BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 645
AUTHOR: Simitian
AMENDED: April 25, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 4, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Charter schools: charter renewal.
SUMMARY
This bill establishes new criteria for charter school renewal
and makes the criteria inoperative if the State Board of
Education adopts an academic accountability system for charter
schools, as specified.
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. A charter school may be authorized
by a school district, a county board of education, or the State
Board of Education, as specified. (Education Code � 47601 et.
seq.)
Existing law authorizes a charter to be granted for not more
than five years and specifies that each renewal shall be for
five years. Existing law requires the renewal and any material
revision of the provisions of the charter to be made only with
the approval of the authority that granted the charter. (EC �
47607)
Existing law specifies that after a charter school has been in
operation for four years, it shall meet at least one of the
following criteria in order to be renewed:
(1) Attainment of the school's Academic Performance
Index (API) growth target in two of the last three
years or in the aggregate last three years;
SB 645
Page 2
(2) A ranking in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the
API in the prior year or in two of the last three
years.
(3) A ranking in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the
API for a demographically comparable school in two of
the last three years;
(4) Academic performance that is at least equal to
the academic performance of the public schools that
the charter school pupils would otherwise been
required to attend; or
(5) Qualification for participation in the
Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM). (EC �
47607)
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) with approval of the State Board of Education (SBE) to
develop an alternative accountability system for schools under
the jurisdiction of a county board of education or county
superintendent of schools, community day schools, nonpublic,
nonsectarian schools, and alternative schools serving high-risk
pupils, including continuation high schools and opportunity
schools. Schools in the ASAM may receive an API score, are not
included in API rankings. (EC � 52052)
Existing law requires the Superintendent and the SBE to
establish a list of low achieving and persistently
lowest-achieving schools and provides that schools that have
experienced academic growth of at least 50 points over the
previous five years as measured by the Academic Performance
Index may be excluded from the list. (EC � 53201)
Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature that the
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory Committee
consider various ways to measure performance levels of cohort
growth in which each pupil, subgroup, school, and school
district make at least one year's academic growth in one year's
time and whether that growth is sufficient to reach a
performance level of proficient within the timeframes specified
in the state's approved accountability plan required pursuant to
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It further
requires any measure of annual academic achievement growth by
cohort approved for inclusion in the Academic Performance Index
(API) or adopted through a state plan pursuant to the federal
SB 645
Page 3
Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a requirement of
receiving or allocating federal funds must utilize a growth
model in the public domain that is not proprietary, be able to
be replicated by an independent statistician, and be able to be
fully and accurately explained in a document made available to
the public. (EC � 52052.6)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Prohibits an authorizer of a charter school that has been
in operation for at least four years from considering or
granting the renewal of the school's charter unless the
school, based on data available as of October 1 of the
fiscal year of renewal, meets one of the following criteria
before having its charter renewed.
a) Attain an API score of at least 700 in the most
recent year.
b) Attain a cumulative API growth of at least 30
points over the last three API cycles, and defines API
growth for one cycle to mean the difference between a
current year growth API and the prior year's base API.
Specifies that the growth required shall not be
measured as the difference
between the most recent API score and the growth API
score from three years prior to that score.
c) Rank in deciles 6 to 10, inclusive, on the API
for a demographically comparable school in the prior
year or in two of the last three years for which
demographically comparable school ranks are available.
A school that does not generate a demographically
comparable school rank is ineligible to meet this
criterion.
d) Participation in the alternative accountability
system (ASAM).
e) Receipt of a determination of academic
eligibility for renewal from the State Board of
Education (SBE) within the prior 12 months.
2) Makes the renewal criteria inoperative if the SBE adopts an
SB 645
Page 4
academic accountability system and finds that the system it
adopts is consistent with specified characteristics
(subdivisions (b) and (c) of 52052.6). Requires the SBE to
adopt regulations designating a level of annual academic
achievement growth that qualifies a charter school for
renewal.
3) Specifies that a charter school may apply to the SBE for a
determination of academic eligibility for renewal of its
charter by submitting evidence of the school's academic
success. Evidence supporting an application may include,
but is not limited to, information on individual pupil
achievement, including longitudinal data that demonstrate
individual pupil progress, analysis of similar pupil
populations, or other relevant data as determined by the
school.
4) Requires the advisory committee appointed by the SBE to
recommend criteria for the determination of funding for
nonclassroom-based instruction to publicly hear an
application for a determination of academic eligibility for
the renewal of a charter, and make a recommendation to the
SBE on the application.
