BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1290
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 1290 (Alquist) - As Amended: June 20, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 24-14
SUBJECT : Charter schools: establishment, renewal, and
revocation.
SUMMARY : Requires the authority that granted a charter school
to consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all
groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most
important factor in determining whether to grant a charter
renewal or whether to revoke a charter school; and, requires a
charter school to achieve its Academic Performance Index (API)
growth target for schoowide and numerically significant pupil
subgroups for renewal, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies, for both school district authorized and county
board of education authorized charter schools, that the
measurable pupil outcomes identified in a charter school
petition shall include outcomes that address increases in
pupil academic achievement both schoolwide and for all groups
of pupils served by the charter school.
2)Requires the authority that granted the charter school to
consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all
groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most
important factor in determining whether to grant a charter
renewal.
3)Defines "all groups of pupils served by the charter school" as
a numerically significant pupil subgroup served by the charter
school.
4)Changes one of the existing academic achievement requirements
for renewal by specifying that a charter school must attain
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.
5)Requires the authority that granted a charter school to
SB 1290
Page 2
consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all
groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most
important factor in determining whether to revoke a charter.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992 which authorizes a
school district, a county board of education or the state
board of education (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)Requires, commencing on January 1, 2005, or after a charter
school has been in operation for four years, whichever date
occurs later, a charter school shall meet at least one of the
following criteria prior to receiving a charter renewal:
a) Attained its Academic Performance Index (API) growth
target in the prior year or in two of the last three years,
or in the aggregate for the prior three years.
b) Ranked in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the API in the
prior year or in two of the last three years.
c) Ranked in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the API for a
demographically comparable school in the prior year or in
two of the last three years.
d) The entity that granted the charter determines that the
academic performance of the charter school is at least
equal to the academic performance of the public schools
that the charter school pupils would otherwise have been
required to attend, as well as the academic performance of
the schools in the school district in which the charter
school is located, taking into account the composition of
the pupil population that is served at the charter school.
SB 1290
Page 3
e) Has qualified for an alternative accountability system
pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 52052
FISCAL EFFECT : 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 because the school 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.
COMMENTS : Charter School Background : According to the
California Department of Education (CDE), there are currently
983 charter schools operating with student enrollment from
2010-11 of more than 369,000 in the state. This includes three
statewide benefit charters and 18 State Board of Education
(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, county boards of education or the state
board of education. A charter school is generally exempt from
most laws governing school districts, except where specifically
noted in the law.
According to the author, in October 2010, the California
Department of Education (CDE) was informed by the federal
Department of Education (DOE) that California's public charter
school petition authorization, renewal and revocation laws were
inadequate and therefore out of compliance with the Public
Charter School Grant (PCSG) Program. The PCSG Program provides
grants of up to $575,000 to plan and implement new charter
schools. Its funding is integral to the successful development
of successful and high quality public charter schools.
Specifically, the DOE informed the CDE that the state is
SB 1290
Page 4
partially out of compliance with Assurance 3A and completely out
of compliance with Assurance 3B in the PCSG application because
increases in pupil academic achievement in all groups of pupils
as described in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is not the "primary
consideration" in the approval, renewal, and revocation of
California charter schools.
Assurance (3)(A) requires that (1) each charter school in the
State operate under a legally binding charter or performance
contract between itself and the school's authorized public
chartering agency, (2) charter schools conduct annual, timely,
and independent audits of the school's financial statements that
are filed with the school's authorized public chartering agency,
and (3) each charter school be required to demonstrate improved
student achievement for all students. Assurance 3(B) requires
that authorized public chartering agencies use increases in
student academic achievement for all groups of students
described in Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) as the most important factor when
determining to renew or revoke a school's charter. In an effort
to resolve these areas of noncompliance through administrative
means, the CDE engaged in a number of conversations,
correspondence and meetings throughout the 2010-11 fiscal year
to explain how current state statutes and regulations regarding
charter authorization, renewal, and revocation pertained to and
complied with the federal assurances.
