BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 925 (Lara) - Charter Schools: Personnel Policies.
Amended: As Proposed to be AmendedPolicy Vote: Education 6-1
Urgency: No Mandate: See staff comments
Hearing Date: August 16, 2012
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: AB 925 requires charter school petitions to
contain a description of the personnel policies and procedures
that will govern charter school employees, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Potentially significant local costs to require charter
authorizers (most of which are school districts) to alter
charter renewal and petition criteria. These requirements
could constitute a reimbursable mandate because school
districts must review submitted charters, and those that
have authorized charter schools do not have a choice in
having to review a charter renewal, even if the charter was
granted before this bill's new restrictions were in effect.
Thus, imposing new procedures on that required process could
be determined to be a state mandate on school districts and
country offices of education (COEs).
Likely minor costs to the State Board of Education (SBE) to
develop evaluation standards and process for evaluating what
counts as a "reasonably comprehensive" description of a
charter school's personnel policies, in its role as a
charter authorizer.
Background: Existing law provides the process by which school
charters may be granted, revoked, and renewed. Existing law
authorizes anyone to develop, circulate, and submit a petition
to establish a charter school and requires charter developers to
collect certain signatures in support, as specified. Existing
law requires governing boards to grant a charter unless the
petition fails to meet one or more of the following:
1) The charter school presents an unsound educational program.
AB 925 (Lara)
Page 1
2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully
implement the program described in the petition.
3) The petition does not contain the number of required
signatures.
4) The petition does not contain an affirmation that it will
be nonsectarian in its programs and policies, shall not
charge tuition, shall not discriminate, and other
affirmations, as specified.
5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of the educational program, and fifteen other
specified areas of school operation, including various
employee and pupil rights policies.
Existing law requires the SBE, in its capacity as a charter
authorizer, to develop criteria to be used for the review and
approval of charter school petitions presented to the state
board. It specifies that the criteria shall address all elements
required for charter approval, and shall define "reasonably
comprehensive," for purposes of the required descriptions. (EC �
47605)
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)
Proposed Law: AB 925 adds a new element to the required
components of a charter school petition. It specifically
requires a reasonably comprehensive description of the personnel
policies and procedures of the school, including but not limited
to, those related to: jury duty; employee discipline; pregnancy,
bereavement, sick and vacation leave; and holidays.
Staff Comments: The true fiscal impact of this bill will be
determined by local decisions and actions. It is likely that
some school districts and COEs will have little difficulty
AB 925 (Lara)
Page 2
implementing its provision, while others will require (by actual
need or by interpretation of the requirements) substantial work
and significant expense. The fiscal impact on the state, in
turn, will be determined by the extent to which authorizers that
do incur significant new costs file successful mandate claims
seeking state reimbursement. While the bill's requirements
appear to be on charter schools, they have a ripple effect that
necessarily results in requirements on the authorizers.
The local costs incurred by existing charter schools have been
deemed by the Commission on State Mandates to not be
reimbursable state mandates because charter schools choose to
form and operate. Similarly, groups attempting to establish new
charter schools would bear these costs themselves. It is not
clear, however, if new requirements on school districts that
have authorized charter schools and are statutorily bound to
consider their renewal or revocation would be eligible for
reimbursement for any new activities that could result from this
legislation. Any school district or COE that may receive a new
charter proposal in the future would have to take on new
activities in anticipation of receiving charter proposals,
whether or not it ever does. Associated costs across school
districts can be aggregated in a mandate claim.
Charter petitions are typically very extensive documents which
lay out a charter's goals, the details of how its proposed
education program would be implemented, and descriptions of
various aspects of how the school itself will run (beyond simply
the classroom components). For example, a school's charter
petition must include
descriptions of what its closure procedures will be, in the
event that it has to close in the future.
While there are statutory requirements for what must be included
in a charter petition, those elements are subject to local
interpretation as to whether a proposed charter has met all of
the requirements. A school district receiving a charter petition
may deny a charter after determining, using its own standards
for evaluating the statutory components, that a charter does not
meet certain criteria, only to have the SBE decide that the
charter does meet that criteria because the SBE has evaluated
the same component in a different way.
