BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1290
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1290 (Alquist)
As Amended June 20, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-14
EDUCATION 7-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, |
| |Eng, Williams | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Grove, Halderman, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Wagner | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 schoolwide 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.
SB 1290
Page 2
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
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, increased General Fund/Proposition 98 (GF/98) state
reimbursable mandated costs, likely in excess of $175,000, to a
chartering authority to ensure a charter school complies with
the pupil achievement modifications for the renewal process
required in this measure.
COMMENTS : 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 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 3A 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
SB 1290
Page 3
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 3B 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 3A and the entirety of
Assurance 3B. 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 3B). 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 3B.
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
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.
SB 1290
Page 4
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. 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
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
SB 1290
Page 5
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.
Related Legislation: AB 440 (Brownley) of 2011, which is on the
Senate Floor Inactive file, establishes academic and fiscal
accountability standards related to charter schools.
SB 645 (Simitian) of 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).
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0004986