BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 203 (Brownley)
Hearing Date: 08/15/2011 Amended: 08/15/2011
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Education 7-3
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 203 specifies and expands requirements in
several areas of Parent Empowerment Act (PEA) provisions,
including content and signature requirements for petitions,
petition review procedures, and meeting requirements. This bill
would require the Department of Education (CDE), within 90 days
after the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and State
Board of Education (SBE) have received 75 PEA petitions, to
submit a report to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees
of the Legislature and the Governor, as specified.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Signature verification Potentially significant
reimbursable mandate General
CDE administration Significant one-time costs;
likely >$50 General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Existing law (SB 4x5, Romero, Fifth Extraordinary Session,
Chapter 3, Statutes of 2010), established the PEA, which (among
other provisions) authorizes a parent of a pupil enrolled in a
school that is not identified as a "persistently
lowest-achieving school," as determined under the federal Race
to The Top program, but is subject to corrective action pursuant
to the federal No Child Left Behind Act and has an Academic
Performance Index score of less than 800, to submit an
application requesting a school district governing board to
implement specified education reform models. This is commonly
referred to as the "Parent Trigger" for school reform.
AB 203 (Brownley)
Page 1
Since its enactment, parents, LEA governing boards, the CDE, and
the SBE have struggled to implement the Parent Trigger due a
lack of statutory clarity. In September 2010, the SBE began
developing emergency regulations to address five key issues: (a)
how the Parent Trigger interacts with the current charter school
petition process; (b) signature requirements and verification
process; (c) identification of eligible schools and notification
of stakeholders; (d) notification timelines; and (e) allegations
of threats and harassment. The SBE has recently sent draft
permanent regulations out for public comment. Staff notes that
the CDE was never appropriated funding to implement the PEA, or
develop regulations. California did not receive Race to the Top
funding, and the CDE has been absorbing all workload required to
develop the regulations and implement other provisions of SB
4x5.
This bill seeks to clarify the Parent Trigger process and
requirements, in order to implement it in a way that avoids
litigation and creates a common understanding of the
requirements. However, to the extent that this bill requires
district governing boards that receive these petitions to
undertake a new activity or duty beyond what is explicitly
required by the existing PEA, it will create a reimbursable
state mandate on school districts.
The provisions of this bill are similar to the SBE's draft
regulations that are currently out for public comment. To the
extent that the bill's provisions are consistent with proposed
regulations, and if those draft regulations are adopted, the
mandate would likely be caused by the regulations, as
reimbursement of the costs associated with mandated activities
would be required as a result of the regulations even in the
absence of the bill. If the regulations are not adopted, or are
less extensive than this bill, the bill uniquely creates a new
mandate and its related costs.
The most significant difference between this bill and the
currently proposed SBE regulations is that this bill requires
signature verification for Parent Trigger petitions. The
proposed draft regulations authorize, but do not require, an LEA
that receives a petition to verify the petition signatures (that
they are authentic, that the child of the signer is enrolled in
the school or a feeder school, etc.). The regulations specify
AB 203 (Brownley)
Page 2
how the signatures must be verified, if the LEA chooses to
verify them as a determination of the petition's validity. This
bill specifically requires that the LEA verify the signatures,
and do so consistent with the requirements outlined in the bill.
It is in the best interest of the LEA to verify the petition
signatures, and most are likely to do so even in the absence of
a statutory requirement. However, by requiring verification,
this bill creates a reimbursable state mandate; the state would
have to reimburse LEAs for activities and costs necessary to
verify that the signatures meet the requirements.
This bill requires the CDE to provide sample petitions on its
website, translated into multiple languages. The department has
indicated that it would have to contract for these translations;
the CDE does not have existing staff qualified to complete them.
This bill, unlike the proposed regulations, also requires the
CDE to provide and update on its website a list of schools that
have implemented a PEA intervention, as well as other specified
information. These requirements are likely to result in
significant costs to the CDE. The CDE is also required to report
additional specified information to the Legislature, Governor,
and the SBE when it receives 75 PEA petitions. This workload
would be minor and consistent with CDE's related activities.