AB 925 (Lara)
Page 3
Moreover, while statute specifies the grounds by which a charter
may be denied, it does not govern the topics that can be
discussed in the public meetings concerning the charter.
Especially in contentious charter school proposals, it is common
for a local authorizing board to have testimony and discussions
regarding numerous aspects of a charter petition. Charter
schools are statutorily bound to operate consistent with the
policies, procedures, and educational programs committed to in
the charter proposal; thus, numerous areas of the proposal can
be subject to scrutiny and discussion, and can potentially
become reasons for denial.
In order to implement this bill's provisions, charter
authorizers will individually have to decide what constitutes a
"reasonably comprehensive" description of a charter school's
personnel policies. It does not appear that, as some have
argued, the requirements of this bill could simply be fulfilled
by charter authorizers simply affirming that a "personnel
policies" section of a charter petition exists in the charter.
The bill requires that a description be reasonably
comprehensive, and specifically states that it be "including but
not limited to, those related to: jury duty; employee
discipline; pregnancy, bereavement, sick and vacation leave; and
holidays." By virtue of stating it is not limited to those
areas, the language implies that the authorizer would have a
hand in determining what else must be included.
At a minimum, authorizers would have to formally develop
criteria for evaluating whether a charter has included
reasonably comprehensive descriptions of each of the areas
identified. It is likely that authorizers will need to develop
different standards for proposed charters and existing charters,
since existing charters will already have actual personnel
policies in place. As a practical matter, charter authorizers
will also need to communicate their expectations for fulfilling
the provisions to existing charter school administrators (who
will need to include new information in renewals), and
individuals proposing new charters.
This bill changes the work of charter petitioners; new charter
schools will have to commit to personnel policies very early in
a school's planning process. Because specific personnel policies
(such as the amount of employee vacation and sick leave) will be
part of the petition itself, a charter school will be bound to
AB 925 (Lara)
Page 4
those policies when it actually opens the school. If the charter
finds that it has to make substantial revisions before the
school opens, it is unclear how that situation would be handled
by the authorizer. Generally, material revisions necessitate
additional hearings, adding costs and workload to the authorizer
and the charter.
The workload burden on existing charters to comply with this
section would be less onerous than for new charters, because a
functioning school will already have the personnel policies in
place that are required to be described in the document.
Depending on the authorizer, the requirement might be fulfilled
by submitting a personnel/employee handbook as part of the
charter petition at the time of renewal. Such a document used by
the charter school is likely to be detailed and written in plain
language for employees' use. As previously noted, however, the
exact requirements will be determined by the authorizer.
Some charter management organizations have expressed concern
that this bill will require them to add personnel policy
descriptions to their existing charter petitions immediately,
that such an action will constitute a "material revision", and
that they will then have to be re-evaluated by their authorizers
for materially revising their charters as an effect of this
legislation. The bill does not appear to require that action. In
the event that a charter is reporting a material revision (in
another area) to the charter petition or is submitting a revised
petition for renewal, it will need to include reasonably
comprehensive descriptions of its personnel policies and will
subsequently be bound by them unless they are formally changed.
Because a number of charter schools will either be submitting
material revisions this year, or will be up for renewal
consideration, some charters and many school districts will need
to act very quickly to develop their new policies and procedures
for evaluation, which exacerbates the workload. It is possible
that districts will contract out the initial work, and those
contracting costs are likely to be reimbursable in a successful
mandate claim.
The effects of this bill's requirements on individual charters
and authorizers will vary. It is unlikely that any good faith
response to this requirement by an existing charter school would
uniquely result in a revocation; revocation statutes are much
clearer and more stringent than authorization statutes. It is
AB 925 (Lara)
Page 5
possible that a new charter petition failing to meet the new
requirement, to the authorizer's standard, could be denied on
that basis and would have to begin an appeals process.
To the extent that the new criteria for eligibility result in
denying more charter renewals, there may be additional costs to
the state if the students attending those charter schools
transfer to traditional district schools. Charter schools are
funded less than district schools and, while funding for
district school varies by district, charter schools are
typically funded at approximately $395 (7%) less per pupil than
district schools.
Proposed Author Amendments: Specify that the implementation date
for new charter schools will be January 1, 2013. Require an
existing charter school to comply with the new requirements upon
the date of its next regularly scheduled charter renewal.