BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1032
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1032 (Gordon) - As Amended: May 1, 2013
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:4-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill establishes guidelines for a school district to follow
when determining available school facilities for charter schools
as required under Proposition 39 (2000). Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires a school district to give the same degree of
consideration to pupils attending schools operated by the
district as pupils attending charter schools. Further
requires a district to consider both of the following:
a) The impact of the facilities on pupils attending schools
operated by the district and the in-district students
attending the charter school. Requires the district, in
considering this impact, to do both of the following:
i) Seek to minimize disruption to the educational
program of pupils attending schools operated by the
district and the in-district students attending the
charter school.
ii) Avoid moving pupils attending district schools.
b) The useable space at the comparison schoolsites operated
by the district as well as usable space at facilities owned
or leased by the charter school when considering reasonably
equivalent facilities for the location of the charter
school.
2)Prohibits space that cannot be used for educational purposes
due to safety concerns, topography, or lack of improvement
from being defined as useable space. This measure further
AB 1032
Page 2
requires districts, when determining conditions reasonably
equivalent for charter schools, to exclude specialized
classrooms and non-teaching space at the comparison
schoolsites, including space that is used solely by private
organizations, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)To the extent charter schools are unable to obtain school
facilities under Proposition 39 due to the provisions of this
bill, there will be GF/98 and school bond cost pressure,
likely in the low millions to tens of millions of dollars, to
either increase current charter school facility program
allocations or increase charter school general purpose funding
to mitigate increased facility costs.
2)The 2012 Budget Act allocated $92 million GF/98 for the
Charter School Facility Grant program. This program is
currently undersubscribed and usually has annual carryover
funds available for other K-14 purposes.
SUMMARY CONTINUED
1)Specifies a school district is not required to provide
additional facilities to a charter school if the charter
school owns or leases facilities for the year in which it
seeks allocation of facilities, and the owned or leased
facilities are able to accommodate in-district students, as
specified.
COMMENTS
1)Background . A charter school is a public school that may
provide instruction in any of grades K-12. It is usually
created or organized by a group of teachers, parents and
community leaders or a community-based organization. A charter
school may be authorized by an existing local public school
board, county board of education, or SBE. According to the
State Department of Education (SDE), there were 1,062 charter
schools (including three statewide benefit charters and 33
approved by SBE) with an enrollment of 456,000 pupils in
2012-13.
Proposition 39, the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools, and
Financial Accountability Act, was passed by voters in 2000.
AB 1032
Page 3
The proposition required each K-12 school district to provide
charter schools with facilities sufficient to accommodate
charter school in-district students in conditions reasonably
equivalent to those in which the students would be
accommodated if they were attending other public schools in
the district.
2)Purpose . Proposition 39 authorized the State Board of
Education (SBE) to adopt regulations implementing this
initiative, including, but not limited to, defining the terms
average daily classroom attendance, conditions reasonably
equivalent, in-district students, and facilities costs, as
well as establishing procedures and timelines for
reimbursement of charter school facilities. The SBE adopted
regulations in 2006 and 2008.
Since the passage of Proposition 39, there have been numerous
instances of litigation between school districts and charter
schools regarding the implementation of the initiative.
Specifically, the author states: "Currently, if a school
district is required to count space that is not useable as
part of the square footage of the site, it must then allocate
the same number of square feet to a charter school. This
[provision] results in a lopsided calculation such that the
charter school has a greater right to useable space than that
afforded students attending district operated schools. While
it may seem obvious that space that is not useable should not
be considered, it is nonetheless the source of frequent
dispute that existing law does not directly address."
The California School Boards Association (CSBA), sponsor of
this bill, argue that some court rulings have "disadvantaged
district students and granted charter students a right to a
greater amount of space than that provided to district
students." CSBA further contends this measure will "protect
districts students from unnecessary disruption by extending
the same protection already enjoyed by charter school students
- not moving students unnecessarily." This bill establishes
guidelines for school districts to follow in determining
facilities for charter schools under Proposition 39.
3)Proposition 39 litigation . Since the passage of Proposition
39, there have been challenges by both school districts and
charter schools regarding its implementation. School
AB 1032
Page 4
districts have challenged the definition of reasonable
equivalent school facilities, the issue of providing
contiguous school facilities, and the definition of useable
space. The two most recent lawsuits relevant to this measure
are as follows:
a) Los Angeles Intern, Charter High School v. Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) (2012): In October 2012,
the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision that
LAUSD complied with its Proposition 39 obligations and did
not abuse its discretion by not offering facilities at the
specific high school where the charter high school desired
to be located. Specifically, the court determined the
district complied with the Education Code to "make
reasonable efforts" to provide a charter school with
facilities "near to where the charter wishes to locate."
The court further stated this statutory provision does not
obligate LAUSD to "place a charter school in the exact
location the charter school desires."
The court also acknowledged regulatory language requiring a
school district to give the same consideration to both
students in its own district-operated programs and the
in-district students attending the charter school. In this
case, accommodating the charter school would have required
LAUSD to move large numbers of students in the middle of
the academic year to other classes or to other schools;
such a move, the court reasoned, would disrupt the
students' instructional program, putting the students in
the district-operated program at a potential academic
disadvantage. Based on this circumstance, the court
concluded that the charter school was not entitled to
facilities at the specific location it desired because
doing so would have required LAUSD to disregard the needs
of its own students in favor of the charter school's
students. This bill requires a school district to consider
the effect providing a facility to a charter school would
have on in-district students, as specified.
b) Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School District
(LASD)(2011). The Court of Appeals ruled LASD did not
AB 1032
Page 5
accurately compare the usable space when making a
facilities offer to Bullis Charter School. Specifically,
the court ruled the multipurpose room the charter school
built on the district facility site did not count as space
provided by the district (under Proposition 39).
Therefore, LASD was required to provide additional space or
access to a multipurpose room for the charter school in
order to meet Proposition 39 requirements. This bill
requires a school district to consider usable space at the
comparison schoolsite as well as usable space at a
facilities leased or owned by the charter school.
4)Opposition . The California Charter School Association
Advocates (CCSAA) argue this measure will have a negative
fiscal effect on charter schools. Specifically, it states if
this measure were to pass "more charter schools will be forced
to seek funding elsewhere for a school facility, and more
charter schools will be forced to spend more of their [general
purpose] funding to pay for the classroom itself."
5)Charter schools ability to obtain school facilities .
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, there are
various state and federal programs that provide grants and
other financial support to charter schools for startup and
facility needs. The figure below details the governor's
charter school facilities proposals in the 2013-14 fiscal
year. It also displays programs that aid charter schools in
accessing facilities. The federal Public Charter School Grant
program does not provide charter schools with facility
support. Also, charter schools cannot issue bonds to build
facilities.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1032
Page 6