2020 California Legislative Prospectus

California Legislative ProspectusWith the year ending, it is time to focus on where the 2020 California Legislature may go on charter schools next year. This year, we saw the passage of AB 1505 and AB 1507 which changed the way that charter schools will be approved and renewed. The bills also put major restrictions on non-classroom based charter schools including a two-year moratorium on their authorization. Finally, AB 1507 placed new limits on where these charters can locate and where they can have resource centers.

During the two year moratorium, we should expect to see a further examination and crackdown on non-classroom based charters. Some members of the State Assembly have made it clear that they view AB 1505 and AB 1507 as just the start of chaining the laws that govern charter schools. We also anticipate that there will be both Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Teeam (FCMAT) and Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) audits on several of these type of charter schools, which will give the Legislature several different ways to put these charter schools under a microscope. The FCMAT audits would be requested by local education agencies (LEAs) while the JLAC audits would be requested by the Legislature.

Additionally, the administration has expressed a clear concern about two different aspects of non-classroom based charters:
1. How they generate Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
2. How many charter schools should small school districts be allowed to authorize?

The ADA questions is much broader than charter schools and would focus on how independent study programs generate ADA since charters generate ADA the same way. The focus on small school districts is much more concerning because a lot of small districts use non-classroom based charter schools to supplement programs that they cannot manage themselves, thus serving a student population that may be difficult to serve.

As the new year begins and new California legislative measures are introduced, we will keep you updated as to the impact they will have on charter schools.


Charter School Capital logoSince the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We help schools access, leverage, and sustain the resources charter schools need to thrive, allowing them to focus on what matters most – educating students. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $2 billion in support of 600 charter schools that have educated over 1,027,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!

LEARN MORE

 

California Charter School Legislation

California Legislative Update: Anti-Charter School Legislation Moves Closer to Becoming Law

Here is the latest California legislative update:

Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed both AB 1505 by Assemblyman O’Donnell and AB 1507 by Assemblywoman Smith out of committee. Both measures would place severe restrictions on charter schools in California.

AB 1505 would change how charter schools are authorized and renewed, while also preventing the State Board of Education from authorizing or overseeing any charter schools. Additionally, the measure would slowly take away the teacher credentialing flexibility that charter schools have and allow an authorizer to consider the charter school’s ‘fiscal impact’ when considering whether to allow the charter to open.

The most egregious portion of the bill places a moratorium on non-classroom based schools for two years. This will be the most punitive charter school measure ever enacted into law in California. Leadership in both houses of the legislature and the Governor have signed off on it and the California Charter Schools Association has taken a neutral position. This means the legislation will fly through the legislature and make it to the Governor’s desk before session adjourns for the year on September 13th. The Charter Schools Association’s neutral position is a signal to moderate Democrats that they can vote for the bill and a serious blow to charter school advocacy in the state.

AB 1507 is also almost assured to make it onto the Governor’s desk as he has already endorsed it. This bill would basically remove all charter school out-of-district or county resource centers, testing sites, and meeting places from the state. A charter school would only be allowed to have resource centers within the boundaries of their authorizer’s district. In effect, the measure limits a charter school’s ability to have meaningful independent study programs.

As with AB 1505, the Charter Schools Association has actually worked with the author of this legislation and is attempting to move to a neutral position. Both of these bills will have a huge impact on every charter school in the state and represent the education reform movement losing a lot of ground in California.

Based on the November election results, this is not a big surprise but it is disheartening to see the Charter Schools Association capitulating to education reform opponents across the board. The measures should pass the legislature by September 13th and then the Governor will have a month to act on each of them.


Charter School Capital logoSince the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We help schools access, leverage, and sustain the resources charter schools need to thrive, allowing them to focus on what matters most – educating students. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.8 billion in support of 600 charter schools that have educated over 1,027,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!