5) Requires the SBE to issue a positive determination of
academic eligibility if the SBE finds that the charter
school adequately demonstrates that the academic
performance of the charter school meets or exceeds its
predicted performance based on a statistical evaluation of
similar pupil populations.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the sponsor of this bill,
the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), the
state needs to establish an accountability framework for
charter schools that includes standards that effectively
measure the success of charter schools and a mechanism to
ensure swift, objective, and unbiased action on
persistently low-achieving schools. According to the
author's office, SB 645 seeks to remedy two failures in the
current renewal process: measurements of school success
that are too forgiving and tolerant of persistent failure,
and charter school authorizers that succumb to political
pressure and renew the charters of failing schools.
SB 645
Page 5
In its recently released report, Portrait of the Movement: How
Charters are Transforming California Education, the CCSA
introduces a performance framework for charter schools and
describes the Similar Students Measure, which assesses
school performance while filtering out many non-school
effects on student achievement through the use of
regression-based predictive modeling. The measure compares
a school's Academic Performance Index to a predicted API
that controls for the effects of student background on
performance. According to the CCSA, the framework includes
absolute status and growth over time on the API with the
SSM to "create a more comprehensive approach to classifying
the performance of charter schools." SB 645 reflects this
framework in the proposed renewal criteria and in the
process the state board would use to determine academic
eligibility.
2) Hoover Commission findings and recommendations . In
November 2010, the Little Hoover Commission released a
report "Smarter Choices, Better Education: Improving
California Charter Schools" that contained findings and
recommendations regarding the charter school authorization,
renewal, and appeal process. The Commission found that
there was broad agreement that the current renewal criteria
for charter schools must be improved. During the study,
the Commission was told "repeatedly" that the state's
renewal criteria are too vague and the bar is set too low,
making it difficult for authorizers to close down poor
performing schools. Under current law, a school can be
renewed if the school's performance is comparable to that
of district schools its students would otherwise attend.
If all schools within a neighborhood are performing poorly
but the charter school provides a safe haven for students,
parents and students may pressure the local school board to
keep the school open even if it is not meeting its academic
goals. Since achievement test scores may not provide a
complete picture of student learning, the Commission
recommended that the state expand the renewal criteria to
include other factors, such as graduation rates, employment
readiness, as well as college attendance and completion
rates. The Commission urged the state to "raise the bar
for charter school renewal while still maintaining options
for certain charter schools serving the most difficult
student populations."
3) Academic Performance Index . The Academic Performance Index
SB 645
Page 6
(API) is single number on a scale of 200 to 1,000 that is
an annual measure of test score performance in schools.
The API is used to summarize the performance of students
and a school, and is based on results of the Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) program and the California
High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE). The system is based
on a two-year cycle that gives a "base" score for the first
year and a "growth" score in the second year. The Base API
is released in the spring and is derived from the previous
spring's test scores. The Growth API, which is released in
the fall, comes from the previous spring's test scores.
The SBE has established a statewide target of 800 for the
API. Schools with API scores below 800 are expected to
improve and are given a "growth target" that is 5 percent
of the difference between their API score and 800, with a
minimum target of 5 points. (Schools with an API above the
statewide target are expected to stay above 800.) A
school's Base API score plus its growth target
becomes that school's goal for its next Growth API. For
example, a school with a Base API of 320 would be expected
to improve its performance by 24 points in the next cycle,
or attain an API of 344.
4) How are the new process and criteria different ? Current
law requires charter schools to meet at least one of the
specified academic criteria prior to being renewed. This
bill would specifically prohibit authorizers from granting
the renewal of a charter unless the school meets the
academic criteria specified in this bill, essentially
providing for a "default closure" for charter schools that
fail to meet the success criteria specified in the bill.
According to the author's office, this default closure is
intended to eliminate the emotional and political pressures
that may occur when a school board considers renewal of a
failing charter school.
Under current law, a charter school can be renewed if it is
meeting its API growth targets, is ranked in API deciles
4-10 in the prior year or in two of the previous three
years, is ranked in deciles 4-10 for similar schools, or
has an academic performance that is "at least equal" to
other public schools in the district. Under SB 645,
charter schools would not be eligible for renewal unless
they attain an API score of at least 700 in the most recent
year, growth of at least 30 points over three API cycles,
or rank in deciles 6-10 for a demographically comparable
SB 645
Page 7
school. As is currently the case, charter schools that
operate under the ASAM would qualify for renewal. Thus, SB
645 creates a default "non-renewal" of any charter school
that fails to meet the criteria. A charter school that
meets the criteria but is not renewed would be able to
appeal the non-renewal decision to the county board of
education and the SBE. While this bill establishes higher
standards for charter school renewals than is specified in
current law, it is not clear that the minimum cumulative
growth of 30 points over three years would indicate
quality. A school with a Base API of 320 could meet the 30
points minimum for cumulative API growth and still have a
relatively low API score. For example:
-----------------------------
| | Base |Growth |Growth |
| | |Target | API |
| | | | Goal |
|------+------+-------+-------|
|Year | 320| 24| 344|
|1 | | | |
|------+------+-------+-------|
|Year | 344| 21| 365|
|2 | | | |
|------+------+-------+-------|
|Year | 365| 20|385 |
|3 | | | |
-----------------------------
Given that charter schools are afforded significant
flexibility and autonomy in return for accountability for
improved student achievement should the cumulative growth
criteria be higher? Should this option be available only
to charter schools with a base API of 500 or those that are
not included in the list of persistently lowest-achieving
schools established pursuant to Education Code � 53201? At
the same time, could the default closure reduce the
flexibility of local governing boards to renew charters
that are meeting the needs of students or are meeting other
criteria that the board deems important?
This bill enables a charter school that obtains an
eligibility certificate from the SBE to be renewed by a
local authorizing board. Could this create a different
type of political pressure for local boards to renew a
SB 645
Page 8
charter that has first obtained approval from the SBE?
Although the intent of this "second look" process is to
provide charter schools subject to default closure an
alternative means to demonstrate academic accountability,
there appears to be nothing in the bill that would preclude
a charter school from obtaining SBE certification as a
measure of insurance when seeking renewal from a local
governing board. Should the avenue be open only to those
schools that do not meet the one of the first four criteria
and are subject to default closure?
This bill allows a "determination of academic
accountability" to qualify for renewal. Since it is the
intent that only those charter schools that receive a
positive determination be renewed, staff recommends adding
the word "positive" to paragraph (5) in subdivision (b).
To ensure that the "second look" review works as intended
and to provide greater clarity in the SBE certification
process, staff recommends the following amendments:
a) Limit the "second look" option to those charter
schools that do not qualify for renewal under the
first four criteria specified in subdivision (b) of
47607 of the bill.
b) Add the word "positive" to subparagraph (5) of
subdivision (b) to be consistent with the requirement
that the SBE issue a "positive determination of
academic eligibility."
5) Reduces legislative authority . This bill establishes new
and presumably stronger renewal criteria for charter
schools, yet makes these criteria inoperative if the SBE
adopts an accountability system and regulations based on
the recommendations of the Superintendent's Public School
Accountability Act Advisory Committee for annual academic
achievement growth. While delegating authority over
charter school accountability criteria to the state board
may allow the state to more quickly respond to changes in
federal law (or changes in a governor's agenda), members of
the SBE are not accountable to the electorate as are
members of the Legislature. Could this bill result in the
establishment of one set of accountability standards for
charter schools and another for all other public schools?
Given that the members of the state board are appointed by
SB 645
Page 9
the Governor, could those regulations change depending on
the composition and interests of those who are appointed to
the state board? Staff recommends that this provision be
deleted from the bill.
6) 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 is scheduled to be heard in this
Committee on May 4, 2011.
AB 86 (Mendoza) requires charter school petitioners to
obtain the signatures of classified employees, as
specified. This measure is pending on the Assembly Floor.
AB 401 (Ammiano) limits until January 1, 2023, the total
number of charter schools authorized to operate at 1,450
and adds additional criteria relating to the disclosure of
relatives of charter school personnel. This measure is
pending in the Assembly Education Committee.
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.
AB 440 (Brownley) establishes various academic and fiscal
accountability standards related to charter schools. This
measure is pending in the Assembly Appropriations
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 in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 1741 (Coto, 2010), would have required charter schools
that expect 15% of their pupil population to be English
SB 645
Page 10
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), 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 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 2363 (Mendoza, 2010) would have required charter school
petitioners to obtain the signatures of permanent
classified employees, as specified. The Committee was held
in Committee on June 16, 2010, and is scheduled for "vote
only" on June 30, 2010. This bill was heard by the Senate
Education Committee and failed passage on a 2-6 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
revocation of charter schools. The Senate Education
Committee hearing for this bill was canceled at the request
SB 645
Page 11
of the author and the bill was subsequently held by the
Committee.
SUPPORT
ACE Charter Schools
Bullis Charter School
California Charter Schools Association
Charter Academy of the Redwoods
Classical Academies
Darnall Charter School
Fenton Avenue Charter School
Fenton Primary Center
Green Dot Public Schools
Guajome Park Academy
Inland Leaders Charter School
King-Chavez Neighborhood of Schools
KIPP Bay Area Schools
Lewis Center for Educational Research
New Vision Middle School
Oakland Military Institute - College Preparatory Academy
Pacific Collegiate School
Para Los Ni�os
Rocketship Education
SOAR Charter Academy
Sycamore Academy of Science and Cultural Arts
OPPOSITION
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
Charter Schools Development Center
K12, Inc.