BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 203
AUTHOR: Brownley
AMENDED: June 29, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 6, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Parent empowerment.
SUMMARY
This bill provides guidance in several areas of Parent
Empowerment provisions, including the contents of
petitions, the signatures on the petitions, signature
gatherers, and schoolsite councils.
BACKGROUND
As part of California's application for the federal Race to
the Top, the Parent Empowerment Act was established to
authorize parents of certain low achieving schools to
petition for the implementation of one of five specific
interventions.
To be eligible for parent empowerment petition, a school:
1) Cannot be identified as a persistently low-achieving
school, or is identified but does not receive federal
Race to the Top funds, (because those schools are
already subject to interventions).
2) Is in year 3 of federal Program Improvement (after one
full school year is subject to corrective action
pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind Act and
continues to fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress).
3) Has an Academic Performance Index score of less than
800.
4) At least one-half of the parents or guardians of
pupils attending the school and the feeder schools
sign a petition requesting the school district
AB 203
Page 2
implement one of five interventions. (Education Code
� 53300)
The five interventions are:
1) Transformation model - Replace the principal, provide
professional development and financial incentives,
develop strategies for school improvement.
2) Turnaround model - Replace a principal and 50% of the
staff, flexible governance, provide professional
development, use of pupil data.
3) Restart model - Convert a school to a charter school,
or closing and reopening a school as a charter school.
4) School closure - Close a school and enroll the pupils
in higher achieving schools in the district.
5) Alternative governance pursuant to the federal No
Child Left Behind Act - Major restructuring of the
school's governance that makes fundamental reforms,
such as staffing, to improve pupil achievement and has
substantial promise of enabling the school to make
Adequate Yearly Progress. (EC � 53202 and 20 United
States Code Section 6301, Section 1116(b)(8)(B)(v))
Current law :
1) Requires school districts to implement the option
requested by the parents unless, in a regularly
scheduled public hearing, the district makes a finding
that it cannot implement the intervention and
designate which of the other four interventions the
district will implement in the subsequent school year.
(EC � 53300)
2) Caps the number of schools that may be subject to
parent empowerment provisions to 75. (EC � 53302)
The State Board of Education (SBE) adopted emergency
regulations for the implementation of parent empowerment
provisions in August 2010, and approved by the Office of
Administrative Law in September 2010. The SBE has been
considering permanent regulations for several months
(allowing for public comment and revisions) and appears to
AB 203
Page 3
be on schedule to adopt the permanent regulations in late
summer or early fall.
Regulations regarding parent empowerment provisions
include, among other things, the requirement that:
1) Only one parent may sign the petition, but a parent of
pupils in both a feeder school and the school subject
to a petition may sign on behalf of each pupil.
2) The petition include specified information. (Title 5
of the California Code of Regulations, Section 4800 et
seq)
ANALYSIS
This bill provides guidance in several areas of Parent
Empowerment provisions, including the contents of
petitions, the signatures on the petitions, signature
gatherers, and schoolsite councils. Specifically, this
bill:
Petition signatures
1) Specifies that only one parent or guardian per pupil
may sign the petition.
2) Requires a petition that includes signatures of
parents at the school subject to the petition (subject
school) to include signatures of parents representing
at least 35% of the pupils attending the subject
school.
3) Requires districts of the subject school, and the
district of a feeder school if applicable, to verify
signatures using common verification documents that
contain parent or guardian signatures effective on the
date the petition is submitted.
Signature gatherers
4) Requires the petition to include a statement
indicating that some signature
gatherers may be paid (if applicable) and that the
person being asked to sign the petition may ask the
signature gatherer if he or she is being paid.
AB 203
Page 4
4) Requires signature gatherers to disclose whether they
are being paid to collect signatures, if asked.
5) Prohibits signature gatherers from being paid per
signature.
6) Requires all parties involved in the signature
gathering process to adhere to all schoolsite hours of
operation, school and district safety policies, and
visitor sign-in procedures.
Petition
7) Requires a petition and summary of a charter petition
(if the petition is for a charter school and a
specific operator is identified) to be translated
pursuant to current law (for schools with at least 15%
of pupils who speak a primary language other than
English).
8) Requires a charter petition with an identified
operator to include a summary of the charter elements
that current law requires to be included in the
charter, such as descriptions of the proposed
educational program, eligibility of courses to meet
college entrance requirements, methods by which pupil
progress will be measured, and qualifications of
school staff.
Schoolsite Council
9) Requires the schoolsite council at each school
identified on the list of schools eligible for a
parent empowerment petition, at its next regularly
scheduled meeting after the list is released or within
90 days, to provide information regarding the petition
process, including:
a) Intervention options available to parents.
b) The process for submitting a petition.
10) Requires a school district to include in the currently
required notice of restructuring provided to parents
to include notice that the schoolsite council is
required to hold an informational meeting required
AB 203
Page 5
above.
Miscellaneous
11) Requires district boards to allow parents to provide
testimony regarding the petition or the district's
plans to implement a different intervention at the
public hearing required by existing law.