LEARN MORE

 

 

California Charter School LegislationCharter School Legislation: California Bills Dead for the Year

We think it’s vital to keep tabs on the pulse of all things related to charter schools, including charter school legislation, informational resources, and how to support school choice, charter school growth, and the advancement of the charter school movement as a whole. We hope you find this—and any other article we curate—both interesting and valuable.
Here’s a quick update on the latest in California charter school legislation:
On Thursday the legislature wrapped up its house of origin deadline. The house of origin deadline is the deadline for the State Assembly to pass all Assembly bills to the State Senate and the State Senate to pass all Senate bills to the State Assembly. Bills that do not pass become two-year bills since this is the first year of the 2019 – 2020 legislative session. These bills are essentially dead for the year but will have one month, next January, to be passed onto the other house.
AB 1506 (charter school cap) and SB 756 (charter school moratorium) both failed to pass their respective houses meaning they are dead for the year. This is a huge relief to the charter school movement as both bills represented a threat that had not been seen before. A number of lobbyists and advocacy groups worked in a coalition to kill both bills and their work prevented either of the authors from getting a majority vote in their houses. Actually, neither bill even came up for a vote. The authors did not attempt to move them because they knew that they were short on their vote count.
So Thursday was a good day for California charter schools!


Charter School Capital logoSince the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We help schools access, leverage, and sustain the resources charter schools need to thrive, allowing them to focus on what matters most – educating students. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.8 billion in support of 600 charter schools that have educated over 1,027,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!

LEARN MORE

 

 

California Charter School LegislationCalifornia Legislative Update: Governor Presents May Revision

Here’s your latest California legislative update:
Last week, Governor Newsom presented the May Revision to his January budget proposal. The Revision reflects funding and policy changes to the Governor’s original proposal. Below are some of the more prominent changes in the document.

  •  The May Revision includes $101.8 billion ($58.9 billion general fund and $42.9 billion from other funds) for all K-12 programs.
  • Proposes $696.2 million ongoing Proposition 98 funding for special education. This is $119.2 million more than the January budget proposal.
  • Includes $500,000 one-time non-Proposition 98 funds to increase local educational agencies’ ability to draw down federal funds for medially related special education services and improve the transition of three-year-olds with disabilities from regional centers to local educational agencies.
  • Includes $89.8 million one-time non-Proposition 98 funds to provide 4,500 loan repayments (of up to $20,000) for newly credentialed teachers to work in high-need schools for at least four years.
  • $44.8 million one-time non-Proposition 98 funds to provide training and resources for classroom educators to build capacity around inclusive practices, social emotional learning, computer science and restorative practices as well as subject matter competency.
  • Includes $15 million one-time non-Proposition 98 funds for broadband infrastructure.
  • $1 million one-time non-Proposition 98 funds, available over four years, to the State Board of Education to establish a state Computer Science Coordinator.
  • Includes an additional $150 million in one-time non-Proposition 98 funds to reduce the employer contribution rate in 2019-20 for CalSTRS. This is in addition to the $3 billion included in the January budget.

RELATED: March California Legislative Update and Senate Bill 126


The Revision also includes a specific section on charter schools; see below.

California legislative update for Charter Schools:

The Administration is committed to a system where traditional and charter schools work together to serve the best interests of all students in a community. The May Revision proposes statute to level the playing field for both traditional and charter schools. Specifically, the May Revision includes the following proposals to prevent families from being wrongfully turned away from the public school of their choice:

  • Prohibits charter schools from discouraging students from enrolling in a charter school or encouraging students to disenroll from a charter school on the basis of academic performance or student characteristic, such as special education status.
  • Prohibits charter schools from requesting a pupil’s academic records or requiring that a pupil’s records be submitted to the charter school prior to enrollment.
  • Creates a process for families of prospective and current charter school students to report concerns to the relevant authorizer.
  • Requires the Department of Education to examine the feasibility of using data from the California Longitudinal Pupil Assessment Data System to identify charter school enrollment disparities that may warrant inquiry and intervention by corresponding authorizers.

These proposals build on charter school transparency legislation signed by the Governor earlier this year and other legislation proposed in the Governor’s Budget that better aligns the governance, transparency, and accountability requirements of school districts and charter schools.
The Governor’s Budget identified growing charter school enrollment as a factor affecting the fiscal condition of some school districts. The Governor requested that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction convene a task force to examine the fiscal impact of charter schools on school districts. The Charter Task Force is expected to deliver recommendations to the Administration by July 1.


