BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 925
AUTHOR: Lara
AMENDED: April 26, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 22, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Charter schools: Employees.
SUMMARY
This bill requires charter schools to comply with additional
specified statutes governing school employees.
BACKGROUND
Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, provides for
the establishment of charter schools in California for the
purpose, among other things, of improving student learning
and expanding learning experiences for pupils who are
identified as academically low achieving. Existing law
declares that charter schools are part of the public school
system as defined in Article IX of the California
Constitution and are "under the exclusive control of the
officers of the public schools."
(Education Code � 47601 et. seq.)
Existing law requires charter schools to comply with the
provisions of its charter and provisions of the Education
Code that apply to charter schools. Charter schools are
exempt from most laws governing school districts except where
specifically noted, including establishing minimum age for
public school attendance, specified building code
regulations, availability of coverage in a public retirement
system, and the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund. (EC �
47610)
Existing law provides a comprehensive framework of rights and
benefits for classified school employees. (EC � 45100 et
seq.)
Existing law requires charter schools to comply with the
AB 925
Page 2
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) commencing with
Section 3540 of the Government Code. Current law requires a
charter school to declare in its charter whether the school
will be its own employer, or whether the public school
district where the charter is located will be the employer
for purposes of EERA. Current law specifies that if the
charter does not specify that it shall comply with those
statutes and regulations governing public school employers
that establish and regulate tenure or a merit or civil
service system, the scope of representation for that charter
school shall also include discipline and dismissal of charter
school employees; specifies that the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) shall take into account the Charter
Schools Act of 1992 when deciding cases brought before it
related to charter schools; and, specifies that the approval
or a denial of a charter petition by a granting agency shall
not be controlled by collective bargaining agreements nor
subject to review or regulation by PERB. (EC � 47611.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Specifies that all charter school employees:
a) Have the right to inspect, review, and comment
on personnel records.
(EC � 44031)
b) Must be granted a leave of absence for jury
duty. (EC � 44037)
2) Requires a charter school to comply with all of the
following statutes that govern classified employees in
school districts that:
a) Define terms that apply to classified
employees (EC � 45190)
b) Deem classified employees to be employed for
12 months during the year, regardless of the number
of months of paid service; and requires classified
employees to be paid additional wages for any
additional work assignments. (EC � 45102)
c) Require permanent status for employees within
AB 925
Page 3
one year of employment; specifies that a permanent
employee is subject to disciplinary action only for
cause and has all applicable due process rights for
disciplinary action, as specified. (EC � 45113)
d) Require classified employees to receive
written layoff notices on or before April 29, when
a specially funded program ends; and requires
written layoff notices not less than 45 days prior
to layoff as a result of a bona fide reduction of
service. (EC � 45117)
e) Specify certain pay exceptions for classified
employees who are on sick leave for longer periods
of time. (EC � 45195)
f) Authorize classified employees to be granted
leaves of absence, vacations, and pregnancy leave,
with or without pay, as specified. (EC � 45190)
g) Require classified employees to be entitled to
specified leaves of absence for industrial
accidents, bereavement leave, and, require certain
leave balances to be transferred when a classified
employee begins working for another government
entity. (EC � 45192)
h) Authorize a deduction in wages for disability
insurance.
(EC � 45196.5)
3) Requires a charter school employee employed in a
position that would be a classified position in a school
district to earn sick leave and vacation time based on
time served. Requires charter schools to establish
policies for paid sick leave and vacation time.
4) Requires a charter school employee employed in a
position that would be a classified position in a school
district to annually receive 11 paid holidays that shall
be comparable to the paid holidays provided to the
classified employees of school districts.
STAFF COMMENTS
AB 925
Page 4
1) Need for the bill : According to the sponsor, the
California School Employees Association, the Education
Code provides classified employees in a school district
with a comprehensive set of employment rights and
benefits that are not afforded employees of independent
charter schools, because charter schools are statutorily
exempt from most provisions of the code. The sponsor
maintains that while employees who work at charters
where the school district is the employer have the same
employment rights and benefits as other classified
employees in the district, classified employees who work
at independent charter schools "have no guarantee of
sick leave, vacation leave, or holiday leave nor do they
have specified rights relating to their job including a
job classification with defined duties, seniority
rights, layoff rights, or bumping rights." The author's
office also notes that these employees do not have
protections against the outsourcing of classified work,
which could enable the employer to outsource services
that are usually performed by classified employees in
traditional public schools.
Employees choose to become part of a charter school, often
because of less tangible benefits involving
opportunities to be part of a new school, or greater
flexibility in the workplace. By subjecting charter
schools to new requirements that govern their employees,
this bill could limit the ability of charter schools to
operate autonomously from school district structures as
the Legislature intended in enacting the Charter Schools
Act. Could it also limit the ability of a charter
school to implement innovative staffing designs for the
learning community? On the other hand, by having
greater uniformity in personnel policies between charter
schools and school districts, this bill could make it
easier for charter schools to attract experienced and
effective classified staff and make it easier for staff
to return to district employment if they later chose to
do so.
