Branché Jones, Author at Grow Schools

BUDGET PROPOSAL POSITIVE BUT MAY CLASH WITH LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Last week California Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed budget for the year. With revenues rising and the state finally coming out of years of deficit spending the Governor has decided to increase his spending on education. The Proposition 98 guarantee will be funded at $61.6 Billion which is an increase of $6.3 Billion over the 2013 Budget Act level. Additionally, the Governor is proposing:

An additional $6.4 Billion in spending to eliminate all of the education deferrals that have been in place.
$4.5 Billion in funding to implement his Local Control Funding Formula and
$46.5 Million to implement the Common Core standards.
An increase of $25.9 million Proposition 98 General Fund for county offices of education LCFF in 2014-15.
An increase of $74.3 million Proposition 98 General Fund to support projected charter school growth.
A decrease of $2.2 million Proposition 98 General Fund to reflect a decline in Special Education ADA.
Cost-of-Living Adjustment increases of $33.3 million to support a 0.86 COLA for categorical programs that remain outside the LCFF, including Special Education, Child Nutrition, American Indian Education Centers, and the American Indian Early Childhood Education Program. COLAs for school districts and county offices of education are provided within LCFF increases.

All of this additional funding is a very positive sign for the education community but it does set up a battle of priorities between the Governor and the legislature. The legislature, while they will probably support much of this new funding, has its own set of principles that it has publicized. The Democratic members of the State Assembly put out their own budget blueprint last month that included a variety of new spending and program expansions. The Senate leadership has been clear that it would like to use the state’s new revenues to increase access to early learning programs in California. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Darrell Steinberg, has already introduced legislation (SB 837) that would establish transitional kindergarten programs for all children in the state. Additionally, early education advocates are preparing legislation that would establish universal preschool in the state as well. While not commenting on the proposals the Governor did say in his budget press conference that it would not be fiscally prudent to establish new programs in the state simply because revenue projections are up. This will set up a tug of war between the Governor and legislative leaders that may not resolve until a final budget is adopted in June.
To learn more about the Governor’s proposals and other California state updates may impact your charter school, register for a free webinar hosted by Charter School Capital on Tuesday, January 21st at 9:00 a.m. PST. Register now.

To Test or Not to Test: That is The Question

Last week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed bill AB 484 brought forth by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla. AB 484 would essentially end standardized testing as it currently exists in California. The measure could potentially eliminate Academic Performance Index (API) scores and current assessments for the next two years with an option for the State Board of Education to extend the measure to three years. This would occur as the State Board of Education (SBE) and California Department of Education (CDE) begin creating new assessments and performance standards that include the new common core standards.
AB 484 would also provide Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) the opportunity to administer only one of the two common tests (language arts or math); both tests would not need to be administered until the new assessments are created. During this two to three year period, no new API scores will be generated so schools will either use their most recent API score or the average of their last three API scores, whichever is higher. At this time, the potential impact this may have on charter schools facing renewal or revocation is unknown. Additionally, it is unclear how the provisions of AB 484 will work with the school accountability measures that are part of the new Local Control Funding Formula.
This proposal created a firestorm in the Capitol during the last days of the legislative session and forced a response from Arnie Duncan, the US Secretary of Education. Mr. Duncan threatened the state’s future federal funding (and any waivers that the state is seeking from the Federal Government) and expressed anger at the language in AB 484, though he later retracted some of his comments.
It remains to be seen what the ramifications to California charter schools will be as a result of the signing of this new bill. Charter School Capital will continue to provide updates on this policy change in the state of California.
Be sure to register for our blog to receive future updates. To view AB 484 visit www.leginfo.ca.gov and enter in bill number AB 484 when prompted.

The California Legislature has adopted a budget and passed it, along with the trailer bills, to the Governor for his signature. The Governor won the fight over changing how schools are funded in California as a form of his Local Control Funding Formula was adopted but the education trailer bill created new accountability for charter schools. This accountability also comes with removal of a charter schools ability to appeal certain revocations. While the California State Board of Education will have to work out the process through regulations; California charter school policy has taken a step backwards as the language will allow charter school authorizers new ways to show their hostility to charters under their jurisdiction. Below is a short outline of the accountability measures that were adopted for charter schools, as you can see the consequences can be devastating.
A charter school petition will be required to include a description of the school’s annual goals for academic achievement for all students and each subgroup of students. These goals will have to be updated each year by July 1^st beginning in 2015 and will also have to identify specific actions that will be taken to meet these goals using a template created by the State Board of Education that will include:

A review of the progress toward the goals included in the charter, an assessment of the effectiveness of the specific actions described in the charter toward achieving the goals and a description of changes to the actions that the charter school will make as a result of the review and assessment.
A listing and description of the expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the charter as a result of the reviews and assessment.