Charter School Capital logoSince the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We help schools access, leverage, and sustain the resources charter schools need to thrive, allowing them to focus on what matters most – educating students. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.8 billion in support of 600 charter schools that have educated over 1,027,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!

LEARN MORE

 

 

California Charter School LegislationCharter School Moratorium Bill

In this California legislative update, learn what’s happening with SB 756 and other assembly bills which would severely impact charter schools in the state.


On Wednesday, April 24th the State Senate Education Committee met and heard SB 756 by Senator Durazo. The bill would establish a moratorium on charter schools in the state for 5 years.
Hundreds of charter school supporters turned out in opposition to the bill but it passed out of committee on a 4-3 vote. Senators Leyva, McGuire, Pan and Durazo voted yes while Senators Wilk, Chang and Glazer voted no. Senator Glazer was the only Democrat to vote against the bill. Though Senator Pan did raise questions and concerns about the bill and got the author to agree to amend the bill moving forward.
The amendments were talked about but not fully vetted, so it is not entirely clear how they would be drafted. The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee for a vote on its fiscal impact.
Together with ABs 1505, 1506 and 1507—which are going through the Assembly—this bill would mean a severe crackdown on charter schools in California.
If these bills become law, it is unclear how charter schools will survive in the future. The charter school community must continue to fight and advocate to keep our schools open and retain school choice for students and parents.
To view any of these bills go to: https://www.legislature.ca.gov select the bill number tab on the left and then enter the bill number.


Charter School Capital logoSince the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We provide growth capital and facilities financing to charter schools nationwide. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.8 billion in support of 600 charter schools that have educated over 1,027,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!

LEARN MORE

 

California Charter School LegislationCalifornia Legislative Update: Anti-Charter School Bills Pass the Assembly Education Committee

Here is the latest California legislative update:
On April 10th the Assembly Education Committee held their regular bi-weekly hearing, but at 1:30p they had a special order to hear AB 1505, 1506 and 1507.
All of these bills are anti-charter bills and they all passed the committee with 4 votes from the Chair, Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, Assemblywoman Christy Smith, and Assemblyman Ash Kalra.
Assemblywoman Shirley Webber abstained and Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, the only Republican on the committee, voted no.

AB 1505

Taken together the bills would severely handicap all charter schools in California and could lead to their closure. AB 1505 by Assemblyman O’Donnell would take away the right to appeal a denial of a charter petition at any level and would not allow a county office of education to approve a county-wide charter. All charter petitions could only be approved by a local school board and they could be denied based on the financial impact to the district. This bill is headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1506

AB 1506 by Assemblyman McCarty would put a cap on the number of charter schools in California. The cap would be the total number of charter schools in California as of January 1, 2020. After that date a new charter school could only open up after one closes in the state. This bill is also headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1507

AB 1507 by Assemblywoman Smith would prevent a charter school from opening a facility in a neighboring district if it cannot find a facility in the district that it is authorized in. Additionally, the bill would only allow a charter school to have one resource center in the district that it is authorized in. This bill is headed to the Assembly Floor next.
To view, any of these bills go to https://www.legislature.ca.gov and hit the bill link at the top left of the page and put in the bill number.

California Charter School Legislation

California Legislative Update: Conflict of Interest Legislation

Here’s your California legislative update! We try to do our best to make sure you have the most up-to-date information on what pieces of California legislation may affect charter schools.
SB 126 (charter school conflict of interest provisions) is currently speeding through the legislature.  The measure passed the State Senate this week and will pass through the State Assembly next week.  Then it will head to the Governor for his signature and he will sign the measure.  The administration has been very clear that the Governor made a commitment to charter school transparency during his campaign and SB 126 fulfills that commitment.
The measure would apply Government Code 1090, the Brown Act, Public Records Act and the Political Reform Act to charter schools and entities managing charter schools.  This is moving faster than anyone anticipated but will impact all charter schools in the State.
To view the bill go to https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and put in the bill number.
 

 

California Charter School LegislationCalifornia Legislative Update: The Governor’s 2019 Budget

California Legislative Update: Thursday, Governor Gavin Newsom released the first budget of his administration. At the beginning of his press conference, he admitted that his presentation would be longer than most other Governor’s performances—and he did not disappoint, holding court for around 50 minutes. His budget includes a large reserve and lays out what will be the administration’s objectives over the next three years. It also includes a brief discussion of the need for charter school transparency, which he mentioned in his presentation. Below is an excellent description of the budget’s details by Gerry Shelton of Capitol Advisors. Gerry is an expert on California’s education laws and one of the most knowledgeable people that I know.


We’ve done a review and analysis of Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2019-20 Budget Proposal sent to you earlier today. While the proposed budget essentially includes the same amount of Proposition 98 spending as estimated by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) in November, there is some very good news in the budget for schools. Governor Newsom is providing significant assistance to school employers struggling with increases in the pension contribution rates. This assistance is outside of Proposition 98, so does not reduce expenditures for other priorities, including providing a 3.46% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for LCFF and other programs.

Highlights of 2019-20 Budget Proposal

  • $143 billion in General Fund (GF) revenues in 2019-20
  • $18.5 billion total state budget reserves ($15.3 billion in the Rainy Day Fund)$80.7 billion Prop 98 guarantee
  • $3 billion one-time (non-Prop 98) payment for school employer CalSTRS liabilities
  • 3.46% COLA applied to LCFF and categoricals
  • Over $1 billion increased investment in early childhood services (details below)
  • $576 million in Prop 98 GF ($186 million of which is one-time) for expanded special education services and support
  • $1.5 billion in additional released school facilities bond funds authorized under Prop 51

Governor Newsom’s Approach

At his press conference earlier today, Governor Newsom repeatedly recognized former Governor Jerry Brown’s efforts to eliminate budget deficits, create a new budget surplus, and build a Rainy Day Fund to mitigate future economic downturns. He provided a more collaborative tone than Brown, giving credit to individual legislators who championed various issues (such as early learning, health care, pension costs, housing, etc.) that he highlighted in his press conference. Overall, Newsom was focused on finding the right balance between continued fiscal responsibility and increased investments in programs.
With respect to fiscal responsibility, Newsom slightly lowered revenue projections for future years, prioritized paying off debts and decreasing liabilities, increased reserves and provided additional “Safety Net” funding. The Governor also highlighted several areas in which he hopes to see significant investments, including a $1 billion investment in a rebranded Earned Income Tax Credit (now the “Working Family Tax Credit”), subsidies to ensure middle-class Californians can afford health insurance, emergency and disaster preparedness and response, and of course, K-14 education.
Below we provide a brief summary and analysis of the budget proposal, including revenues, Proposition 98 spending, and policy and funding changes to K-12 programs.

Revenues, General Fund, Debts and Liabilities, and Budget Reserves

Due to continued growth in California’s economy, the Department of Finance (DOF) estimates approximately $143 billion in total 2019-20 GF revenues (including transfers pursuant to Prop 2), and has revised its estimates upward for 2017-18 by $3 billion and for 2018-19 by $2.7 billion. Before transfers, this amounts to an $8.1 billion increase in GF revenues over the three fiscal years, as compared to the 2018 Budget Act. In addition to allowing an increase in state GF spending, this significant influx of revenue generates additional 2019-20 Prop 2 transfers to the Rainy Day Fund budget reserve, and an equivalent amount to pay down state debts and liabilities.
Though this budget is based on the assumption of continued economic growth, it does note that economic uncertainties, and even the likelihood of a future economic downturn, have been increasing. As a result, Governor Newsom proposes a $700 million increase to the Safety Net Reserve created in the 2018 Budget Act, bringing the total in this reserve to $900 million.
The budget also includes a $1.77 billion mandatory transfer to the Prop 2 Rainy Day Fund, as well as $2.3 billion in the discretionary Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties. Combined, this brings total state GF budget reserves to $18.5 billion by the end of 2019-20. The budget also projects that the Prop 2 Rainy Day Fund alone will rise to $19.4 billion by 2022-23.
Under Prop 2, the $1.77 billion transfer to the Rainy Day Fund also triggers an equal $1.77 billion payment toward reducing state debts and liabilities; the budget proposes to meet this requirement by paying down the state’s retiree health and unfunded pension liabilities by that amount. In addition, Governor Newsom is proposing $4 billion to eliminate other state budgetary debts. Those actions include the full repayment of loans from special funds made during the Great Recession, and elimination of deferrals of state payroll and CalPERS payments also implemented during the recession.

Proposition 98 and LCFF

The DOF calculates the 2019-20 Proposition 98 guarantee to be $80.7 billion, an increase of $2.8 billion over the 2018-19 Prop 98 guarantee provided in the 2018 Budget Act. The DOF’s Prop 98 calculation is consistent with the estimate provided by the LAO in November 2018.
Due to continued declines in both average daily attendance (ADA) and GF revenue growth, the Prop 98 guarantees for both 2017-18 and 2018-19 are adjusted downward by $120 million and $526 million, respectively, in the Governor’s proposed budget. However, the Governor also proposes to hold K-14 education harmless with respect to those adjustments, by over-appropriating the guarantee in 2017-18 and using $686 million in Prop 98 settle-up funds to cover what could have been a reduction in funding for 2018-19.
Growth in Prop 98 allows the Governor to cover a 3.46% COLA, providing a $2 billion increase to district and county office of education LCFF allocations and a $187 million increase for certain categoricals. This growth also allows additional funding to expand special education services, further support the state’s new accountability system, begin to rebuild the state’s education data systems and support his early learning agenda.
Despite this growth in spending and the one-time funding to “buy-down” employer contribution rates in CalSTRS, there remains a growing interest among school advocates to focus on addressing California’s woefully insufficient per-pupil spending. Concerns about funding levels are particularly acute given the rapid increase in the costs of running schools, including everything from pension to health benefits to transportation to education technology expenses.
Discussions continue to focus on creating new funding goals, perhaps a new LCFF target that moves California closer to the per-pupil funding provided by the top 10% of states. Even after all of the increases in the Prop 98 guarantee since the Great Recession, “full implementation” of the LCFF, and continued growth in Prop 98, California remains in the bottom 10% of states in cost-adjusted per-pupil spending.

Immediate Reduction in CalSTRS Employer Contribution Rate

By proposing to invest $3 billion in one-time funds towards K-14 pension liabilities, the Governor hopes to free up billions of dollars in operational funds for school districts: $700 million over the next two years and approximately $6.9 billion over the next three decades.
For years, school districts and county offices have underscored the need to bolster the financial sustainability of not only the underfunded pension systems but local education agencies (LEAs) themselves, due to rising pension costs. Governor Newsom’s first budget validates and responds to those concerns.
In the short-term, a total of $700 million from the non-Proposition 98 side of the budget will be provided to buy down the employer contribution rates in 2019-20 and 2020-21, the final two years of the CalSTRS funding plan’s statutory rate increases. By offsetting these rate increases, the Governor will keep an equivalent amount of money in the classroom.
The Budget also proposes to invest $2.3 billion towards school employers’ long-term unfunded liability at CalSTRS. The prepayment is expected to reduce contribution rates by 0.5 percent (ongoing), or approximately $6.9 billion over the next three decades.
Elsewhere, the Budget proposes $5.9 billion in GF expenditures to address the state’s long-term pension liabilities—including a one-time $3 billion cash supplemental pension payment to CalPERS and $2.9 billion (using Proposition 2 funds) over the next four years to CalSTRS. These supplemental pension payments are intended to curb the growing costs of the state’s retirement programs and are estimated to result in $14.6 billion in savings over the long term.

Early Childhood Expansion

As promised on the campaign trail, Governor Newsom proposes to expand child care and early learning programs.
State Preschool – As a step towards his goal of universal preschool in California, the Governor proposes to increase access to the existing State Preschool Program for all low-income four-year-olds. Specifically, the Administration proposes to:

  • Provide $124.9 million non-Prop 98 GF in 2019-20 and additional investments in the next two state budgets to fund a total of 200,000 preschool slots by 2021-22.
  • Eliminate the existing requirement that families of four-year-olds provide proof of parent employment or enrollment in higher education to access full-day programs.
  • Shift $297.1 million Prop 98 GF for part-day State Preschool Programs at non-LEAs to non-Prop 98 GF, to allow non-LEA providers to draw down full-day, full-year reimbursement from a single funding source and to provide the flexibility to make better use of their contract funding.

Full-Day Kindergarten – The Governor proposes $750 million one-time non-Prop 98 GF for eligible school districts to build or retrofit facilities for full-day Kindergarten programs. See the Facilities section below for additional information.
Child Care – The Administration proposes $500 million one-time non-Prop 98 GF to expand subsidized child care facilities in the state and improve the education and professional development of child care providers. The Governor also proposes $247 million in one-time funds to the California State University to be used for child care infrastructure for students on college campuses.
CalWorks Stage 2 and 3 Child Care – The Governor proposes a net increase of $119.4 million (non-Prop 98) to reflect an increase in the number of CalWORKs child care cases. Total costs for Stage 2 and 3 are $597 million (Stage 2) and $482.2 million (Stage 3).
Child Savings Accounts (CSAs) – The Administration proposes $50 million one-time GF (non-Prop 98) to support pilot projects and partnerships with First 5 California, local First 5 Commissions, local government, and philanthropy to increase access to CSAs for incoming kindergartners.

School Facilities

School Facilities Bonds – In a major reversal from the prior administration, Governor Newsom proposes to issue $1.5 billion in Proposition 51 (2016) bonds next year and increase the Office of Public School Construction’s funding by $1.2 million to speed the processing of applications. This shift reflects—almost exactly—the requests by the educational advocacy community over the past two years. It also reflects a $906 million year-over-year increase in bond sales compared to the current fiscal year.
Facilities Funding to Implement Universal Full-Day Kindergarten – Citing the long-term academic benefit of children attending full-day, high-quality early primary education programs, the Governor proposes $750 million in one-time, non-Prop 98 GF to eligible school districts to construct new or retrofit existing facilities for full-day kindergarten programs or “to fund other activities that reduce barriers to providing full-day kindergarten.” This would build on last year’s $100 million grant program for full-day kindergarten facilities.
Potential Threat to District Developer Fees – In response to the housing crisis—both supply and affordability—the Governor has highlighted the need to address local developer fees, which he believes contribute substantially to the cost of development. It is not clear the Governor was referring to developer fees used to cover the costs of building new schools, incurred when home construction creates local demand for educational facilities. The Governor stated in his budget presentation that he will create a task force on the subject.

Accountability, Data, and the Statewide System of Support

County Offices of Education – COEs were given a major role to play in the overhaul of the state’s accountability system. To support the role COEs play in supporting their districts, the proposal provides an increase of $20.2 million Prop 98 GF dollars, consistent with the formula that was adopted in last year’s budget.
Improved and Expanded Data Systems– Governor Newsom put a high priority on improved educational data systems throughout his campaign. Reflecting that priority, the budget proposal provides $10 million to plan and begin development of a longitudinal data system that would integrate existing data systems to provide more comprehensive information on how students are progressing from cradle to career.
Promoting User-Friendly Accountability Systems – To promote community interaction with the electronic pieces of the accountability system, the Budget Proposal provides $350,000 one-time money to merge the Dashboard, the LCAP electronic template, and other reporting documents, including the School Accountability Report Card.

Special Education

The administration proposes an infusion of $576 million Proposition 98 GF dollars, of which $186 million is proposed as one-time. This is more than likely a response to annual calls from special education advocates that the system is administratively burdensome, underfunded, and too often ineffective at increasing academic performances of those it serves.
These new grants will be focused on LEAs with high concentrations of either special education students or unduplicated pupils. Allowable expenditures of these dollars appear to be fairly broad, and can range from special education supports outside of an existing individualized education program to preventive measures that might lessen future needs. The Administration is not proposing any major structural shifts in the way special education services are provided across the state.


Charter School Capital logoSince the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We provide growth capital and facilities financing to charter schools nationwide. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.8 billion in support of 600 charter schools that have educated over 1,027,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!

