BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 86|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 86
Author: Mendoza (D)
Amended: 9/1/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/15/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Simitian, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-25, 4/25/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Charter schools: petitioners
SOURCE : Service Employees International Union
DIGEST : This bill expands existing signature
requirements for charter school petitions to include
classified employees and requires the signature petitions
to prominently display a statement that classified
employees signing the petition have a meaningful interest
in working at the charter school.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/1/11 (1) add a requirement
that a charter petition contain a reasonably comprehensive
description of student admission policies and procedures,
which includes specificity on admission preferences, (2)
clarify that, among other things, admission preferences
CONTINUED
AB 86
Page
2
shall ensure access for pupils with disabilities,
academically low-achieving pupils, English learners, and
low-income pupils, as specified, (3) clarify the
applicability of admission preference on dropout recover
high schools, and (4) add language in order to avoid
chaptering out problems with AB 1034 (Gatto).
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes anyone to develop,
circulate, and submit a petition to establish a charter
school. Existing law requires charter developers to
collect certain signatures in support of the petition and
requires petitions to include a prominent statement that a
signature means that the person signing has a meaningful
interest in teaching in or having his/her children attend
the school.
1. For petitions that propose to establish a new charter
school, the charter developers must obtain the
signatures of either the parents of at least half of the
pupils expected to enroll at the school or half of the
teachers expected to be employed at the school during
its first year of operation.
2. For petitions that propose to convert an existing public
school to a charter school, the charter developer must
collect the signatures of not less than 50 percent of
the permanent status teachers at the school to be
converted.
This bill:
1. Requires petitions that propose to establish a new
charter school, to meet either of the following
signature requirements:
A. The signatures of either the parents or legal
guardians of at least half of the pupils expected to
enroll at the school for its first year of operation.
B. A number of permanent status nonsupervisorial
certificated staff and permanent classified employees
that combined is equivalent to at least one-half of
the total number of permanent status nonsupervisorial
certificated staff and permanent classified employees
AB 86
Page
3
that the charter school estimates will be employed at
the school during its first year of operation.
2. Requires a petition that proposes to convert an existing
public school to a charter school to be signed by a
number of permanent status nonsupervisorial certificated
staff and permanent classified employees that combined
is equivalent to at least one-half of the total number
of permanent status nonsupervisorial certificated staff
and permanent classified employees currently employed at
the public school to be converted to a charter school.
3. Requires a petition to include a prominent statement
that a signature on the petition has one of the
following meanings:
A. In the case of a parent's or legal guardian's
signature, that the parent or legal guardian is
meaningfully interested in having his or her child a
ward attend the charter school.
B. In the case of a teacher's signature, that the
teacher is meaningfully interested in teaching at the
charter school.
C. In the case of a classified employee's signature,
that the classified employee is meaningfully
interested in working at the charter school.
4. Requires admission preference to be given to siblings of
pupils currently attending the charter school and
children of employees at the charter school.
5. Specifies that admission preferences may be extended, on
an individual school basis, in accordance with the
following:
A. Each type of preference shall be approved in a
public hearing, with the exception of dropout
recovery high schools in partnership with specified
entities.
B. Preferences shall be consistent with federal law
and the California Constitution.
AB 86
Page
4
C. Preferences shall ensure that pupils with
disabilities, academically low-achieving pupils,
English-learners, and low-income pupils, as
determined by eligibility in any free or
reduced-price meal program, will be served.
6. Specifies that a charter school may encourage parental
involvement, but must provide notification that the
parental involvement is not a requirement for acceptance
or continued enrollment at the school.
7. Specifies that this will become operative if AB 1034 is
also enacted and becomes effective on or before January
1, 2012.
Comments
Classified employees . Employees in positions that do not
require certification are considered "classified" staff,
which may include para-professionals (teaching assistants,
teacher aids, pupil services aides, and library aides),
office/clerical staff and those that have administrative
support duties, and bus drivers, custodians, and cafeteria
workers. The number of permanent classified staff at any
individual school varies depending on the type and size of
the school, district resources, and the needs of students.
In many schools, the number of classified staff is about
half of the number of teachers, and many classified staff
are not full-time. For example, for the 2009-10 school
year, Burbank Elementary in the Long Beach Unified School
District had 36 teachers and 19 classified staff, including
three paraprofessionals, while C.K. McClatchy High in the
Sacramento Unified School District had 89 full-time
teachers and 43 classified staff, of which 22 were
paraprofessionals.
Conversion charter petition process . Current law provides
teachers the right to participate in a charter petition
process. Certificated staff in non-teaching positions such
as school counselors, librarians, and other certificated
staff may sign petitions, they are not specifically
entitled by law to sign petitions to convert an existing
public school to a charter school. Yet under the
AB 86
Page
5
provisions of this bill, classified staff in
non-instruction related positions would be entitled to sign
a conversion petition. By providing all permanent
classified staff the right to sign a petition, this bill
appears to give classified employees greater rights in the
petition process than certificated employees.
