BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1172
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1172 (Mendoza) - As Amended: March 31, 2011
SUBJECT : Charter schools: petition for establishment: decision
to grant or deny: appeal.
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the charter school approval, renewal
and appeal process. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that a chartering authority may deny a charter
petition if it makes a written factual finding that the
charter school would have a negative fiscal impact on the
school district.
2)Specifies that a negative fiscal impact on a school district
may only be established, and is deemed to be established, if
any of the following conditions are met:
a) The school district has received a qualified or negative
financial certification.
b) The school district demonstrates fiscal distress through
the application of the standards and criteria for the
development of annual budgets and the management of
subsequent expenditures from annual budgets.
c) The school district applies for an emergency
apportionment or loan, or has received an emergency
apportionment or loan and is operating under the oversight
of a state administrator or trustee.
d) The school district, due to the declining enrollment of
pupils, is in the process of closing a school that a
charter school petition has identified as the proposed site
for its charter school.
3)Authorizes a county board of education (CBE) to consider an
appeal from a charter school petitioner, after the petition is
denied by the governing board of a school district, only if
the appeal alleges that the governing board committed a
procedural violation in reviewing the petition; requires the
CBE to remand the petition to the school district governing
AB 1172
Page 2
board to correct the procedural violation, if it determines
the governing board committed a violation; and, specifies that
if a CBE fails to act on an appeal within 120 days, the
decision of the governing board shall be subject to judicial
review.
4)Deletes authority for a district authorized charter school to
submit a petition appeal to the State Board of Education
(SBE), if a CBE denies the petition; and deletes authority for
a district authorized charter school to submit a revocation
appeal to the SBE, if a CBE denies the appeal.
5)Authorizes the SBE to consider an appeal from a charter school
petitioner who will serve pupil populations who are
traditionally served by a CBE, after the petition is denied by
the CBE, only if the appeal alleges that the CBE committed a
procedural violation in reviewing the petition; requires the
SBE to remand the petition to the school district governing
board to correct the procedural violation, if it determines
the governing board committed a violation; and, specifies that
if the SBE fails to act on an appeal within 120 days, the
decision of the CBE shall be subject to judicial review.
6)Deletes the authorization for a CBE to approve a charter
petition for a countywide charter school (unless the charter
school will serve pupil populations who are traditionally
served by a CBE); deletes the authorization for the SBE to
approve a charter petition for a statewide charter school;
and, specifies that existing countywide and statewide charter
schools may be granted a renewal by the district in which the
school is located.
7)Specifies that a charter school authorized by a school
district that is not granted renewal may appeal the decision
to the CBE and the CBE may reverse the revocation decision and
remand the request for renewal to the school district; and,
specifies that a charter school authorized by a CBE that is
not granted renewal may appeal the decision to the SBE and the
SBE may reverse the revocation decision and remand the request
for renewal to the CBE.
8)Requires the Legislative Analyst Office, by July 1, 2016, to
submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor on the
best practices and lessons learned from charter school
innovation and distribute it to all local educational
AB 1172
Page 3
agencies.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a county board of education or the SBE to
approve or deny a petition for a charter school to operate
independently from the existing school district structure as a
method of accomplishing, among other things, improved student
learning, increased learning opportunities for all students,
with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for
students who are identified as academically low achieving,
holding charter schools accountable for meeting measurable
student outcomes, and providing the schools with a method to
change from rule-based to performance-based accountability
systems.
2)Authorizes a charter school to be granted for not more than
five years, and to be granted one or more renewals for five
years. Requires the renewals and material revisions of the
charter to be based upon the same standards as the original
charter petition.
3)Establishes a process for the submission of a petition for the
establishment of a charter school. Authorizes a petition,
identifying a single charter school to operate within the
geographical boundaries of the school district, to be
submitted to the school district. Authorizes, if the
governing board of a school district denies a petition for the
establishment of a charter school, the petitioner to elect to
submit the petition to the CBE. Authorizes, if the CBE denies
the charter, the petitioner to submit the petition to the SBE.
Authorizes a school that serves a countywide service to
submit the charter petition directly to the CBE.
4)Authorizes a school that serves a statewide purpose to go
directly to the SBE and specifies that the SBE shall not
approve a petition for the operation of a state charter school
unless the SBE makes a finding, based on substantial evidence,
that the proposed state charter school will provide
instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot be
provided by a charter school operating in only one school
district, or only in one county.
5)Authorizes a charter school to go directly to the CBE for
AB 1172
Page 4
authorization if the charter school plans to operate at one or
more sites within the geographic boundaries of the county and
that provides instructional services that are not generally
provided by a county office of education. Specifies that a
county board of education may only approve a countywide
charter if it finds that the educational services to be
provided by the charter school will offer services to a pupil
population that will benefit from those services and that
cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in
only one school district in the county.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill authorizes a district to deny a charter
school petition if the school would have a negative fiscal
impact on the district, limits the role of CBEs and the SBE in
the charter school appeal process, deletes the authorization for
a charter school to present a petition directly to a CBE unless
the school will serve pupils who are traditionally served by the
CBE, deletes the authorization for a charter school to present a
petition directly to the SBE, and requires the LAO to report to
the Legislature by July 1, 2016.
According to the California Department of Education (CDE), the
2009-10 count of operating charter schools is 815 with student
enrollment of more than 323,000 in the state. This includes
three statewide benefit charters and 20 SBE-approved charters.
Some charter schools are new, while others are conversions from
existing public schools. Charter schools are part of the
state's public education system and are funded by public
dollars. A charter school is usually created or organized by a
group of teachers, parents and community leaders, a
community-based organization, or an education management
organization. Charter schools are authorized by school district
boards, CBEs or the SBE. A charter school is generally exempt
from most laws governing school districts, except where
specifically noted in the law. Specific goals and operating
procedures for the charter school are detailed in an agreement
(or "charter") between the sponsoring board and charter
organizers.
According to the author, implementation of the charter school
program has strayed from its original mission. Without proper
oversight, charter schools may not necessarily innovate or share
their effective innovation with regular schools. Currently, a
AB 1172
Page 5
charter school operator can go to the state, the county, or a
local school district for approval of a charter school petition.
The various entities have different capacities to oversee
charters. Limiting which entities can approve charter petitions
will help refocus the program. A catastrophic financial
situation can be exacerbated by charter proposals within school
districts, which often do not have the capacity to monitor the
charter's academic or fiscal accountability. The legislature
intended charter schools to serve as laboratories of innovation
and to provide lessons that show all schools how to move public
education forward on a path of constant improvement. AB 1172
(Mendoza) seeks to bring the charter school program back to its
roots and the legislative intent.
Countywide & Statewide Charters . This bill will delete the
SBE's ability to approve statewide benefit charter schools, and
delete the ability of CBEs to approve countywide charter schools
unless the charter school plans to serve pupil populations that
would otherwise be served by the CBE. To date, the SBE has
authorized three charter schools under the provisions of the
statewide benefit charter school law, and under this bill,
schools authorized by a CBE or the SBE may continue to operate
until their next renewal, at which time they must apply to their
local school district for renewal. According to the sponsor of
the bill, this bill limits the granting of charter schools to
school districts with locally elected school boards for schools
within the boundaries of the school district. Decisions to
establish charter schools should be limited to the locally
elected school board, and should not be devolved to appointed or
elected boards, such as CBEs or the SBE, that are not
immediately connected to and accountable to the school
community. The committee should consider whether limiting
charter approvals to school districts will unnecessarily limit
the charter approval process and limit the ability of charter
schools to seek approval.
According to the California Teachers Association (CTA), an
example of the SBE's abuse in granting state-wide benefit
charter schools without regard to the current parameters of the
statute is currently the subject of litigation in CSBA & CTA vs.
SBE; Aspire Charter Schools . The suit was filed when the SBE
approved Aspire's statewide benefit charter petition despite the
fact that the petition offered no evidence that the school "will
provide instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot
be provided by a charter school operating only in one district,
AB 1172
Page 6
or in one county." This directly violated Education code
47605.8. The trial court found that the petition complied with
the statutory requirements, but the Court of Appeal, First
District disagreed and held that Education code 47612.1 required
a petition for a statewide charter must establish that the
benefits it provides cannot be provided by a charter school
chartered by a local school district. Statewide benefit charter
applications require a finding that the same services offered by
the charter cannot be provided through a locally chartered
school.
Charter School Petitions & Appeals . If a charter school
petition is denied by a school district, this bill will delete
the CBE's ability to approve the charter school. This bill
proposes, instead, to allow a CBE to consider an appeal only if
the appeal alleges that the school district governing board
committed a procedural violation and if the CBE finds that the
district board committed a procedural violation, the CBE may
return the petition to the school district to correct the
violation. According to the sponsor of the bill, by allowing
the SBE or the CBE to authorize charter schools despite having
been thoroughly vetted through the locally elected bodies, the
ability for local communities to set local needs and goals is
undermined. The committee should consider whether this will
unnecessarily limit the opportunity for charter petitioners to
seek approval.
The bill limits the role of the SBE in the revocation appeal
process for charter schools that are not renewed by a school
district. The bill also specifies that when a revocation appeal
is considered by the CBE (or the SBE for a county authorized
charter), that the appeal body shall reinstate the revocation
and remand the decision back to the authorizing body. The
author's intent is to mirror the bill's language for charter
petition appeals, and limit the scope of the appeal to
procedural violations only and then remand the revocation appeal
back to the authorizing body. Due to a drafting error, this is
not clear in the bill as currently drafted. If the committee
passes this bill, they may wish to correct this drafting error.
Arguments in Support : According to the California Teachers
Association, AB 1172 proposes to enhance the Charter Schools Act
of 1992 in three key areas:
1. Better conform the act to the original intent of the
legislature;
AB 1172
Page 7
2. Add financial hardship as one reason a school district
can deny a charter petition;
3. Increase charter schools' financial transparency and
academic accountability by allowing only locally elected
school boards to create new charters, with an exception
only if the charter school will serve pupils for whom the
county office of education would otherwise be responsible
for providing direct education and related services.
The promise of charter schools has been the freedom to innovate
and experiment in exchange for accountability and results.
Unfortunately, this promise is yet to be met. Recent reports of
charter school performance, enrollment trends, as well as audits
and investigations of charter schools have raised serious
concerns about whether California is meeting the goals of the
Charter Schools Act of 1992. In recent years, too, would-be
charter school operators have found ways to secure approval for
their charters by bypassing locally elected school boards.
AB 1172 addresses these problems. Among other things, AB 1172
would increase financial transparency and academic
accountability, by limiting approval charter school petitions to
those with the capacity to implement effective oversight. This
measure would ensure that these decisions are made generally by
elected school board members who can be held accountable by
their constituents. Additionally, the bill requests a study by
the LAO about best practices at charter schools to foster the
"seeding" of best practices employed at charter schools to other
charter institutions and other public schools.
Arguments in Opposition : According to the California Charter
Schools Association, AB 1172 would represent a wholesale
restructuring of central elements of the California Charter
Schools Act. The impact will be to pull the rug out from under
the entire charter school movement. AB 1172 would also
eliminate due process for charter school petitioners. It allows
an appeal to the county board of education if the petition is
denied but the only appeal right is if the school district
commits a procedural violation. Not only is procedural
violation not defined but a plain reading of the words concludes
that if the petition is denied on substantive grounds, the
petitioner has no right to appeal. So, if a school district
manufactures a substantive reason to deny the petition but
follows every procedure diligently, the petitioner would have no
basis for an appeal.
AB 1172
Page 8
On top of that, the county board has authority only to remand
the petition back to the school district. The school district
has no responsibility to reach a different decision. That is a
hollow appeals process. The due process is minimized even
further by eliminating the petitioners' appeal rights to the
state board completely.
Finally, AB 1172 repeals the state board's authority to approve
statewide benefit charter schools. These are schools that
operate in multiple localities that serve interests of a broader
array of students than those in a discrete geographical region.
This eliminates a rarely initiated but very effective way to
scale a successful charter school model without being forced to
submit individual petitions to multiple school districts.
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the bill be amended to
delete the sections changing the charter school petition and
revocation appeal process and instead reinstate the existing
charter appeal process, reinstate the county-wide charter
approval process, and reinstate the statewide benefit charter
approval process.
Previous legislation : AB 2320 (Swanson) from 2010, which failed
passage in the Senate Education Committee, would have added
requirements to the charter school petition process and
eliminated the ability of the SBE to approve charter school
petition appeals.
AB 2954 (Liu) from 2006, would have added negative fiscal impact
to the reasons that a school district may cite as the basis for
refusing to initially approve a charter school, but prohibited
this as a basis to deny renewal of a charter. Further, the bill
authorized a school district to require that a charter school
describe how it will provide free and reduced price meals to
eligible pupils as a condition for initial charter approval.
The bill was vetoed by the Governor with the following veto
message:
"While I understand the plight of school districts faced
with fiscal challenges of declining enrollment and other
management issues, I cannot condone allowing them to deny
parents and students their rights to petition for the
establishment of a charter school. In essence, this bill
would grant school districts the authority to punish
AB 1172
Page 9
charter petitioners because of problems caused by their own
fiscal management issues or their unwillingness to make
tough decisions, or both.
In addition, allowing school districts to require, as a
condition of approval, that the petition describe how the
charter school will provide free and reduced-priced meals
to eligible pupils would simply provide districts with
another pretext on which to deny a charter. Charter
schools are generally exempt from most laws and regulations
governing school districts and they should continue to be
exempt from this one.
In sum, this bill runs counter to the intent of charter
schools, which is to provide parents and students with
other options within the public school system and to
stimulate competition that improves the quality not only of
charter schools, but of non-charter schools as well."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Teachers Association
United Teachers Los Angeles
Whittier School District (Previous version)
Opposition
ACE Charter Schools
Bullis Charter School
California Charter Schools Association
Capistrano Connections Academy
Central California Connections Academy
Downtown College Prep
EdVoice
Environmental Charter Schools
Gateway Community Charters
Golden Valley Charter School of Sacramento
Guajome Park Academy
International Charter School of La Mirada
KIPP: Bay Area Schools
Lewis Center for Educational Research
Liberty Charter School
Literacy First Charter School
AB 1172
Page 10
Paragon Collegiate Academy
Rocketship Education
San Jose Charter School Consortium
Summit Public Schools
Ventura Charter School
Hundreds of Individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087