BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 203
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 203 (Brownley)
As Amended September 9, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-26|(May 31, 2011) |SENATE: |24-13|(September 8, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Makes various changes to the Parent Empowerment
Program (PEP). Specifically, this bill :
1)Expresses the intent of the Legislature to provide parents
with adequate information to make an informed decision on
whether to sign a petition or initiate a petition and further
expresses the intent of the Legislature for local governing
boards to provide the information at a regularly scheduled
meeting.
2)Specifies that a school not identified as persistently lowest
achieving, or is identified as a persistently lowest-achieving
school but does not receive funding under the federal School
Improvement Grant (SIG) program, instead of the federal Race
to the Top (RTTT) program, shall be a school subject to the
PEP.
3)Specifies that the following shall apply to the PEP:
a) The petition, and, a summary of the charter petition if
the petition includes a specific charter operator, shall
meet the language requirements of Education Code (EC)
Section 48985;
b) If a petition includes a specific charter school
operator, the charter petition shall include, but is not
limited to, a summary of the charter elements described in
paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Education Code (EC)
Section 47605; and,
c) If a petition requests the restart model, the petition
shall include the following statement:
AB 203
Page 2
"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."
4)Specifies that all of the following shall apply with respect
to the petition signatures:
a) No more than one parent or legal guardian per pupil may
sign a petition;
b) A petition that includes signatures of parents or legal
guardians of pupils attending elementary or middle schools
that normally matriculate into a middle or high school
shall include signatures of parents or legal guardians
representing at least 35% of pupils attending the school
for which the petition is submitted;
c) If a district elects to verify the signatures on a
petition, both of the following shall apply:
i) The district of the elementary or middle schools
that normally matriculate into a middle or high school
for which a petition is submitted shall assist in
verifying the signatures of parents and legal guardians
of pupils who attend schools in its jurisdiction; and,
ii) Common verification documents that contain parent or
legal guardian signatures effective on the date the
petition is submitted shall be used for verifying
signatures;
d) If paid signature gatherers are being used, the petition
shall include a statement indicating that some signature
gatherers may be paid, and the individual being requested
to sign a petition may ask the signature gatherer if he or
she is being paid to collect signatures. If asked, the
signature gatherers shall disclose whether they are being
paid to collect signatures; and,
e) All parties involved in the signature gathering process
shall adhere to all schoolsite hours of operation, school
and local educational agency safety policies, and visitor
AB 203
Page 3
sign-in procedures.
5)Specifies that when the list of schools eligible for a parent
empowerment petition is made available by the California
Department of Education (CDE), the schoolsite council at each
of those schools shall provide, at its next scheduled meeting,
or at a meeting within 90 days, whichever is sooner,
information regarding the petition process, including the
intervention options available to parents and legal guardians
and the process for submitting a petition.
6)Requires a local educational agency (LEA) to include in its
notice of restructuring planning or restructuring status
pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 2001, a notice that the schoolsite council at a school
that has been identified as eligible for a petition is
required to hold an informational hearing on the petition
process.
7)Requires a local governing board to, at the public meeting
where a LEA designates in writing why it cannot implement the
option requested in the petition, allow parents and legal
guardians the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
petition or the written findings.
8)Requires the CDE to provide, on its Internet Web site,
information regarding the petition process, the five
intervention options that parents and legal guardians may
request, and a sample petition that can be used by interested
petitioners. Specifies that the petition shall be available
in English and the three most common languages other than
English, according to the CDE's Clearinghouse for Multilingual
Documents. Specifies that petitioners shall not be required
to use the sample petitions, but alternate petitions shall
contain all components required by law.