LEARN MORE

 

California Charter School Legislation2018 California Mid-Term Election Update

On Tuesday, Californians went out to vote and decided a number of races; they also left a number of races to be determined as ballots are counted. So, while numbers are changing, this is an update on where we currently stand on a few of the races.
Gavin Newsom will be our next Governor; that race was decided in the Primary as the Republican, John Cox, really had no chance.
In the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction Marshall Tuck is leading Assemblyman Tony Thurmond by about 70,000 votes but that margin is shrinking as late ballots are being counted. This race was one of the most expensive in California history with total expenditures exceeding $50,000 million.
The 2018 legislative races represented a near wipeout for the Republican party in California. They will see losses in both the State Assembly and the State Senate and were shut out of all state-wide races.

A Legislative Supermajority

Democrats will have a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the legislature. In the State Senate, the Republicans are struggling in the race to replace former Republican State Senator Anthony Cannella in the 12th district where Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D) is running against Supervisor Rob Poythress (R). The candidates are separated by 1% in what would be a Democratic pickup.
In the 14th district, Senator Anthony Vidak is running behind Melissa Hurtado in the surprise race of the cycle. Senator Vidak losing was not on anyone’s radar screen and much of the Capitol community is in shock that he is trailing by 3,474 votes. Votes are still being counted, but the Democrats will have a supermajority in the State Senate next year.

The State Assembly

In the State Assembly, Democratic pickups are possible in the southern part of the state.
In the 16th district Assemblywoman Catharine Baker (R) is fending off a still challenge from Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D), but the race is too close to call with Baker ahead by almost 3,000 votes.
In the 32nd district Assemblyman Rudy Salas (D) is holding off challenger Justin Mendes (R) in what was a Republican targeted seat; Salas should hold the seat through the final tally. Though this was a low turnout race, we saw an incredible amount of money spent and, since this overlaps some with Senator Vidak’s seat, there is a belief that the funding negatively impacted Vidak’s race.
In the 38th Assemblyman Dante Acosta (R) is turning back a strong challenge from Christy Smith (D). In the one bright spot for Republicans, Assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes (D) is currently trailing Bill Essayll (R) by a few hundred votes but the race is going back and forth as ballots are being counted.
In the 74th district, Assemblyman Matthew Harper (R) is ahead of challenger Cottie Petrie-Norris by about 800 votes. Democrats will pick up a seat in the 76th where Assemblyman Rocky Chavez waged an unsuccessful run for Congress. Tasha Boerner Horvath (D) will be the new member.

 

California Charter School LegislationThe Potential Impact of the California Legislative Session on Charter Schools

Last Friday, the California State Legislature adjourned for the year after sending hundreds of bills to the Governor for his signature. Several of the proposed bills from this recent California legislative session could have an impact on charter schools.
With elections being held in November, a new legislature will convene on the first Monday in December for an organizational session. They will meet for one day and then they will reconvene again in January.
Here are the bills – that could impact charter schools  – on the Governor’s desk awaiting his signature or veto:

  • AB 406 by Assemblyman McCarty would ban charter schools operating by or as a for-profit.
  • AB 1871 by Assemblyman Bonta would require charter schools to provide meals for students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program.
  • AB 2601 by Assemblywoman Webber would mandate that charter school students in grades 7-12 receive comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education.
  • SB 328 by Senator Portantino would mandate that middle and high schools could not start school before 8:30 a.m.
  • SB 972 by Senator Portantino would require all schools serving pupils in grades 7-12 that issue pupil identification cards to have printed on that card the number for a suicide prevention hotline or crisis text line.

Fortunately, the Governor has been a strong charter school supporter and will probably look favorably on these pieces of legislation. If he signs any of them, charter schools will need to make sure that they are prepared for changes in the laws. At the very least, it would be a lot to implement at the local level.
To view any of these measures in their entirety, go to leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and hit the bill information link at the top left of the page.


Since the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We provide growth capital and facilities financing to charter schools nationwide. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.6 billion in support of 600 charter schools that educate 800,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!

LEARN MORE