BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2543
AUTHOR: Bonnie Lowenthal
AMENDED: April 28, 2010
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Charter schools: Charter renewal.
SUMMARY
This bill establishes timelines for charter school renewals
and 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 a charter to be granted for not more
than five years and requires the renewal and any material
revision of the provisions of the charter to be made only
with the approval of the authority that granted the charter
and be based on the same standards as the original charter.
Existing law requires a charter school whose renewal petition
has been denied to abide by the same appeals process that
exists for an initial charter school petition: If a school
district governing board denies a petition, a petitioner may
appeal to the county board of education (CBE). If the county
board of education also denies the petition, the petitioner
is authorized to submit the petition to the State Board of
Education (SBE) for approval. (EC 47607.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires a charter school to submit a renewal petition
AB 2543
Page 2
to the chartering authority no later than September 15
prior to the expiration of the charter, or by a later
date if mutually agreed upon by the chartering authority
and the charter school; specifies that a chartering
authority 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 chartering authority or
any other provision of this part shall not be affected
by these provisions.
2) Requires the governing board of a school district or a
CBE to approve or deny a charter school renewal petition
no later than December 15 prior to the expiration of the
charter.
3) Requires a charter school that elects to appeal the
denial of its renewal application to submit is appeal
application to the CBE or the SBE, as applicable, within
30 days of the denial.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the sponsor of this
bill, the Los Angeles County Office of Education
(LACOE), the lack of statutory timelines for the
submission and review of charter renewal petitions
hinders completion of the appeal process by the end of
the school year. In some situations, local boards have
not denied a renewal petition until May or June of the
school year, requiring a CBE or the SBE to hear appeals
in July, August, or September. Setting a deadline by
which districts and CBEs must make renewal decisions
would facilitate the completion of the appeal process
prior to the end of the school year, which would allow
students, families, and charter employees to make
informed decisions regarding enrollment and employment
options for the subsequent school year.
2) Charter schools . Charter schools are public schools
that provide instruction in any of grades K-12.
Currently, charter schools serve approximately four
percent of the state's 6.3 million public school
students. A charter school is usually created or
organized by a group of teachers, parents and community
leaders, or a community-based organization and may be
AB 2543
Page 3
authorized by an existing school district governing
board, a county board of education or the SBE. Specific
goals and operating procedures for the charter school
are detailed in an agreement (charter) between the
authorizing board and the charter organizers. A charter
school is generally exempt from most laws governing
school districts, except where specifically noted in the
law.
According to the California Department of Education (CDE), as
of March 2010, there are 870 active and pending charter
schools. Fifty-one of these schools have a status of
"pending" because they have been locally approved and
numbered by the SBE, but the state has been advised that
funding will not be claimed for these schools until the
2010-11 school year. Of the 870 charter schools, 25
currently operate based on SBE approval.
3) Renewal process . A charter school must meet at least
one of the following performance standards in order to
be renewed: (1) attainment of the school's Academic
Performance Index (API) growth target in two of the last
three years or in the aggregate last three years; (2) an
API decile ranking of four or better in the prior year
or in two of the last three years; (3) a Similar Schools
API ranking of four or better in two of the last three
years; (4) academic performance that is at least equal
to the academic performance of the public schools that
the charter school pupils would otherwise been required
to attend; or (5) qualification for participation in the
Alternative School Accountability Model.
Currently, districts hear renewal petitions on a cyclical
basis throughout the year. The existing timelines
require 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, which extends
the timeline to a total of 90 days. Thus, the September
15 deadline is consistent with the existing decision
timeframes established in current law. However, the
Charter Schools Association points out that the
September 15 deadline may make it difficult for charter
schools to address the required accountability measures
because test scores are often not available by that
date.
AB 2543
Page 4
The California School Boards Association (CSBA) encourages
school district and county governing boards to establish
timelines and procedures that consider the needs of the
district as well as the students, parents/guardians, and
staff of the charter school. In its manual for charter
school governance teams, CSBA notes that such procedures
should "provide sufficient time for the board to review
the renewal petition, notify the charter school of its
decision, allow for the possible appeal of the board's
decision for the CBE or the SBE, and enable students to
be otherwise accommodated before the start of the school
year if the charter renewal is denied."
By establishing uniform deadlines for the renewal process,
this measure could help ensure that school districts
receive renewal applications in a timely manner and may
assure that county boards and the SBE do not get
"jammed" with renewal appeals that create pressure to
make quick decisions before the next school year begins.
However, by requiring charter renewals to be completed
by December 15, school districts will be analyzing
renewal petitions over a condensed timeframe. Further,
these deadline may not reasonably accommodate situations
in which the authorizer has required a petitioner to
submit new information, which may "restart" some of the
review timelines. Although there could be some
efficiency through this process, it could create
workload issues for authorizers with large numbers of
charter schools, such as the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD), which has 160 authorized charters.
Further, since the ending date for charters may not be
standardized, is it feasible to establish a standardized
timeframe for renewal? Could the dates specified in
this bill reduce the flexibility local governing boards
now have to adopt deadlines and procedures that best
suit local circumstances?
Should the Committee wish to pass this bill, Staff recommends
amendments to allow greater deadline flexibility in case
schools do not have their test data by September 15.
4) Other considerations . An argument could be made that
this bill is unnecessary as authorizing boards have the
authority under current law to establish deadlines and
procedures for charter renewals. However, as the number
AB 2543
Page 5
of charter schools increases and governing boards devote
larger portions of their agendas to the establishment or
renewal of charter schools, the workload associated with
untimely submissions and appeals could also
increase. Although it is not clear that dates specified
in this bill will work for
everyone, the establishment of deadlines may enable
greater efficiency in the renewal process.
5) Policy arguments .
Proponents contend that this bill improves the renewal
process by establishing clear deadlines by which school
districts and county boards must make renewal decisions
and will facilitate the completion of the appeal process
prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Opponents argue that while the September 15 deadline could be
adjusted by mutual agreement between the charter school
and the authorizer, the school would be at a
disadvantage if the authorizer does not agree to
extending the timeline.
6) Related and prior legislation .
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 2543
Page 6
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.
SUPPORT
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
OPPOSITION
California Charter Schools Association