BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 203|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 203
Author: Brownley (D)
Amended: 8/30/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-3, 7/6/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Vargas
NOES: Runner, Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-3, 8/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Emmerson, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-26, 5/31/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Parent empowerment
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill specifies and expands requirements in
several areas of parent empowerment provisions, including
the contents of petitions, the signatures for petitions,
petition review procedures, and meeting requirements.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
2
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 implement one of
five interventions.
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 percent 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.
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
3
Existing 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.
2. Caps the number of schools that may be subject to parent
empowerment provisions to 75.
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
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 includes specified information.
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)
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
4
to include signatures of parents representing at least
35 percent 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 legal guardian signatures effective on
the date the petition is submitted.
Signature Gatherers
1. 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/she is
being paid.
2. Requires signature gatherers to disclose whether they
are being paid to collect signatures, if asked.
3. 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
1. 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 percent of
pupils who speak a primary language other than English).
2. 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.
3. If the petition requests the restart model, the petition
shall include the following statement:
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
5
"Because charter schools have flexibility under
existing law, the programs, policies, and committees
currently available to parents (for example: school
and district English Learner Advisory Councils and
parent waiver options under Sections 310 and 311 of
the Education Code) may or may not be available in a
charter school."
Schoolsite Council
1. 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.
2. 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 above.
Miscellaneous
1. 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.
2. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
provide both of the following on its Web site, 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
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
6
petitions must meet criteria required by statute and
regulation.
3. 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 that normally
matriculates into the middle or high school for which
a petition is submitted, as applicable.
4. 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.
5. Changes the reference to the source of federal funding
from the Race to the Top to the School Improvement Grant
(SIG) to reflect the fact that the state receives SIG
funds but not Race to the Top funds.
6. 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.
Comments
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 (CUSD) filed
a petition for the school to be converted into a charter
school operated by a charter organization. The CUSD
attempted to verify the signatures of the parents who
signed the petition to ensure the signatures were of
parents of pupils attending McKinley school. As a result,
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
7
the district required each parent who signed the petition
to appear in person with photo identification to verify
signatures.
The CUSD 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 CUSD 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/she signed
the petition.
On June 24, 2011, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled to
uphold CUSD'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).
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.
Petitions involving feeder schools . Current law 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
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
8
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 percent of the pupils at
the subject school. 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.
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:
1. 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]).
2. The requirement that the petition include a summary of
specific elements of a charter proposal.
3. The allowance of only one signature per pupil.
4. The verification of signatures (this bill requires the
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
9
verification of signatures while optional proposed
regulations authorize the verification of signatures).
5. 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/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).
6. The prohibition on signature gatherers from being paid
per signature.
7. The requirement that all parties involved in the
signature gathering process adhere to school hours of
operation, safety policies and sign in procedures.
8. The requirement that the CDE provide a sample petition.
9. The definition of parents or legal guardians.
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 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 percent 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
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
10
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 Web site 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.
Race to the Top vs. SIG . Current law ties eligibility for
the parent empowerment program to schools not identified as
persistently lowest achieving under the Race to the Top.
Race to the Top 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 Race to the Top list. California, however, did
not receive a Race to the Top grant. A persistently lowest
achieving schools list was developed for the SIG, another
federal grant program targeting low achieving schools. The
SIG provides approximately $68 million to local education
agencies with persistently lowest-achieving schools as
specified by the United States 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
11
Signature verification Potentially significant
reimbursable
General mandate
CDE administration Significant one-time costs;
likely >$50 General
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/31/11)
Association of California School Administrators
California Association for Bilingual Education
Californians for Justice
Californians Together
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
Los Angeles Unified School District
Public Advocates
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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
SBE 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-26, 5/31/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall,
Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
CONTINUED
AB 203
Page
12
John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, Fletcher, Beth
Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao,
Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell
CPM:kc 8/31/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED