Branché Jones, Author at Grow Schools

The California Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee has wrapped up and produced a budget for both houses to vote on. The vote should occur next week with both houses passing the budget bill and the trailer bills along to the Governor for his signature by June 15th. The trailer bills contain the policy language to implement the budget’s projects and priorities.
There are still a few outstanding issues that the legislature will have to resolve around the use of tobacco tax revenues and the expansion of Medi-Cal. Additionally, not all of the budget trailer bill language is in print yet. Once he receives the budget the Governor will have 30 days to sign or veto the budget. He can also ‘blue pencil’ additional spending that the legislature has added to the budget.
Here are some education highlights from the budget:

The Proposition 98 guarantee is projected to be $74.5 billion.
LCFF implementation will be funded at $1.36 billion.
There will be one-time discretionary dollars of almost $877 million, which should be released at $187 per ADA starting in the 2017-18 budget year.
The District of Choice program will be extended for five years with some reforms preposed, those reforms are not in print yet.
County Offices of Education will receive $7 million to support their work with LCAP review and support.
The COLA for the LCFF base grant remains at 1.56%.
There is $50 million for the After School Education and Safety Program.
The early education compromise would restore the increase in slots and ratio funding that was agreed upon in last year’s budget and provide $25 million to increase eligibility for parents and children. The compromise also creates a working group to study facility changes for child care centers and LEAs who provide care.
$44 million one-time for additional special education costs.
$15 million to restore the CTE Pathways program.

The Governor has released his May Revision, which is an update to the budget that he introduced in January. This new “budget” takes into account tax receipts and revenue projections that the administration has assumed. With revenues up slightly, the revision has several major changes. Below are some of the highlights:

Dollars to fund the minimum wage increase to $11 in 2018
Expansion of health care coverage to undocumented children
Providing dental benefits to adults covered by Medi‐Cal
The first cost‐of‐living adjustment for Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) recipients since 2005
California’s first‐ever Earned Income Tax Credit to help the poorest working families

For education specifically, the May Revision will increase funding for the Local Control Funding Formula by $661 million. That is added to the $770 million included in the January budget proposal to bring the additional funds going to the Local Control Funding Formula this year to almost $1.4 billion. This money will go out on an ADA basis and be very flexible in terms of what it can be used for. The Governor has also reinstated the three year “deal” with the early education community that he suspended in his January budget. This means that early education will see an increase of $500 million to fund an increase in the standard reimbursement rate and the regional market rate, as well as funding for an additional 2,959 slots for full day preschool.
The legislature is beginning hearings on the Governor’s May Revision. Budget subcommittees in both houses of the legislature will hear and vote on the measures and advance them to the full Budget Committees so that the final budget can be approved by June 15th.
To see the full text of the Governor’s May Revision go to the state’s budget page on their website.

This week saw a lot of action on charter school legislation as Friday, April 28 represented the last day for California legislative policy committees to hear and act on bills that are keyed fiscal. Being keyed fiscal means that they will have to be heard in the respective appropriation committees over the next several weeks. Below are some of the key highlights from those bills.
AB 950 by Assemblywoman Rubio greatly expands the power of county boards of education and the State Board of Education to authorize charter schools. Some charter leaders and County Boards of Education view this measure as a big step forward as it eases some of the tensions that exist between an authorizer and its charter school by allowing other means for authorization. It passed the Assembly Education Committee by a 4-1 vote with 2 abstentions. It will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 806 by Senator Glazer would have applied conflict of interest policies and self dealing policies to charter schools including the Political Reform Act and Public Records Act. It would have also created a ‘fire-wall’ between charter schools and the for-profits that they work with while banning for profit companies from operating charter schools. The measure divided the charter school community as the Charter School Association sponsored the bill and other charter school organizations opposed the measure along with the Association of Clerks and Election Officials and numerous union and trade organizations. The bill failed by a 2-1 vote with 4 abstentions in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 808 by Senator Mendoza would have removed a charter school’s ability to appeal a denial or revocation at the County Board of Education or the State Board of Education. It would have only allowed school districts to approve a charter school and if they did not approve that charter petition the charter would essentially be dead. Senator Mendoza presented the bill in the Senate Education Committee for testimony only with no vote. There was a contentious debate on both sides but the bill should not move out of committee.
AB 1661 by Assemblywoman Caballero is sponsored by the Department of Education and is their attempt to move the state from the API to a new measurement. The bill is still a work in progress and the Department should be amending it as it moves forward but I want to make sure it is on your radar screen because it will affect charter schools. The measure passed the Assembly Education Committee 4-2 with 1 abstention. It will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1224 by Assemblywoman Weber would have created a pilot program in the state for charter school authorization. The program would have allowed three county offices of education to authorize up to five new charter schools in their county or the neighboring counties. It would have also authorized existing CMOs to consolidate up to 10 existing schools, located anywhere in the State, under a county office of education and exempted these CMOs from existing resource center requirements. Assemblywoman Weber did not take the bill up in the Assembly Education Committee because she did not have the votes so it is effectively dead for the year.
AB 1360 by Assemblyman Bonta would establish expulsion and suspension procedures for charter schools, limit the type of preferences they can use for admission and state that parental involvement cannot be a requirement to attend a charter school. The measure passed the Assembly Education Committee 5-2 and will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
To view any of these measures or their committee analysis please go to www.legislature.ca.gov and hit the bill information tab on the top left and place in the bill number.

With the bill introduction deadline ending two weeks ago, the California legislature is now beginning to hold its first hearings on individual pieces of legislation. There were more than 2,600 bills and resolutions introduced, and several of those bills could impact charter schools. Below is a short summary for some of those bills.
AB 318 by Assemblywoman Caballero would require certificated employees and each pupil in certain independent study programs to communicate either in person, or by a live visual connection at least once per week.
AB 406 by Assemblyman McCarty would prohibit a charter school from contracting with a for-profit company for managing or operating a charter school.
AB 950 by Assemblywoman Rubio would allow a renewal of a charter petition that has been approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) on appeal to be heard either by the district that originally denied the petition or the SBE. It would also expand the use of “state-wide” benefit charter schools.
AB 1182 by Assemblyman Low is an independent study spot bill. A spot bill is a measure that has not yet been fully drafted, but has language in it that states the author’s intent.
AB 1224 by Assemblywoman Weber would create a pilot program allowing 5 County Offices of Education, picked by the SBE, to authorize 10 charter schools each throughout the state. CMOs with multiple schools would be able to apply to the program also.
AB 1360 by Assemblyman Bonta is a charter school admission and due process spot bill.
AB 1478 by Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer would apply the Brown Act, California Public Records Act and the 1974 Political Reform Act to charter schools.
AB 1528 by Assemblyman Acosta would extend the provisions allowing a virtual charter school to serve a student that has moved out of their geographical area during the school year to 1/1/21.
AB 1536 by Assemblyman Grayson is a charter school spot bill.
SB 806 by Senator Glazer is a charter school governance and oversight spot bill.
SB 808 by Senator Mendoza abolishes the appeal to the county office of education or SBE for denials and revocations of charter schools unless the county office finds that the district made a procedural violation during the hearing. It also allows a charter school petition to be denied if the district makes a finding that approving the charter would have a negative fiscal impact on the district.
To read more about these bills, visit the California Legislative Information website.

With Election Day coming up on it’s a good time to take a look at the legislative landscape in California. Every seat in the California Assembly, along with half of the seats in the State Senate, will be on the ballot on November 8th.
Nine members of the State Senate terming out of office. An additional State Senator has declined to run for reelection. In the State Assembly, there are 15 members terming out, with two more members running for the State Senate.
All in all, there will be at least a dozen new members of the legislature in 2017. Currently, the Democrats control the Senate with 26 seats. The Republicans hold 14 seats, one of them vacant. In the Assembly, the Democrats control 52 seats, while Republicans hold 28.
With these totals, the Democrats are currently just one seat away from a supermajority in the Senate, and two away in the Assembly. Supermajorities in both houses would give the Democrats the ability to override vetoes by the Governor. It would also allow them to place ‘revenue’ measures on the ballot for voter approval.
Currently, the Democrats are targeting two Republican seats in the Senate, and eight in the Assembly. And with inter-party races becoming more common in the wake of California’s transition to the ‘top two primary system, several other seats feature Democrat vs. Democrat battles.
Below is a rundown of some of the important races being decided in November. Prominent locales in each district are listed (in parentheses). Incumbents names are in bold. Percentages listed represent each candidate’s vote share during the June primary. [Bracketed percentages] represent the total of the vote that went to other Democratic primary candidates. Termed-out legislators are listed in italics.

State Senate Races 2016 – Currently 26 D – 13 R – 1 Vacant

Democrat vs. Democrat Races

3rd Senate District (Davis, Fairfield, Martinez, Napa, Sonoma, Vallejo, Vacaville, Woodland) – Bill Dodd (D) 37.4% vs. Mariko Yamada (D) 29.9%; Wolk

9th Senate District (Albany, Alameda, Berkeley, El Ceritto, Emeryville, Hercules, Oakland, Piedmont, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, San Leandro) – Nancy Skinner (D) 47.8% vs. Sandre Swanson (D) 30.5%; Hancock

15th Senate District (Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, San Jose, Saratoga) – Jim Beall (D) 49.4% vs. Nora Campos (D) 26.9%

35th Senate District (Carson, Compton, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, South Los Angeles, San Pedro, Torrance) – Steve Bradford (D) 35.6% vs. Warren Furitani (D) 24.4%; Hall

Republican seats targeted by Democrats

21st Senate District (Apple Valley, Hesperia, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, Victorville) – Scott Wilk (R) 46.7% vs. Johnathon Ervin (D) 33.7%; Runner

29th Senate District (Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Chino Hills, Cypress, Diamond Bar, Fullerton, La Habra, La Palma, Placentia, Rowland Heights, Stanton, Walnut, West Corvina, Yorba Linda) – Ling Ling Chang (R) 44% vs. Josh Newman (D) 29.2% [26.8%]; Huff

State Assembly Races 2016 – Currently 52 D – 28 R

Democrat vs. Democrat Races

14th Assembly District (Benicia, Concord Lafayette, Martinez, Pittsburgh, Vallejo, Walnut Creek) – Mae Torlakson (D) 32.3% vs. Tim Grayson (D) 31.6%; Bonilla

27th Assembly District (San Jose) – Madison Nguyen (D) 34.3% vs. Ash Kalra (D) 19.8%; Campos

30th Assembly District (Gilroy, Hollister, Morgan Hills, Salinas, Soledad, Watsonville) – Anna Caballero (D) 46.1% vs. Karina Alejo (D) 26%; Alejo

43rd Assembly District (Burbank, Glendale, La Canada, La Crescenta, Los Angeles) – Laura Friedman (D) 31.9% vs. Ardy Kassakhian (D) 24.3%; Gatto

Republican seats targeted by Democrats

16th Assembly District (Alamo, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Livermore, Moraga, Orinda, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Walnut Creek) – Catherine Baker (R) 53.2% vs. Cheryl Cook-Kallio (D) 46.8%

35th Assembly District (Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Lompoc, Paso Robles, Santa Maria) – Dawn Ortiz-Legg (D) 45% vs. Jordan Cunningham (R) 37%; Achadjihan

36th Assembly District (California City, Lancaster, Mojave, Palmdale, Santa Clarita) – Tom Lackey (R) 48.2% vs. Steve Fox (D) 29.6%

38th Assembly District (Canyon Country, Castaic, Chatsworth, Northridge, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley) – Christie Smith (D) 44.7% vs. Dante Acosta (R) 36.2%; Wilk

40th Assembly District (Highland, Loma Linda, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, San Bernadino) – Abigail Medina (D) 51.5% vs. Marc Steinorth (R) 48.5%

60th Assembly District (Corona, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, Riverside) – Eric Lander (R) 45.6% vs. Sabrina Cervantes (D) 41.5% [12.9%]

65th Assembly District (Anaheim, Buena Park, Cerritos, Cypress, Fullerton, La Palma) – Sharon Quirk-Silva (D) 54.3% vs. Young Kim (R) 45.7%

66th Assembly District (Gardena, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Torrance, West Carson) – Al Muratsuchi (D) 48.7% vs. David Hadley (R) 44.6% [6.7%]

The California State Legislature adjourned on August 31st, giving Governor Jerry Brown until September 30th to sign or veto legislation passed during the 2016 session. Governor Brown waited until September 30th to make his final decision on many of the bills before him, including two bills that would have had serious impacts on California charter schools.
By vetoing these bills, Governor Brown once again demonstrated his support of charter schools, and the unique role they play in the California education system.
AB 709 by Assemblyman Mike Gipson would have applied the Brown Act, Public Records Act, the Political Reform Act, and Government Code 1090 to charter schools.
In an effort to force the Governor to sign this bill, the California Teachers Association launched a website and ran radio ads in support of the bill.
In his veto message, Governor Brown noted that he had vetoes similar legislation in 2014. He also stated that AB 709 went too far in dictating how charter school boards operate.
SB 739 by Senator Fran Pavley would have prohibited school districts with negative certification status from approving an out-of-district charter school petition. In August, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee ordered an audit of three schools and their out-of-district authorizers. Those audits will be complete in early 2017.
In his veto message for SB 739, the Governor stated that California should wait until these audits are completed before determining if action is necessary on this issue.
Once again, the charter school community owes the Governor a huge round of applause!
Two other bills that would have negatively impacted charter schools were defeated in the legislature, and did not reach the Governor’s desk. AB 1084 would have prohibited charter schools from operating as, or be managed by, for-profit entities. SB 322 would have prohibited charter school admissions preferences, and would have applied suspension and expulsion laws to charter schools.
To view the language in any of these bills, or to view the Governor’s veto messages, visit the California State Legislative Information website and search for the bill number.