However, in the August 11, 2011 PCSG Award Letter, the DOE made
it clear that the state is out of compliance with the last of
the three factors listed in assurance 3(A) and the entirety of
assurance 3(B). The DOE further explained that California is out
of compliance 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 for all pupils be the primary
factor in a renewal decisions (Assurance 3(B)). In addition, the
DOE noted that California's revocation regulations apply only to
charter schools in the lowest deciles and not all charter
schools. Therefore, the DOE determined that the CDE is not in
compliance with assurance 3(B).
After exhausting efforts to resolve this matter
administratively, the CDE determined that legislative action was
the only option available to address the identified areas of
SB 1290
Page 5
noncompliance in order to not jeopardize or put further at risk
the $290 million it is scheduled to receive during the 2010-15
PCSG Program cycle. On September 1, 2011, the CDE sent a letter
to the DOE committing to pursue legislation during the 2012
legislative year to resolve these areas of noncompliance. By
passing this measure, the state can ensure that California will
not put at risk or jeopardize much needed funding to support the
establishment of high quality, high performing charter school
operations for California students and their families.
Policy or Technical Change ? While this bill makes changes to
charter school renewal and revocation policies to align the
state's statutes with the Federal requirements of the PCSG
program, these changes are not technical. While the policy
changes are not sweeping, they are also not unsubstantial. This
bill specifies that a charter authorizer must consider increases
in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by
the school, as measured by the API, "as the most important
factor" for renewal and revocation. This does not mean the
charter school is automatically not renewed or revoked, but it
does mean that the charter authority must consider this
information as the most important factor in making its decision.
In other words, the charter authority must give extra weight to
this factor when it considers all the factors for renewal or
revocation. Further the bill changes one of the academic
requirements for renewal by requiring a charter school to attain
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. Currently, charters must meet at least
one of five measures in order to be renewed by their authorizer.
This bill changes one of those measures. This change will make
it more difficult for charter schools, that are struggling
academically, to be renewed.
Will this result in more charter school non-renewals and
revocations ? Some number of charter schools (roughly estimated
around 60 schools) will no longer meet any of the five academic
criteria for renewal, due to the change in the API criteria.
Because these schools will not meet the academic criteria for
renewal, they will be in jeopardy of not being renewed.
Arguments in Support : State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tom Torlakson supports the bill and states, "This
bill would bring the California Education Code (EC) into
compliance with the federal Public Charter Schools Grant Program
SB 1290
Page 6
which provides $290 million in funding during the grant cycle.
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."
Arguments in Opposition : K-12, Inc. and Charter School Capital
oppose the bill and state, we believe that the changes necessary
to conform to the United States Department of Education are best
attained through the State Board of Education going through the
process of drafting regulations, which they are currently doing,
and not by rushing a bill through the legislature. This bill
does not allow charter schools any chance to have input into the
discussion and places unrealistic expectation on every charter
school in the state. Additionally, there are no guarantees that
this measure will put California in conformity with the
Department's regulations because they have not weighed in on
their effect yet.
Previous & Related Legislation : AB 440 (Brownley) from 2011,
which is on the Senate Floor Inactive file, establishes academic
and fiscal accountability standards related to charter schools.
SB 645 (Simitian) from 2011, which was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee, would have authorized the Charter
School Financing Authority (CSFA) to refinance working capital
for charter schools; and, would have established new
accountability measures for charter school renewal and expands
eligibility of the Charter School Facility Grant Program
(CSFGP).
AB 1950 (Brownley) from 2010, would have established new
academic and fiscal accountability standards for charter
schools. This measure was held in the Senate Education Committee
at the request of the author.
AB 1991 (Arambula) from 2010, which failed passage in the
Assembly Education Committee, would have required charter school
petitions to be granted for five years; authorized charter
school renewals to be granted for five to ten years; established
an alternative renewal process for charter schools identified as
persistently lowest achieving and schools that do not meet
specified academic criteria; authorized the Superintendent of
SB 1290
Page 7
Public Instruction (SPI) to establish alternative academic
accountability standards for charter schools; and, combined the
renewal appeals process with the revocation appeals process.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson (Sponsor)
San Francisco Unified School District
Opposition
California Parents for Public Virtual Education
Charter School Capital
Delta Managed Solutions, Inc.
EdVoice
K-12, Inc.
School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (SIATech)
Many individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087