BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1290|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1290
Author: Alquist (D)
Amended: 5/29/12
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 8-0, 4/25/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Huff, Liu, Price,
Simitian, Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Blakeslee, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
SUBJECT : Charter schools: establishment, renewal, and
revocation
SOURCE : Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom
Torlakson
DIGEST : This bill requires charter school petitions to
address increases in pupil academic achievement and
requires chartering authorities to consider increases in
academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by a
charter school as the most important factor in the renewal
or revocation of a charter.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992,
provides for the establishment of Charter schools in
California for the purpose, among other things, of
CONTINUED
SB 1290
Page
2
improving student learning and expanding learning
experiences for pupils who are identified as academically
low achieving.
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 of the petition, 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.
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, including,
among other things, educational goals, students to be
served, measurable outcomes and methods by which the
school will determine that pupils have met educational
goals.
Existing state law specifies that after a charter school
has been in operation for four years, it must meet 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;
2. A ranking in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the API in
the prior year or in two of the last three years;
CONTINUED
SB 1290
Page
3
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).
Existing federal law establishes the Public Charter Schools
Grant Program (PCSGP) for the purpose of awarding grants to
plan and implement new charter schools. Federal law
requires that states participating in the program provide
assurances that: (1) each authorized charter school, among
other things, demonstrates improved student academic
achievement and (2) authorized public chartering agencies
use increases in student academic achievement for all
groups of students as the most important factor when
determining to renew or revoke a school's charter.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI), with approval of the State Board of
Education (SBE), to develop an alternative school
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 are not included in API
rankings.
Existing law authorizes the SBE, upon the recommendation of
the SPI, to revoke a school's charter for substantial and
sustained departure from measurably successful practices
such that continued departure would jeopardize the
educational development of the students. The SBE has
adopted regulations that instruct the SPI to recommend
revocation of charters for schools in the lowest
performance deciles that have not shown adequate increases
in academic achievement.
CONTINUED
SB 1290
Page
4
This bill:
1. Requires a charter petition, in specifying measurable
pupil outcomes, to include outcomes that address
increases in pupil academic achievement both schoolwide
and for all groups of pupils served by the charter
school, as specified.
2. Requires a chartering authority to consider increases in
pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils
served by a charter school as the most important factor
in determining whether to grant a charter renewal or
revoke a charter.
3. Specifies that "all groups of pupils served by the
charter school" means a numerically significant pupil
subgroup, as specified, including but not limited to
disadvantaged pupils, pupils from different racial and
ethnic groups, pupils with disabilities, and pupils with
limited English proficiency.
4. Deletes existing options for demonstrating academic
performance for charter renewal and instead specifies
that a charter school that has been in operation four
years must meet at least one of the following criteria
before receiving a renewal:
A. Attained its API growth target in the prior year
or in two of the last three years both schoolwide and
for all groups of pupils served by the charter
school; or
B. Attained the measurable pupil outcomes identified
in the charter petition.
Comments
According to the Senate Education Committee analysis:
Need for this bill . In August 2010, the California
Department of Education (CDE) was awarded $290 million to
administer the PCSGP in California for the 2010-15 grant
cycle. Later that year, the CDE was notified by the United
States Department of Education (DOE) that the state was not
CONTINUED
SB 1290
Page
5
in compliance with grant requirements that charter
agreements demonstrate improved student academic
achievement (Assurance 3A on the PCSGP application) and
that chartering authorities use increases in student
achievement as the most important factor in determining to
renew or revoke a school's charter (Assurance 3B).
Attempts to resolve the matter informally were unproductive
and in August 2011, the CDE received formal notice from DOE
that the state was out of compliance with the required
assurances because there is no explicit statutory or
regulatory requirement that (1) each and every charter
school demonstrate improved student academic achievement or
(2) increases in academic achievement be the primary factor
in renewal decisions or revocations. The August 2011
notification also included special terms and conditions
that required the CDE to submit a written plan of action
that addresses compliance.
The CDE has determined that the needed changes cannot be
accomplished by SBE action or regulation changes alone and
will require statutory changes to the Charter Schools Act.
According to the author's office, this bill is necessary to
move the California into compliance with current federal
rules for the PCSGP and avoid the risk of losing some or
all of the $290 million grant award. However, the
California Charter School Association Advocates argue that
the current version of this bill goes farther than is
absolutely necessary to meet the federal assurances and to
protect grant funds.
Broader accountability issues . A basic goal of charter
schools is to improve student learning and expand learning
experiences for academically low-achieving students. A
number of studies indicate that not all charter schools are
living up to this promise. A 2009 EdSource report found
that California charter high schools serve 13% fewer
students who are either English learners or redesignated as
fluent English proficient compared to noncharter schools,
and found that charter schools serve lower proportions of
students with disabilities compared to noncharter schools
at all grade levels. The EdSource study also found that
charter schools serve fewer students that participate in
the federal Free and Reduced-Price Meal Program in both
CONTINUED
SB 1290
Page
6
elementary and middle school compared to noncharter
schools. Notwithstanding the need to comply with federal
direction for the PCSGP, could the requirement for
increases in student achievement to be "the most important
factor" in renewing a charter create a disincentive for
charter schools to serve low-achieving students or reduce
the ability of authorizers to ensure charter schools meet
local priorities such as increased graduation rates?
API . API is a 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 program and the
California High School Exit Examination. 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% of the difference between their API score and 800, with
a minimum target of five 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.
Hoover Commission findings and recommendations . In
November 2010, the Little Hoover Commission (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. The
Commission noted it was told repeatedly that the state's
renewal criteria are vague and the bar is set too low,
making it difficult for authorizers to close down poor
performing schools. Under existing law, a school can be
CONTINUED
SB 1290
Page
7
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.
Prior Legislation
SB 645 (Simitian, 2011) would have established new academic
criteria for charter school renewal. The bill was passed
as amended by the Senate Education Committee (7-1) on May
4, 2011. The bill was later amended to conform to the
renewal criteria and process to the requirements in AB 440
(Brownley).
AB 440 (Brownley, 2011) would have established various
academic and fiscal accountability requirements relating to
charter schools, including accountability requirements for
charter school renewals. The bill was passed by the Senate
Education Committee (7-3) and was subsequently moved to the
Senate Inactive File at the request of the author.
AB 1950 (Brownley, 2010) would have established new
academic and fiscal accountability standards for charter
schools. The bill was pulled from the Senate Education
Committee's agenda at the request of the author.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Potentially significant local costs to require charter
authorizers (most of which are schools districts) to
change the way they evaluate renewals, and state costs
for state-authorized charter schools. These
requirements could constitute a reimbursable mandate
CONTINUED
SB 1290
Page
8
because the schools districts that have authorized
charter schools do not have a choice in having to review
a charter renewal, even though the charter was granted
before this bill's new restrictions were in effect.
Thus, imposing new procedures on that required renewal
process could be determined to be a state mandate on
school districts.
In the event that no changes are made to charter
approval, renewal, and revocation statutes, the state
risks losing up to $290 million in federal funding is
has already been granted.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/29/12)
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson (source)
San Francisco Unified School District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tom Torlakson, the sponsor of this bill,
states, "This bill would bring the California Education
Code (EC) into compliance with the federal Public Charter
Schools Grant Program (PCSGP). Specifically, this bill
would amend EC sections 47605, 47605.6, and 47607 to make
increases in academic achievement for pupils in all
numerically significant subgroups the most important factor
when considering approval, renewal or revocation of a
public charter school petition."
PQ:kc 5/29/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED