, within 30 days of the date of the denial.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a county board of education or the state
board of education (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.
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 county board of education.
Authorizes, if the county board of education 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 county office of
education. Authorizes a school that serves a statewide
purpose to go directly to the SBE.
3)Authorizes a charter school granted by a school district,
county board of education or the SBE to grant one or more
subsequent renewals of a charter school and requires each
renewal to be for a period of five years.
AB 2543
Page 2
4)Authorizes a charter school to appeal a district board's
revocation decision to the county board of education, or a
county board's revocation decision to the SBE, within 30 days
following the final decision of the chartering authority.
5)Requires a charter school petition that has been previously
denied by the governing board of a school district to be
received by the county board of education not later than 180
calendar days after the denial and, requires a charter school
petition that has been previously denied by a county board of
education to be received by the State Board of Education not
later than 180 calendar days after the denial. (California
Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11967)
6)Requires a county board of education to grant or deny a
charter petition on appeal within 60 days of receiving the
appeal and, requires the state board of education to grant or
deny a charter petition on appeal within 90 days of receiving
the appeal. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section
11967)
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
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.
This bill would require renewal petitions for all school
AB 2543
Page 3
district and county authorized charter schools to be decided by
the authorizer no later than December 1 of the renewal year.
The bill also requires charter schools to file an appeal within
30 days of receiving a denial. According to the author,
existing law currently lacks a timeline by which local districts
and county offices of education must decide on charter school
renewal petitions which hinders completion of the appeal process
when charter schools are not renewed by the authorizer. Setting
a deadline by which districts and county offices must make
renewal decisions would facilitate completion of the appeal
process prior to the end of the fiscal year. This would allow
students, families, and charter employees to make informed
decisions regarding enrollment and employment in a timely
manner.
Consistency with Charter Revocation . This bill requires charter
school renewal appeals to be filed within 30 days to the county
office of education or the SBE, which is consistent with
existing law for charter school revocation appeals. Existing
law authorizes charter schools to file a renewal appeal up to
180 days after the denial. This can lengthen the appeal process
up to 20 months overall, if all the extensions are exhausted
throughout the process. This bill would condense the appeal
process to 12 months if all extensions are exhausted. The chart
below illustrates the timeline created by this bill compared to
the timeline allowed for under existing law. According to
Legislative Counsel, while this bill establishes required
timelines for charter renewals, this bill will not affect the
ability of a charter authorizer to revoke a charter at anytime.
Charter School Appeal Timelines.
AB 2543
Page 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Current Law - Example of Charter Appeal Process |
| |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| |Example of 180 day timeline | Example of lack of |
| | for petitioner to appeal a | statutory deadline for |
| | school district decision | school district renewal |
| | | decisions |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| August | August 1: School District | |
| | Receives Charter Renewal | |
| | Petition | |
| |(Begin 60* day timeline for | |
| | decision) | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Septembe| [State API scores released; data needed for renewal |
| r | decision] |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|October |October 1: School District | |
| | Denies Renewal | |
| | (Begin 180 day timeline to | |
| | appeal to County) | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|November| | |
| | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|December| | |
| | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|January | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|February| | |
| | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| March | | March 1: School District |
| | | Receives Charter Renewal |
| | | Petition |
| | |(Begin 60* day timeline for |
| | | decision) |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| April | April 1: County Receives | |
AB 2543
Page 5
| | Appeal | |
| |(Begin 60* day timeline for | |
| | decision) | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| May | | May 1: School Board Denies |
| | | Renewal (Begin 180 day |
| | | timeline to appeal to |
| | | County) |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| June | June 1: County Denies | June 1: County Receives |
| | Renewal | Appeal (in 30 days) |
| | (Begin 180 day timeline to |(Begin 60* day timeline for |
| | appeal to State) | decision) |
| | Charter funding ends June | Charter funding ends June |
| | 30 |30 |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| July | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| August | | August 1: County Denies |
| | | Appeal |
| | | (Begin 180 day timeline to |
| | | appeal to State) Aug. 15: |
| | | State Receives Appeal (in |
| | | 15 days) |
| | | (Begin 90 day timeline for |
| | | State decision) |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|Septembe| | |
| r | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|October | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
|November| | State Board Decides to |
| | | Renew |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|December|December 1: State Receives | |
| | Appeal | |
| | (Begin 90 day timeline for | |
| | State decision) | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|January | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|February| | |
| | | |
|--------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
AB 2543
Page 6
| March | State Board Decides to | |
| | Renew | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
* Timeline can be extended 30 days if both parties agree.