Charter schools will also be required to consult with teachers, principals, other staff, parents, and pupils in the annual update. The State Board of Education is also authorized to revoke any charter, whether it is the authorizer or not, if it finds the charter school failed to improve pupil outcomes across multiple state and local priorities.
Additionally, there are interventions if a charter school fails to improve pupil outcomes for pupil subgroups in regards to more than one state or local priority in three out of four consecutive school years:

The chartering authority shall provide technical assistance to the charter school, using the rubric created by the State Board of Education.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction may assign, at the request of the chartering authority and approval of the State Board, newly created California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to provide technical assistance to the charter school.

The language also requires a chartering authority to consider the revocation of any charter school to which the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance and has made either of following findings:
1. The charter school has failed to implement, or is unable to implement their recommendations.
2. The inadequate performance of the charter school is either so persistent or so acute as to require revocation.
A charter school is not allowed to appeal a revocation under this section of new law.
This creates terrible policy for California charter schools and their supporters. You should call the Governor’s office and urge him to reject this language which is contained in Assembly Bill 97. To view the entire bill go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and put in the bill number. You can call the Governor’s office at (916) 445-2841.

Monday night, June 10th, the conference committee closed out the open items in the budget negotiations. The legislature and the California Governor have reached agreement on a budget deal and while we are still waiting for the language to actually appear for the education trailer bill (and other issue area trailer bills), it is very important that we see the actual trailer bill language because that will be the language that fully implements this agreement but here is a summary of the deal.
Proposition 98 will be funded at levels similar to the Governor’s May Revision, with minor adjustments – $15 million less in the current year and $22 million higher in 2013–14. The compromise spends virtually the same on deferral buy down in the current year, but spends $650 million less than the Governor proposed for 2013-14. There will also be $1.25 billion in the budget for the implementation of common core standards. The federal sequestration cuts to special education are not going to be backfilled but the budget does spend $30 million for equalization. Proposition 39 funds will be used for K-14 schools only. The pending language should revolve around a poverty-weighted allotment of Prop 39 funds to each school district and community college district based on their average daily attendance (ADA). Charter schools should be included in these allotments. You would be responsible for submitting applications for energy saving projects based on criteria established by the California Energy Commission and to have those applications approved before receiving funds. A small amount of funds will be provided for the Workforce Investment Board ($3 Million) for Veterans and at-risk youth focused on energy related projects. Additionally, the requirement that LEAs give charter schools first priority on sale or lease of surplus property will be extended until 2016.
The Governor also won on his effort to change the way that schools are funded in California. Though he compromised with the legislature his Local Control Funding Formula will be implemented with changes to proposed funding levels and the supplemental and concentration grants. There will be $2.1 billion to implement the plan, roughly $214 million more than the Governor proposed. The Administration says the compromise spends 84% of the funds on the Base Grant and 16% on the Supplemental and Concentration Grants.
Here are the highlights of the plan:

Increases target per-pupil Base Grant by $537 above the May Revision.
The portion of the overall formula that is devoted to Base Grants is 84% (May Revision was 80%).
The compromise provides additional funding for an “economic recovery payment” to ensure that virtually all districts get back to their 2007-08 state funding levels, adjusted for inflation. (Because of some anomalies, a small number of very small school districts would not get back to the 2007-08 levels.)
Districts and charter schools would receive an additional 20 percent of the Base Grant for low income and English learner students.
While the Supplement Grant rate is reduced from the May Revision level (35% of the base rate), the Supplemental Grant rate is calculated on the much higher Base Grant. Thus, there is very little difference between the lower Base Grant/higher Supplemental Grant approach vs. and higher Base Grant/lower Supplement approach.
Districts and charter schools would qualify for additional concentration funding if 55% of their students are low income and English learners. (May Revision threshold was 50 percent.)
The Concentration Grant rate would be at 50% of the Base Grant for each low income and English learner student above the 55 percent threshold.
Full implementation is estimated to take eight years.
There are also ‘hold harmless’ provisions so no district or charter school receives lower funding in the budget year than they currently do.

These are the highlights and what is available today. We are all waiting for the actual language to be released so everyone can provide a better analysis and make sure the figures are accurate.