The California legislature ended for the year and California charter school supporters witnessed mixed reports. The legislature sent two anti-charter school bills to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature or veto. They also killed two anti-charter school bills. The Governor will now have until the end of September to sign or veto the measures.
Bills sent to the Governor:
AB 709 by Assemblyman Mike Gipson would impose the Brown Act, Public Records Act, the Political Reform Act, and Government Code 1090 on California charter schools. The bill is sponsored by the California Teacher’s Association and opposed by nearly everyone in the education reform community. It passed the legislature on a party line vote and is on the Governor’s desk awaiting his signature or veto. The Governor has vetoed similar legislation several times during the last six years.
SB 739 by Senator Fran Pavley would prohibit a school district in negative certification from authorizing a California charter school outside of its boundaries. This bill is the result of a disagreement over the authorization of charter schools between districts in and near the Santa Clarita Valley. Charter school supporters oppose SB 739 because of its precedent-setting language. Like AB 709, it is on the Governor’s desk. He has vetoed similar legislation in the past.
Bills that died in the legislature:
AB 1084 by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla would have prevented a California charter school from being operated by or as a for-profit corporation. This bill split the charter school community, with many charter school entities joining the California School Employees Association in opposing the bill and the California Charter Schools Association supporting it. The bill’s opponents were able to kill the bill on the Senate floor, arguing that passage could have negative impacts on both students and schools, while pointing to Governor Brown’s veto of a similar bill just last year.
SB 322 by Senator Leno would have imposed suspension and expulsion requirements on charter schools and prevented them from using preferences for enrollment. Facing heavy opposition from charter proponents, the bill died on the Assembly Floor.
To view any of these measures go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and place in the bill number.

With a week and a half left in the legislative session there are still several bills pending that will negatively impact charter schools. Since this is the second year of a two-year session the bills will be officially dead if they are not moved onto the Governor’s desk by August 31st. Please write or call your legislator and let them know that you oppose these bills. Below are the bills that are still pending.
AB 709 by Assemblyman Mike Gipson is pending in the Assembly awaiting a concurrence vote on the Senate amendments. If it passes it will head to the Governor’s desk for his signature or veto. The measure applies the Brown Act, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act and Government Code 1090 to charter schools.
AB 1084 by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla is pending in the Senate awaiting a vote that would send the measure back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote in Senate amendments before it heads to the Governor’s desk. The measure prohibits charter schools from being operated as or by a for-profit and would not allow a virtual or online charter to purchase any school services or materials from a for-profit entity.
SB 322 by Senator Mark Leno is pending in the Assembly awaiting a vote that would send the measure back to the Senate for a concurrence vote in Assembly amendments before it heads to the Governor’s desk. The measure would apply suspension and expulsions laws similar to school district standards to charter schools. It would also limit preferences charter schools could use for attendance purposes.
SB 739 by Senator Fran Pavley is pending in Assembly awaiting a final vote before it heads to the Governor’s desk. The measure would prohibit a school district that has received a negative certification from authorizing a charter school outside of its district boundaries under any circumstances.
To view any of these measures go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and put in the bill number.

On Monday, August 1^st, the California Legislature will return from its summer recess. When they return they will have until August 31^st to complete all legislative business for the year. Since this is the second year of a two-year session, all bills that are not passed to the Governor Jerry Brown’s desk will be officially dead. With the budget a done deal and most of the ‘easier’ bills acted upon, the legislature will be dealing with a number of contentious issues. For virtual charter schools there is one bill moving through the process that could severely limit their ability to operate in the future. AB 1084, by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, would prohibit a virtual or online charter school from being owned, or operated by, or operated as, a for-profit entity. The bill would also prohibit a nonprofit online charter school, nonprofit charter virtual academy and a nonprofit entity that operates an online or virtual charter school from contracting with a for-profit entity for the provision of instructional services. Though the charter school is defined as one that provides 80% of online teaching and pupil interaction, instructional services is not defined. This means that instructional materials, supplemental materials, special education services, and a number of other products and services could fall under the definition. AB 1084 would become effective for the 2017-18 school year. A number of charter school entities lined up to oppose the bill when it was heard in the Senate Education Committee, but it passed out on a 6-2 vote with the Chair, Carol Liu, abstaining. The measure is now on the Senate Floor and, if it passes it, will be headed to the Assembly Floor for final passage.
To register your concerns about this bill, please call your State Senator and ask that they oppose it on the Senate Floor. To view the language in the bill and the analysis of it, go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and put in the bill number.