Notwithstanding the important contributions classified
staff make to a learning community and the operation of a
school, it could be argued that the required signatures
should be limited to those who have a meaningful interest
of the instruction of students at the school, such as the
teaching staff who will be responsible for implementing the
educational programs and will be accountable for student
outcomes, parents who want their children to attend the
school and are also accountable for their pupil's success,
and paraeducators who assist with classroom learning.
Related and Prior Legislation
This bill is similar to AB 2363 (Mendoza), 2009-10 Session,
which would have required charter school petitioners to
obtain the signatures of half of the number of teachers and
half of the number of classified employees, as specified.
(Failed passage in Senate Education Committee)
SB 433 (Liu), 2011-12 Session, requires charter schools to
comply with state statutes governing the suspension and
expulsion of pupils. (Held in Senate Education Committee)
SB 645 (Simitian), 2011-12 Session, establishes new
academic criteria for charter school renewals. Passed the
Senate with a vote of 27-10 on June 1, 2011. (Held under
submission in Assembly Appropriations Committee)
AB 401 (Ammiano), 2011-12 Session, limits until January 1,
2017, the total number of charter schools authorized to
operate at 1,450 and adds additional criteria relating to
the disclosure of relatives of charter school personnel.
(In Senate Education Committee)
AB 360 (Brownley), 2011-12 Session, makes charter schools
subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act or Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act, depending on the entity operating the school.
AB 86
Page
6
Also subjects charters to the California Public Records Act
and the Political Reform Act. (On Assembly Concurrence
File)
AB 440 (Brownley), 2011-12 Session, establishes various
academic and fiscal accountability standards related to
charter schools. (On Senate Third Reading File)
AB 1034 (Gatto), 2011-12 Session, requires charter schools
to report specified information relating to pupil
demographics and academic progress, requires charter
schools to collect data regarding pupils who transfer out
of the school, and modifies existing law regarding charter
school admissions. (On Senate Third Reading File)
AB 1741 (Coto), 2009-10 Session, would have required
charter schools that expect 15 percent of their pupil
population to be English learners to meet additional
petition requirements relating to the education of those
students. (Held in Senate Rules Committee)
AB 1982 (Ammiano), 2009-10 Session, would have limited
until January 1, 2017, the total number of charter schools
authorized to operate at 1,450 and prohibits charter
schools operated by a private entity from employing
relatives, as specified. (Failed passage in Senate
Education Committee)
AB 1991 (Arambula), 2009-10 Session, would have authorized
charter school renewals to be granted for five to 10 years.
(Failed passage in Assembly Education Committee)
AB 2320 (Swanson), 2009-10 Session, would have added 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.
(Failed passage in Senate Education Committee)
AB 572 (Brownley), 2009-10 Session, would have required
charter schools to comply with the Brown Act open meeting
law, the California Public Records Act, and the Political
AB 86
Page
7
Reform Act. Passed the Senate with a vote of 21-14 on
August 24, 2010. The bill was subsequently vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger. His veto message read: "Charter
school educators have proven that poverty is not destiny
for students that attend public schools in California.
Repeatedly, charter schools with high proportions of
disadvantaged students are among the highest performing
public schools in California. Any attempt to regulate
charter schools with incoherent and inconsistent
cross-references to other statutes is simply misguided.
Parents do not need renewed faith in charter schools as
suggested in this bill. On the contrary, tens of thousands
of parents in California have children on waiting lists to
attend a public charter school. Legislation expressing
findings and intent to provide "greater autonomy to charter
schools" may be well intended at first glance. A careful
reading of the bill reveals that the proposed changes apply
new and contradictory requirements, which would put
hundreds of schools immediately out of compliance, making
it obvious that it is simply another veiled attempt to
discourage competition and stifle efforts to aid the
expansion of charter schools."
AB 8X5 (Brownley), 2009-10 Fifth Extraordinary Session,
would have deleted the cap on charter schools and would
have made other changes to provisions governing audit and
fiscal standards, and the authorization, renewal and
revocation of charter schools. (Held in Senate Education
Committee)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/11/11)
Service Employees International Union (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Association of California School Administrators
California Charter Schools Association
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/11/11)
AB 86
Page
8
Charter Schools Development Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The bill's sponsor, Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), maintains that
although classified employees play an important role in the
operation of a school, they are generally not represented
in the petition process and do not have a formal voice in
decisions that may impact their employment. Proponents
maintain that while current law provides classified
employees certain rights to be reassigned to other
positions in the district; they are often at risk of losing
their jobs during a charter school conversion, a risk that
has increased in recent years due to the fiscal constraints
and layoffs many districts have experienced. The stated
intent of this bill is to provide parity for classified
employees by entitling them to participate in a charter
school petition process in the same manner as permanent
status teachers.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Charter Schools Development
Center is opposed to his bill because they believe the bill
will "unnecessarily complicate the petition requirements
for presenting a charter petition to convert a pre-existing
public school to chartered status." They further contend
that "the current petition requirements are already
excessively complex and should be relaxed, rather than made
more complex."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-25, 4/25/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis,
Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto,
Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Hueso, Huffman,
Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
AB 86
Page
9
NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Furutani, Gordon,
Gorell, Huber, Olsen, Vacancy
CPM:mw 9/2/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****