12) Requires the California Department of Education (CDE)
to provide both of the following on its website, in
easily understood terms:
a) Information regarding the petition
process and the five intervention options that
parents may request.
b) A sample petition, available in
translated form pursuant to existing law, which
may be used by petitioners. This bill clarifies
that petitioners are not required to use the
sample petition but all petitions must meet
criteria required by statute and regulation.
13) Requires the CDE to submit a report to the appropriate
policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, the
Governor and the State Board of Education (SBE) that
includes information on the schools that implemented
interventions and the types of interventions
implemented at those schools. The CDE must submit the
report within 90 days after the Superintendent of
Public Instruction and SBE receives 75 petitions (the
statutory cap).
14) Defines "a combination of at least one-half of the
parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the
school and the elementary or middle schools that
normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as
applicable" as one-half of the total number of parents
and guardians of pupils who attend any of the
following:
a) The school for which the petition
is submitted.
b) An elementary or middle school
AB 203
Page 6
that normally matriculates into the middle or
high school for which a petition is submitted, as
applicable.
15) Defines "parents or legal guardians" as the natural or
adoptive parents, legal guardians, or others holding
the right to make educational decisions
for a pupil, including but not limited to foster
parents who hold educational rights on the date the
petition is submitted.
16) Changes the reference to the source of federal funding
from the Race to the Top (RTTT) to the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) to reflect the fact that the
state receives SIG funds but not RTTT funds.
17) States legislative intent to provide parents with
adequate information to make an informed decision, and
that school district boards hold a public hearing to
provide information about parent empowerment and allow
parents to make public comments.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "The
guidelines in current law are broad, resulting in
different interpretations of how the program should be
implemented. This bill is intended to be a vehicle to
make changes necessary for uniform implementation of
the program." The lack of clarity in many areas of
parent empowerment provisions created confusion upon
the filing of the first parent petition, which
resulted in litigation. While the State Board of
Education is nearing completion of the proposed
permanent regulations for the parent empowerment
program, this bill provides specific guidance and
makes clear the Legislature's intent.
2) A petition filed, a denial and a lawsuit . On December
7, 2010, parents of pupils attending McKinley
elementary school in the Compton Unified School
District filed a petition for the school to be
converted into a charter school operated by a charter
organization. The Compton Unified School District
attempted to verify the signatures of the parents who
signed the petition to ensure the signatures were of
AB 203
Page 7
parents of pupils attending McKinley school. As a
result, the district required each parent who signed
the petition to appear in person with photo
identification to verify signatures.
The Compton Unified School District was sued on behalf of
parents based on the argument that the process to
verify signatures "is designed to prevent parents from
exercising their rights under the Parent Trigger
statute as well as curtail their rights to free
speech." In March 2011, the Los Angeles Superior
Court issued a preliminary injunction, which concluded
that the Compton Unified School District could not
require parents to appear in person with photo
identification to verify petition signatures. The
order further required the district to verify the
signatures by April 1, 2010. On May 20, 2011, the
court tentatively ruled the petitions to be invalid
because each parent did not provide a date indicating
when he or she signed the petition.
On June 24, 2011, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled to
uphold Compton Unified School District's denial of the
parents' petition based on the failure to include the
dates the petitions were signed by the parents. The
court determined that providing a date of signature is
pertinent in determining three things: whether the
signing parent had educational rights on the date the
petition was signed, whether the student was enrolled
at the school on the date the petition was signed, and
whether the petition was signed before the effective
date of state regulations (meaning the parents should
have clearly understood they were requesting a
specific intervention, such as conversion to a charter
school).
3) Compromise . This bill is the product of a workgroup
representing parents, teachers, school districts, and
legislative staff. The workgroup considered the areas
of statute and regulations that need clarity, and
reached a compromise on the issues addressed in this
bill. Some provisions in this bill are also contained
in the proposed permanent regulations regarding parent
empowerment.
4) Petitions involving feeder schools . Current law
AB 203
Page 8
provides that a petition may be signed by a
combination of parents of pupils at the subject school
and any feeder school, but is silent with regard to
the ratio of signatures that must be from the each
school (a petition must have signatures from at least
one-half of the parents of a school, or one-half of a
combination of parents at the subject school and
feeder schools). The proposed permanent regulations
specifically state that "there is no specified ratio
required of signatures gathered at each school, rather
the total ratio of signatures gathered must meet the
one-half requirement." The proposed regulations also
provide that "a petition may not consist solely of
signatures of parents or legal guardians of pupils
attending the matriculating schools." This bill
specifies that the signatures on a petition must be
comprised of at least one-half of the total number of
parents at the subject school and feeder schools, and
requires any petition with signatures from parents at
a feeder school to include signatures from parents
representing at least 35% of the pupils at the subject
school. While one could argue that this threshold is
low, this provision is a compromise that resulted
after much deliberation amongst participants in the
workgroup and is a higher standard than is provided
for in the proposed permanent regulations.
5) Proposed permanent regulations . The SBE is in the
final stages of revising the permanent regulations for
the implementation of parent empowerment provisions.