Here are some major education highlights from the budget that the Legislature passed this week. The Governor will now have 30 days from passage to sign it or veto it. He can also ‘blue-line’ some of the funding including in the proposal.

Prop 98 Funding

The Governor’s Prop 98 proposal was approved:
2014-15: $67.2 billion
2015-16: $69.1 billion
2016-17: $71.9 billion
The budget deal assumes the Governor’s local property tax estimates and does not re-bench Prop 98 by $10 million due to Prop 47 savings.
Reductions:

$40 million (on-going) for LCFF Implementation
$120 million (one-time) in flexible funds (for mandate claims)

Eliminations:

$100 million Emergency Repair Revolving Loan Program (one-time)

Additions:

$43.7 million (on-going) for preschool rates
$7.8 million for full-day Preschool slots (on-going, with scheduled increases from 2017-2020)
$200 million (one-time) for the College Readiness Block Grant
$24 million (one-time) for California Collaborative for Education Excellence (CCEE)
$35 million (one-time) for Teacher Workforce Package

LCFF Funding

Provides $2.94 billion in funding for LCFF, bringing total LCFF funding to $55.8 billion in 2016-17.

One-time Funding

Provides $1.28 billion in one-time discretionary funding (pays down prior-year K-12 mandate backlog). This provides approximately $214 per ADA – the same amount proposed in the Governor’s January Budget proposal.

K-12 College Readiness Block Grant

Provides $200 million in one-time Prop 98 funding for K-12 College Readiness Block Grant for LEAs to better prepare low income, EL, and foster students for college admission.

Early Education and Child Care

The agreement provides for 8,877 new full day preschool lots over the next three years and increases reimbursement rates for the RMR, SRR and Licensed Exempt Rates.

California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE)

Provides $24 million in one-time Prop 98 funds for the CCEE to conduct statewide training on the LCFF evaluation rubrics and to conduct a pilot program for supporting LEAs ($20 million for training and $4 million for the pilot program)

Charter School Start-up Grants

Provides $20 million in one-time Prop 98 funding for the Charter School Startup Grants program and requires CDE to spend down available federal carry-over first.

Teacher Workforce Package

The budget deal expands upon Governor Brown’s May Revision proposals to address the state’s growing teacher shortage.

$20 million in one-time Prop 98 funding to re-establish the Classified School Employee Teacher Credentialing Program to provide grants for classified employees to get their teaching credential
$10 million in one-time General Fund to provide grants to postsecondary institutions to develop four-year integrated teacher credential programs
$5 million in one-time Prop 98 funding to create the California Center on Teaching Careers, to strengthen statewide recruitment of individuals into the teaching profession
No one-time funding to establish a pilot teacher residency program
Does not reestablish the Assumption Program of Loans for Education (APLE) loan forgiveness program

Other K-12 education Budget Issues

$2 million in one-time Proposition 98 funding to expand the existing School Breakfast Startup Grant program in order to increase participation in the School Breakfast program
Approve the Governor’s May Revision proposal to provide an additional $2 million in ongoing funding to support the Student Friendly Services college planning website
$1.2 million in one-time federal Title III state level carryover for CDE to develop a best practices video series to provide guidance to LEAs on effective English Language Development (ELD) instruction for English learners and to revise the CDE’s guidance document on instruction for English learners
No additional ongoing funding and no statutory COLA for the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program
$1 million in one-time Proposition 98 funding for the Los Angeles County Office of Education to contract with the Special Olympics Northern and Southern California to expand Special Olympics in schools
No new funding for CDE’s state operations to increase staff for district reorganization workload
$150,000 in one-time General Fund and trailer bill language requiring the SPI to estimate the average costs associated with full-day and part-day kindergarten programs and recommended options for incentivizing full-day kindergarten, including providing differentiated funding rates for full-day and part-day kindergarten.
No ongoing or one-time funding for the California Association of Student Councils
$1.7 million in one-time General Fund to build a new middle school activity center at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont

Other issues to be addressed in K-12 education trailer bills

Trailer bill language specifying that the Math Readiness Challenge Grant shall be administered by CDE and shall prioritize LEAs with high proportions of needy students and high rates of math remediation
Trailer bill language requiring CDE to apportion three-fourths of the total funding for the K-12 High Speed Network by August 31st of each fiscal year in order to address the K-12 High Speed Network’s cash flow needs
Supplemental Report Language requiring the SPI to report to the Legislature on the interim and formative assessment tools available through the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and how teachers can use these tools to match specific state standards, or clusters of standards