(Note: For simplicity, the 1st of each month is used as the
deadline and is meant to approximate 30 days in each month)
------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| | Charter Appeal Process Proposed by this Bill |
| | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Charter School Authorized |Charter School Authorized by |
| | by | |
| | School Board | County Board |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Septembe| [State API scores released; data needed for renewal |
| r | decision] |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|October | | |
|--------+----------------------------+-----------------------------|
|November| | |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
|December| December 1: Deadline for Renewal Decision |
| | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|--------+----------------------------+-----------------------------|
| | December 1: School Board | December 1: County Board |
| | Denies Renewal | Denies Renewal |
| | (Begin 30 day timeline to | (Begin 30 day timeline to |
| | appeal to County) | appeal to State) |
|--------+----------------------------+-----------------------------|
|January |January 1: County Receives | January 1: State Receives |
| | Appeal | Appeal |
AB 2543
Page 7
| |(Begin 60* day timeline for | (Begin 90 day timeline for |
| | decision) | State decision) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|February| | |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| March | March 1: County Denies | |
| | Renewal | |
| | (Begin 30 day timeline to | |
| | appeal to State) | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| April | April 1: State Receives | State Decision |
| | Appeal | |
| | (Begin 90 day timeline for | |
| | State decision) | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| May | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| June | Charter funding ends June |Charter funding ends June 30 |
| | 30 | |
|--------+----------------------------+-----------------------------|
| July | State Decision | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Timeline can be extended 30 days if both parties agree.
(Note: For simplicity, the 1st of each month is used as the
deadline and is meant to approximate 30 days in each month)
Renewal Timeline for Districts . This bill requires charter
school authorizers to make final renewal decisions by December 1
of the charter school's renewal year. This would establish a
structured timeline so that if a charter school is not renewed
by a district authorizer, the charter school can appeal to the
county board and the SBE and have a final appeal decision before
the start of the next school year, and possibly by the end of
the fiscal year.
Currently districts hear renewal petitions on a cyclical basis
throughout the year. By requiring charter renewals to be
completed by December 1st, school districts will be analyzing
renewal petitions over a condensed timeframe. This could create
some economies of scale, but could also create workload issues
for authorizers with large numbers of charter schools.
The existing renewal timeline requires authorizers to make a
final decision on a renewal petition within 60 days of receiving
AB 2543
Page 8
the petition. A 30 day extension can be granted if both the
authorizer and the charter school agree, thus making the
timeline a total of 90 days. In order to ensure that
authorizers can complete the necessary public hearings and
analysis of the renewal petition, staff recommends the bill
require charter school renewal petitions be received by the
authorizer no later than September 1st or a later date if
mutually agreed upon by the charter school and the authorizer.
With this application deadline, the authorizer would be required
to renew or deny the petition by November 1st, or after mutual
agreement, by December 1st. This would not preclude an
authorizer from setting an earlier date if the authorizer wishes
to stagger the renewals over a few months prior to September,
and it will not affect the existing 60 or 90 day renewal
decision timeline already in statute.
The bill requires the authorizer to make a final renewal
decision by December 1st of the renewal year. The reference to
the "renewal year" is somewhat confusing. For example, if an
initial petition is approved by an authorizer in March of 2010
for a charter start date of September 2010, the renewal year
would be 5 years later, or 2015. Under this bill, the renewal
decision would not be made by the authorizer until December
2015, or 5 years and 3 months after the start of the charter's
operation. Existing law requires that charter petitions not
exceed 5 years and this model would put every charter school and
authorizer out of compliance. Staff recommends the bill be
amended to require the final renewal decision be completed by
December 1st prior to the expiration of the charter.
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the bill be amended to
require charter school renewal petitions be received by the
authorizer no later than either September 1st or by a later date
if mutually agreed upon by the authorizer and the charter
school. This will also allow for a traditional 60 day decision
to be made by November 1st and will allow for a 30 day
extension, if mutually agreed upon by the authorizer and the
charter school. This would not preclude an authorizer from
setting an earlier submission date. Staff also recommends the
bill be amended to require charter authorizers to make a final
decision on the charter renewal by December 1st prior to the
expiration of the charter, to avoid making a renewal decision
after the charter has expired. Alternatively, the bill could be
amended to require charter school renewal petitions be received
by the authorizer no later than either September 15th and have a
AB 2543
Page 9
final decision by December 15th.
Related legislation : AB 1741 (Coto), pending in the Assembly
Education 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 referral in the Assembly
Rules Committee, establishes a cap on the number of charter
schools that can be authorized in California, and makes other
changes to charter school authorization process.
AB 1991 (Arambula) from 2010, pending referral in the Assembly
Rules Committee, establishes a charter school renewal process
for charter schools identified as persistently lowest achieving.
AB 1950 (Brownley) from 2010, pending referral in the Assembly
Rules Committee, requires enhanced charter school fiscal and
academic accountability standards.
AB 2320 (Swanson) from 2010, pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, requires charter school petitions to describe the
different and innovative teaching methods the school will use,
how the school will provide vigorous competition and stimulate
continual improvements within the public school system, and the
means by which the school will achieve a balance of pupils who
live in poverty, are English learners or are individuals with
exceptional needs; deletes the authorization for the state board
of education (SBE) to approve charter school petitions on
appeal; and, limits state wide benefit charter schools to those
that partner with specific entities.
AB 2363 (Mendoza), pending in the Assembly Education Committee,
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
AB 2543
Page 10
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 572 (Brownley) from 2009, pending on the Senate Floor,
requires charter schools to comply with the same conflict of
interest requirements as school districts.
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
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
Los Angeles County Office of Education (Sponsor)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087