There are several issues addressed in the proposed
permanent regulations that are included in this bill;
additionally, some suggested changes to the proposed
regulations ("optional proposed regulations") are
included in this bill, such as:
a) The requirement to provide documents
translated into languages other than English
(this bill requires translations for the petition
and a petition for a charter school with an
identified operator, while the proposed
regulations require translation only for the
initial notice to parents that the school is
eligible for a parent empowerment petition (and
any other notice from the school or district to
parent)).
AB 203
Page 9
b) The requirement that the petition include a
summary of specific elements of a charter
proposal.
c) The allowance of only one signature per
pupil.
d) The verification of signatures (this bill
requires the verification of signatures while
optional proposed regulations authorize the
verification of signatures).
e) The requirement that signature gatherers
disclose if they are paid (this bill requires the
petition to state that signature gatherers may be
paid and that the person signing the petition may
ask the signature gatherer if he or she is being
paid, and requires the gatherer to provide
disclosure if asked. The optional regulations
only require signature gatherers to disclose if
they are being paid).
f) The prohibition on signature gatherers from
being paid per signature.
g) The requirement that all parties involved in
the signature gathering process adhere to school
hours of operation, safety policies and sign in
procedures.
h) The requirement that the California
Department of Education provide a sample
petition.
i) The definition of parents or legal
guardians.
6) Choosing a charter school as the intervention model .
Parents initiating a petition may choose from among
five intervention models and must identify in the
petition which intervention is selected for
implementation at the subject school. The proposed
permanent regulations require the petition to include
specific information about the proposed charter school
if a specific charter operator is identified by the
parents, such as contact information, and a summary of
AB 203
Page 10
specific elements of the charter. This bill requires
a petition to include the summary of the charter and
the petition and charter summary to be translated if
at least 15% of the pupils at the school speak a
primary language other than English.
One of the optional provisions being considered for
inclusion in the proposed permanent regulations
requires a petition for conversion to a charter school
include a statement that parent advisory committees or
alternative programs provided by school districts will
not be available in the charter school, nor are
charter schools required to comply with parent waiver
requirements relative to bilingual education.
The first opportunity required by law for parents to
receive information about parent empowerment is at the
school site council meeting (required by this bill).
The CDE's website also contains information about
parent empowerment and the intervention models.
Parents should research the options available through
a parent petition, but should also be provided with
basic information prior to making a decision about
signing a petition to implement an intervention model
without dissuading parents from making any particular
decision.
Staff recommends an amendment to require information
provided to parents during the required schoolsite
council meeting to include a statement that charter
schools are not required to, but may choose to, meet
all requirements in law.
7) Information about schools where parents have filed a
petition . This bill requires the CDE to submit a
report to the Legislature and Governor that includes
information on the schools that implemented
interventions and the types of interventions
implemented at those schools. This report is not
required until the statutory cap of 75 petitions are
submitted. The state could benefit from having data
regarding the effects of school reform via parent
petition, in addition to which intervention was
implemented: How was the intervention implemented?
How did pupil achievement change? How do parents feel
about the results of the intervention? What, if any,
AB 203
Page 11
improvements need to be made to the process? At a
point in time when a parent petition is implemented,
the state may wish to consider collecting specific
data to evaluate the effects of the parent empowerment
program.
8) Translated sample petition . This bill requires the
CDE to provide on its website a sample petition that
is to be available in other languages if the primary
language is other than English for at least 15% of the
pupils in the school. It would be extremely
burdensome for the CDE to provide sample petitions in
every language that meets the 15% threshold in every
school in the state; nor is this the author's intent.
Therefore, staff recommends an amendment to instead
require the sample petition provided by the CDE to be
available in English and the top five languages
according to the CDE's Clearinghouse for Multilingual
Documents.
9) Race to the Top vs. School Improvement Grant . Current
law ties eligibility for the parent empowerment
program to schools not identified as persistently
lowest achieving under the Race to the Top (RTTT).
RTTT schools considered persistently lowest achieving
are required to implement one of the four intervention
options. The parent empowerment program is intended
to provide the same opportunity to certain schools not
on the RTTT list. California, however, did not
receive a RTTT grant. A persistently lowest achieving
schools list was developed for the School Improvement
Grant (SIG), another federal grant program targeting
low achieving schools. The SIG provides approximately
$68 million to LEAs with persistently lowest-achieving
schools as specified by the U.S. Department of
Education. Because there are more schools on the list
than funding available, this bill specifies that any
school not receiving funds under the SIG that meets
all other requirements (in Year 3 of Program
Improvement and an Academic Performance Index score
below 800) is eligible for the parent empowerment
program.
10) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly
Appropriations Committee, the prior version of bill
would impose one-time General Fund administrative
AB 203
Page 12
costs to the California Department of Education,
likely less than $125,000, to provide specified
information on its Internet Web site. This bill would
additionally impose potential, unknown; General Fund
(Proposition 98) state reimbursable mandated cost
pressure, likely less than $150,000 annually, to
school districts to conduct a verification process.
SUPPORT
Association of California School Administrators
California Association for Bilingual Education
Californians for Justice
Californians Together
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
Public Advocates
OPPOSITION
None on file.