9)Specifies that the following terms have the following
meanings:
a) "Parents or legal guardians" mean the natural or
adoptive parents, legal guardians, or other persons holding
the right to make educational decisions for the pupil,
including but not limited to, foster parents who hold
rights to make educational decisions on the date the
petition is submitted; and,
AB 203
Page 4
b) "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" means one-half of
the total number of parents and legal guardians of pupils
who attend all of the following:
i) The school for which the petition is submitted; and,
ii) All of the elementary or middle schools that
normally matriculate into the elementary, middle or high
school for which a petition is submitted, as applicable.
The Senate amendments add the provisions regarding information
for parents, translation of the petition and sample petition,
process for signature gathering, and process for verification of
signatures.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, potential significant reimbursable mandate cost for
verification of signatures and one-time CDE administrative cost
of more than $50,000.
COMMENTS : In February 2009, the President signed into law the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which, among
others, established $4 billion for one-time State Incentive
Grants known as the RTTT. One of the eligibility requirements
for RTTT is identifying, including establishing a definition
for, persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state and
requiring these schools to implement one of four intervention
models that include replacing a principal and 50% of the staff;
converting a school to a charter school, or closing and
reopening a school under a charter school operator, a charter
management organization, or an education management
organization; closing a school and enrolling the students in
other higher achieving schools in the LEA; and replacing the
principal and developing strategies for school improvement.
The PEP, enacted by SB 4 X5 (Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of the
2009-10 Fifth Extraordinary Session, authorizes parents and
AB 203
Page 5
legal guardians at a school not identified as a persistently
lowest-achieving school under the RTTT, has an Academic
Performance Index (API) score of under 800 and is in program
improvement, to require a governing board to implement any of
the RTTT interventions or an alternative intervention authorized
by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) if at least one-half of
the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school,
or a combination of at least one-half of the parents or legal
guardians of the pupils attending the school and its elementary
or middle feeder schools, sign a petition making the request.
The PEP authorizes a governing board to choose another RTTT or
NCLB intervention only if it makes written findings in a
regularly scheduled public hearing of the reason it cannot
implement the option requested by parents and guardians, and
inform the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State
Board of Education (SBE) how the alternative intervention it has
selected has substantial promise of enabling the school to meet
adequate yearly progress. SB 4 X5 limits the number of
affected schools to the first 75 statewide; excludes schools
with an API of 800 or higher; and specifies that a LEA is not
required to comply with the petition request if the reason for
the request is not related to academic achievement or pupil
safety.
At the legislative hearings on SB 4 X5 last year, concerns were
expressed that some of the bill's provisions were unclear and
that more specific parameters were needed. In September 2010
and again in March 9, 2011, the SBE adopted temporary, emergency
regulations that provide minimal guidelines. The SBE has been
deliberating proposed permanent regulations for several months.
During several deliberations on this issue, questions were
raised as to whether statutory changes are needed to implement
some of the proposed regulations.
Thus far, only one petition has been submitted to a local
governing board. On December 7, 2010, a petition was submitted
to the Compton Unified School District, which was rejected by
the Compton governing board on February 22, 2011, after much
confusion and conflict over what petitioners and LEAs may or may
not, or are required or not required, to do. For example,
confusion over verification of signatures resulted in a lawsuit
as the law is silent on this issue. That lawsuit is still
pending, while the Los Angeles Superior Court recently found the
petition noncompliant with one component of the emergency
AB 203
Page 6
regulations.
The author states, "I have been monitoring the SBE and its
process of developing regulations. This bill was developed in
coordination with stakeholders also participating in the SBE
regulatory process and complements the SBE regulations by making
necessary clarifications that may need statutory protection and
addressing any unresolved issues."
This bill delinks eligible schools from persistently lowest
achieving schools under the RTTT and link, instead, to LEAs that
do not receive SIG funds, since California did not receive a
RTTT grant. This bill also establishes processes whereby
parents can receive information regarding the options for reform
and the petition process, clarifies the number of signatures
needed for petitions that include feeder schools, requires the
CDE to develop a sample petition translated into the top three
common languages spoken by pupils and their families, and
clarifies the signature gathering and verification processes.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0002428