BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2543|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2543
Author: Bonnie Lowenthal (D)
Amended: 8/3/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/30/10
AYES: Huff, Alquist, Emmerson, Hancock, Liu, Price,
Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Romero, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 6/02/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Charter schools: renewal
SOURCE : Los Angeles County Board of Education
DIGEST : This bill establishes timelines for charter
school renewals and appeals.
ANALYSIS : 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
experience for pupils who are identified as academically
low achieving.
Existing law authorizes a charter school to be granted for
not more than five years and requires the renewal and any
material revision of the provision of the charter to be
made only with the approval of the authority that granted
CONTINUED
AB 2543
Page
2
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 boa rd 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 (SBE) for
approval.
This bill:
1.Requires a charter school to submit a renewal petition to
the chartering authority no later than September 15 prior
to the expiration of the charter, or by an earlier or
later date if mutually agreed upon by the chartering
authority and the charter school to accommodate local
circumstances, including delays in the release of
Academic Performance Index (API) scores; 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
county board of education 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 its appeal
application to the county board of education or the SBE,
as applicable, within 30 days of the denial.
Comments
A charter school must meet at least one of the following
performance standards in order to be renewed:
1.Attainment of the schools' API growth target in two of
the last three year or in the aggregate last three years.
CONTINUED
AB 2543
Page
3
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 school and that the
charter school pupils would otherwise have been required
to attend.
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.
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 bill could help ensure that school districts receive
CONTINUED
AB 2543
Page
4
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 years 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 deadlines 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, which has 160 authorized charters.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1950 (Brownley), 2009-10 Session, establishes academic
and fiscal accountability standards relating to charter
schools. (In Senate Education Committee)
AB 1982 (Ammiano), 2009-10 Session, 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.
(Failed passage in Senate Education Committee)
AB 1749 (Coto), 2009-10 Session, requires charter schools
that expect 15 percent of their pupil population to be
English learners to meet additional petition requirements
relating to education of those students. (In Senate
Appropriations Committee)
AB 2363 (Mendoza), 2009-10 Session, requires charter school
petitions to obtain the signatures of permanent classified
employees, as specified. (Failed passage in Senate
Education Committee)
AB 572 (Brownley), 2009-10 Session, makes a charter school
board subject to the Brown Act open meeting law, the
California Public Records Act, and the Political Reform
Act. (On Senate Inactive File)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
CONTINUED
AB 2543
Page
5
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/3/10)
Los Angeles County Board of Education (source)
Los Angeles Unified School District
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/3/10)
California Charter Schools Association
California School Boards Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin,
Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, John
A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Lieu, Norby, Audra
Strickland, Vacancy
CONTINUED
AB 2543
Page
6
CPM:cm 8/3/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED