BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1811
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 28, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1811 (Bonilla) - As Amended: March 5, 2012
SUBJECT : Charter schools: funding
SUMMARY : Changes the method for computing the general purpose
entitlement for a charter high school that was under the
jurisdiction of a unified school district before it converted to
charter status. Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes that, for a charter high school that was under the
jurisdiction of a unified school district before it converted
to charter status, the revenue limit funding for the pupils in
grades 9 to 12, inclusive, of the charter school shall be
equal to the revenue limit per average daily attendance (ADA)
received by the district of which it was a part.
2)Provides that, if the district's revenue limit funding per ADA
increases or decreases, the charter school's revenue limit
funding per ADA shall be adjusted proportionately.
EXISTING LAW provides for a general purpose entitlement and a
categorical block grant for charter schools. The general
purpose entitlement is based on the statewide average revenue
limits for elementary school districts, unified school
districts, and high school districts. The general purpose
entitlement provides charter schools with the following amounts
of funding:
1)The statewide average elementary school district revenue limit
per ADA multiplied by the ADA in kindergarten and grades 1
through 5, inclusive.
2)The statewide average unified school district revenue limit
per ADA multiplied by the ADA in grades 6, 7, and 8.
3)The statewide average high school district revenue limit per
ADA multiplied by the ADA in grades 9, 10, 11, and 12.
The categorical block is based on the statewide average amount
of funding per ADA for specified categorical programs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill addresses a problem that occurs when a
AB 1811
Page 2
charter school serving pupils in any of grades 9 through 12,
inclusive, is established in a unified school district that is
not a basic aid district and that has not converted all of its
high schools to charter schools. Specifically, because the
charter school's general purpose entitlement is funded from the
school district's revenue limit, the unified school district
generally ends up subsidizing a portion of the charter school's
general purpose entitlement. The formula works as follows:
1)For purposes of computing its revenue limit apportionment, the
unified district adds the ADA of the students in the charter
school that would otherwise attend a district school to its
own ADA.
2)The district's revenue limit apportionment is calculated by
multiplying its revenue limit per ADA times the ADA computed
in step 1.
3)The charter school's general purpose entitlement is computed
by multiplying the statewide average revenue limit for high
school district by the charter school ADA.
4)The amount computed in step 3 is subtracted from the amount
computed in step 2. This amount becomes the district's
revenue limit apportionment.
This methodology essentially results in the unified school
district transferring to the charter high school a greater
amount per ADA than the district receives per ADA in its revenue
limit apportionment. This is because the charter school general
purpose entitlement per ADA is greater than the district's
revenue limit per ADA. For example, information provided by
the author's office indicates that the revenue limit for the Mt.
Diablo Unified School District is $5,207, but the district must
transfer $6,148 per ADA to a proposed charter school-a
difference of $941 per ADA.
At one time, high school charter schools were funded directly by
the state at the high school district revenue limit rate.
However, this created an incentive for unified districts to
"game the system" by converting their existing high schools to
charter schools in order to get the higher level of funding.
This was addressed in 2005 by SB 319 (Migden). That bill
provided that, for conversion high schools in unified school
districts (other than basic aid districts), the charter school's
general purpose entitlement per ADA be based on the level of
general purpose funding provided to the school by the district
in the year prior to conversion. Once that base level of
AB 1811
Page 3
funding is established, SB 319 required that it be increased
each year for the cost-of-living adjustments and other revenue
limit increases that are provided in the Budget Act.
However, SB 319 did not provide for a decrease in the charter
school entitlement when revenue limit funding is reduced. As a
result, the transfer of funds from unified school districts to
their high school charter schools remained the same, even as
district funding was reduced. This was addressed in 2009 by SB
191 (Wright). That bill provided that the formula established
by SB 319 would not apply to conversion charter schools in
unified school districts after January 1, 2010. Instead,
general purpose funding for such schools is governed by the
pre-SB 319 formula, with the funding coming from the district,
causing the problem described above.
This bill provides that general purpose funding for conversion
high school charter schools per ADA in unified school districts
shall be equal to the revenue limit per ADA of the district of
which it was a part, and that this amount shall be increased or
decreased each year consistent with increases or decreases in
revenue limit funding. This may swing the pendulum too far in
the opposite direction-instead of the district subsidizing the
charter school's general purpose entitlement, the charter school
would be underfunded relative to the statewide average high
school revenue limit.
Staff recommends that the bill be amended to return to the
funding model contained in SB 319 (Migden), which based the
charter school's general purpose apportionment on the certified
level of funding provided to the charter school in the year
prior to conversion. This would provide a balance between
recognizing the higher cost of providing a high school-level
education while avoiding a severe negative financial impact on
the unified district. Staff further recommends that this amount
be adjusted each year to account for increases and decreases in
revenue limit funding.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California School Administrators
An individual
AB 1811
Page 4
Opposition
California Association of Charter School Advocates
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087