BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2543
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2543 (Bonnie Lowenthal)
As Amended April 28, 2010
Majority vote
EDUCATION 9-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Hill, |
| |Ammiano, Arambula, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Carter, Eng, Miller, | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, |
| |Norby, Torlakson | |Hall, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Torrico |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes timelines for charter school renewals and
appeals. Specifically this bill :
1)Requires a charter school to submit a renewal petition to the
chartering authority (CA) no later than September 15 prior to
the expiration of the charter, or by a later date if mutually
agreed upon by the CA and the charter school; specifies that a
CA is not precluded from establishing a charter renewal
deadline prior to September 15; and, specifies that existing
timelines for the consideration of a charter renewal petition
by a CA shall not be affected by these provisions.
2)Requires the governing board of a school district or a county
board of education (CBE) to approve or deny a charter school
renewal petition no later than December 15 prior to the
expiration of the charter.
3)Authorizes a charter school to appeal a district board's
denial of a renewal petition to the CBE, or a CBEs denial of a
renewal petition to the State Board of Education (SBE), within
30 days of the date of the denial.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor, absorbable General Fund/Proposition 98 (GF/98)
costs to CBEs and minor, absorbable GF administrative costs to
SBE to comply with the timelines in this measure.
AB 2543
Page 2
There is a current GF/98 state reimbursable mandate of $2.3
million annually paid to local education agencies 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 : According to the California Department of Education,
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, CBEs or the SBE. 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.
Renewal timeline for districts: This bill would require renewal
petitions for all school district and CBE-authorized charter
schools to be submitted to the authorizer by September 15 and to
be decided by the authorizer no later than December 15 before
the expiration of the charter. According to the author,
existing law currently lacks a timeline by which local districts
and CBE 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 CBEs 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
AB 2543
Page 3
employees to make informed decisions regarding enrollment and
employment in a timely manner.
Currently districts hear renewal petitions on a cyclical basis
throughout the year. By requiring charter renewals to be
completed by December 15, 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
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. The September 15 submission
deadline will ensure that this 90 timeframe is protected. With
this application deadline, the authorizer would be required to
renew or deny the petition by November 15th, or after mutual
agreement, by December 15. 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.
Consistency with charter revocation: This bill requires charter
school renewal appeals to be filed within 30 days to the CBE 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0004519