Last week the California legislature finished their Budget Subcommittee hearings on the Governor’s revision to his January budget proposal. The Governor’s charter school proposals, while not totally intact, all survived the hearings and are now headed to be deliberated in the budget conference committee. The conference committee will begin meeting this week in an effort to ‘iron’ out the differences between the Assembly and Senate in their budget recommendations. Once the conference committee has adopted a final product it will head to both houses of the legislature for a final vote with June 15th being the deadline to pass a budget before legislators start to get docked paychecks. For charter schools: extending the Governor’s proposal to allow them first refusal of school district surplus property, fixing the issues around county-wide charter schools, expanding the SB 740 program to include non-classroom based charters and changing the funding determination process for non-classroom based charter schools will all be before the conference committee. Both houses have already adopted the proposal to move the Charter School Facility Grant Program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Program from the California Department of Education to the California School Finance Authority in the State Treasurer’s Office. This means that the Governor has kept his strong commitment to charter schools, charter school funding and is fighting hard to address their concerns.
Also of interest to charter schools will be how the Governor’s Local Control Funding Formula will be implemented. Both the State Assembly and State Senate have their own versions of the Governor’s funding formula that they would like to implement but the Governor, while willing to negotiate, is still pushing the general concept and premise of his proposal: that district’s and charters in harder to serve communities get more dollars from the state than other districts. For charter schools the Governor’s plan means an immediate boost in funding since for the first time in the state’s history they would be funded, through the base grant, the same as school districts. This will wipe away an inequity in funding that the Legislative Analyst identified in a study of charter school funding last year. To view the study go to http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/edu/charter-schools/charter-schools-012612.pdf.

On Tuesday the California Governor released his May Revision which contains changes to his January budget proposal. As expected, with some tweaks and changes, the Governor doubled down on his efforts to change how we fund education in California. The May Revision estimates that revenues will be up $2.8 Billion over estimates provided in January. Though this is good news it is a low projection when thoughts were that revenues could have increased as much as $4.5 Billion. However, these funds have allowed the Governor to increase spending in some areas while still maintaining an overall modest budget proposal. Specifically, for Proposition 98 the Governor proposes a one-time investment of $1 billion for Common Core implementation allocated to all schools outside of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) on an ADA basis. This will be about $170 per student. Ignoring the complaints about the base funding being too low for schools in his LCFF and that his concentration grants should be eliminated, the Governor has produced data showing that 80% of his LCFF funding going to base grants, 16% to supplemental grants (for ELL students, students in poverty and foster youth) and only 4% going to the concentration grants.
Additionally, the Governor’s May Revision provides additional Proposition 98 funds for the following one-time K-12 uses including:

$1.6 Billion to accelerate repayment of inter-year deferrals and;
$61 Million to backfill the reduction in federal funding for Special Education under the sequestration cuts

For charter schools specifically the Governor did not change any of his January proposals which is very positive. The only issue that will affect charter schools is he has dropped his proposed changes to ‘online’ education and said that he will pursue those changes during next year’s budget debate.
To view the May Revisions and all of the proposed changes go to the Department of Finance’s website at www.dof.ca.gov.

Last week the Assembly Education Committee passed AB 948, as amended, out of committee on a unanimous vote. AB 948 is authored by Assemblywoman Kristen Olsen and sponsored by the California Charter Schools Association. The amendments adopted in committee would expand the SB 740 facility grant program by lowering the threshold of the program below 70% free and reduced lunch by one percentage point at a time once the schools in areas with greater than 70% are fully funded. The measure also allows the program to be used to purchase facilities and on debt service for facilities. That is the one step forward; the two steps backwards are the concessions that the Association agreed to in order to use the program for purchase and debt service. If the program is going to be used for purchase or debt service then the charter schools will have to adhere to the field act. Additionally, the measure subjects all charter schools utilizing the SB 740 facility grant program to the audit guide. The field act and the audit guide are two areas that charter schools have worked hard to stay away from over the last two decades. So though AB 948 expands the facility grant program it includes charter schools in two areas that are detrimental to the movement. These are two vital concessions that never should have been made.