2) Independent vs. dependent . According to the California
Department of Education (CDE), there are approximately
910 active charter schools. Although the Charter
Schools Act does not recognize the terms "dependent" and
"independent" when referencing charter schools, these
AB 925
Page 5
terms are often used to describe the relationship of a
charter school to a district. According to the
California School Boards Association, "dependent"
charters are considered charter schools that have been
created by the district board and are an integral part
of the districts portfolio of schools. "Independent"
charter schools are typically those charters that are
formed by parents, teachers, community members or
charter management organizations. The sponsor of this
bill describes a "dependent" charter school as one where
the school district is the employer of the classified
employees and describes an "independent" charter as one
in which the charter school is the employer, noting that
most independent charter schools are run by nonprofit
corporations.
3) Equity ? The stated intent of this bill is to provide
equity for classified employees working in independent
charter schools. Yet this bill establishes statutory
employee protections for classified employees only,
creating the potential for employment rights and
benefits between classified employees and certificated
staff to be different and potentially inequitable. Is
this fair? By granting specified rights to classified
employees, this bill could create inequality among
employees within a charter school that might affect the
culture and climate of the learning community and
potentially, student learning.
4) Fiscal effect . According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, this bill could create General
Fund/Proposition 98 cost pressure of at least $16.5
million to charter schools to comply with specified
requirements related to classified employees. Although
the Legislative Counsel's digest notes that this bill
contains mandated costs, staff notes that according to a
May 2006 decision by the Commission on State Mandates,
charter schools are not eligible to claim mandate
reimbursements because they are "voluntarily" created.
The California Charter Schools Association has noted
that while charter schools meet some of the requirements
of this bill, the remaining requirements would have
significant cost impacts that could result in charter
schools redirecting funds away from the classroom.
Could this bill result in fewer classified positions
available in a charter school?
AB 925
Page 6
5) Related and prior legislation .
SB 433 (Liu) would require charter schools to comply with
state statutes governing the suspension and expulsion of
pupils. This measure was heard in this Committee on May
4, 2011 and was held at the request of the author.
SB 645 (Simitian) establishes new academic criteria for
charter school renewal. This measure was passed as
amended by this Committee on May 4, 2011 on a 7-1 vote.
AB 86 (Mendoza) expands signature requirements for charter
school petitions to include classified employees. This
measure was passed by this Committee on a 6-2 vote on
June 15, 2011.
AB 360 (Brownley) makes charter schools subject to the Ralph
M. Brown Act or Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, depending
on the entity operating the school. Also subjects
charters to the California Public Records Act and the
Political Reform Act. This measure is pending before
this Committee.
AB 401 (Ammiano) limits, until January 1, 2017, the total
number of charter schools authorized to operate is at
1450 and prohibits charter schools operated by a private
entity from employing relatives, as specified. This
measure is pending before this Committee.
AB 440 (Brownley) establishes various academic and fiscal
accountability standards related to charter schools.
This measure is pending before this Committee.
AB 1034 (Gatto) requires charter schools to report specified
information relating to pupil demographics and academic
progress, requires charter schools to collect data
regarding pupils who transfer out of the school, and
modifies existing law regarding charter school
admissions. This measure is pending before this
Committee.
AB 1741 (Coto, 2010), would have required charter schools
that expect 15% of their pupil population to be English
AB 925
Page 7
learners to meet additional petition requirements
relating to the education of those students. This bill
was heard and passed as amended by the Senate Education
Committee and was subsequently held in the Senate Rules
Committee.
AB 1982 (Ammiano, 2010), which would have limited until
January 1, 2017, the total number of charter schools
authorized to operate at 1450 and prohibits charter
schools operated by a private entity from employing
relatives, as specified. This bill was heard by the
Senate Education Committee and failed passage on a 3-4
vote.
AB 1991 (Arambula, 2010) would have authorized charter school
renewals to be granted for five to ten years. This bill
failed passage in the Assembly Education Committee.
AB 2363 (Mendoza, 2010) would have required charter school
petitioners to obtain the signatures of half of the
number of teachers and half of the number of classified
employees, as specified. This bill was heard by the
Senate Education Committee and failed passage on a 2-6
vote.
AB 2320 (Swanson, 2010) would have added new requirements to
the charter school petition process, deletes the
authority of a charter school petitioner to submit a
petition to a County Board of Education to serve pupils
that would otherwise be served by the County Office of
Education, and eliminates the ability of the State Board
of Education to approve charter school petition appeals.
This bill was heard by the Senate Education Committee
and failed passage on a 2-3 vote.
AB 572 (Brownley, 2009) would have required charter schools
to comply with the Brown Act open meeting law, the
California Public Records Act, and the Political Reform
Act. This bill was passed by the Senate Education
Committee and subsequently vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
ABX5 8 (Brownley, Fifth extraordinary session of 2009) would
have deleted the cap on charter schools and would have
made other changes to provisions governing audit and
fiscal standards, and the authorization, renewal and
AB 925
Page 8
revocation of charter schools. The Senate Education
Committee hearing for this bill was canceled at the
request of the author and the bill was subsequently held
by the Committee.
SUPPORT
California School Employees Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Teachers Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
OPPOSITION
ACE Charter Schools
California Charter Schools Association
Celerity Troika Charter School
Charter Schools Development Center
Coastal Grove Charter School
Gompers Preparatory Academy
King-Chavez Neighborhood of Schools
Lewis Center for Educational Research
Monarch Learning Center
Monterey Bay Charter School
Rocklin Academy
Santa Rosa Charter School