BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 203
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 203 (Brownley)
As Amended September 2, 2011
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-26|(May 31, 2011) |SENATE: |24-13|(September 8, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-26|(September 9, | | | |
| | |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,
AB 203
Page 2
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:
"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
AB 203
Page 3
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 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
AB 203
Page 4
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,
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
AB 203
Page 5
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 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
AB 203
Page 6
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 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"This bill makes significant changes to the petition process
contained in the Parent Empowerment Act of 2010.
"The State Board of Education has spent the past year engaged in a
lengthy, contentious process to reach consensus among a diverse
group of stakeholders. The result is a set of regulations that
AB 203
Page 7
received unanimous support and address many of the changes proposed
by this bill.
"I believe that these regulations should have a chance to be
implemented and tested by local districts before considering any
further modifications."
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN:
0002961