– Not to the benefit of charter schools

Last week the legislature’s Assembly Education Committee continued its year-long process of passing anti-charter school legislation that could impact charter school funding. After passing AB 917 earlier this year, which adds classified employees to the list of signatures needed for a charter school conversion, the committee passed AB 1032 this week. AB 1032 radically changes the Proposition 39 facility options for charter schools with new requirements around how you quantify facilities and what the district’s responsibilities are. Additionally, AB 377 was voted down by the committee. That measure would have allowed non-classroom based charter schools to claim ADA for any student anywhere in the state. This is similar to proposals in the Governor’s budget that would address the contiguous county limitation that non-classroom based charter schools currently are hampered by. The anti-charter school legislative assault will continue this week in the Assembly Local Government Committee when they hear AB 913 which would create conflict of interest laws for charter schools and possibly make certain board violations criminal by applying Government Code 1090. To view any of these bills go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and type in the bill number.
On a positive front, the Administration continues to support strong policy changes for charter schools in the budget subcommittee hearings – policies that support charter school funding. Both the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees have voted to transfer the SB 740 facility grant program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Program from CDE to CSFA in the State Treasurer’s Office. The administration’s other charter school changes are still being held ‘open’ in the subcommittees. These changes include:

Adding non-classroom based charter schools to the Sb740 facility grant program
Dramatically altering the SB740 regulatory process
Extending the surplus property requirements for charter schools
Making the law more flexible for all online schools in the state

The Governor’s new funding formula, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), is also still being considered by the legislature and it appears they are coalescing around a few changes which would include:

Increasing the base grants for all districts and charter schools
Requiring the SPI to review accountability plans in order to maintain flexibility over categorical funds
Providing some increase to the base grant for redesignated EL students after year five
Pulling ou some key categorical programs from the flexibility provisions (e.g. CTE programs, Adult Ed)
Reducing or changing the county office of education funding formula to be “less generous”

This week, the Assembly Education Committee will hear AB 88. AB 88 contains the Governor’s Local Control Funding Formula proposal. While members of the Legislature and education stakeholders are expected to air their concerns, there will not be any major action on the proposal until after the Governor releases his May Revision on May 15.

It may become more difficult to open a California charter school that is a new conversion. This week the California Assembly Education Committee will hear AB 917 by Assemblyman Bradford. AB 917 would add the signatures of classified employees to the signatures that are needed to convert an existing public school into a charter school. The bill is being sponsored by SEIU and supported by the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA). It is unclear what has led the CCSA to support this measure but they are actively behind it.
Adding classified employees will make it more difficult to convert a school into a charter. In some cases like in Los Angeles, it could add up to 60 new signatures that will need to be gathered during the petition process. For other parts of the state the new requirement may not be that onerous but it would depend on how many classified employees actually work at the school site. For the sponsor it is a manner of including classified employees in the decision making process at individual schools but for charter school supporters it means that they would have to work to organize both the teachers union and the classified union employees.
The bill also raises a serious policy issue: should classified employees be involved in the conversion process at all? When the charter school statute was drafted it was meant as a tool for teachers and parents at and around a particular school. Clearly, AB 917 expands the law to include individuals that the original statute did not intend to cover.
Luckily for charter school advocates this measure is similar to AB 86 from 2011 and AB 2363 that was run a year prior to that. AB 2363 failed in the Senate Education Committee and the Governor vetoed AB 86. If the California Governor keeps his same position he will veto AB 917 once it reaches his desk.
To view any of the bills listed above go to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml and put in the bill number.

Last week the California Governor Jerry Brown released the funding projections for school districts and charter schools under his new Local Control Funding Formula. The much anticipated numbers from the Department of Finance have districts throughout the state positioning themselves for a bruising battle over winners and losers. All districts would see an increase in funding or continued funding at their current levels but many urban districts and some rural districts would see a jump in funding due to their student populations. However, this jump in funding would not appear for many suburban school districts. Their funding would be stagnant or a little better under the best case scenario. For all districts and charter schools the proposal increases funding by $2,700 per student over the first five years of its implementation. Supplemental funding would be provided for disadvantaged students that could equal as much as 35% of the base funding. For districts with 50% or greater disadvantaged students the state would provide an additional concentration grant equal to 35% of their base funding for each English Language Learner and disadvantaged student over the 50% threshold. So undoubtedly the fight will be over how you define a disadvantaged student and what do you do for suburban districts that do not serve this student population. For charter schools, the Governor’s proposal wipes out the funding disparity that the Legislative Analyst’s Office identified last year. There are still charter school funding issues but this proposal is a huge step in the right direction.
To view the Department of Finance’s funding projections go to: http://www.dof.ca.gov and hit the link for the Local Control Funding Formula.