Branché Jones, Author at Grow Schools

The Governor of California has released his education trailer bills (trailer bills are the implementing legislation used to enact changes in the California state budget) and they have a number of good provisions in them for charter schools in California. Clearly, the Governor is doubling down on his support of charter schools. In 2012 he proposed numerous provisions in the budget for charter schools and even authored his own charter school trailer bill. Now he is taking it a step further and actually proposing major initiatives that would benefit charter schools and charter school funding all over the state. Listed below are some of the provisions that the Governor is proposing.
In the education trailer bill here are some of the changes that the Governor proposes for charter schools:

Extending the current language that allows a school district’s surplus property to be made available to charter schools for five more years.
Allowing the State Board of Education to delegate oversight and supervisorial powers to any LEA.
Changing the SB 740 funding determination process to make it more friendly for charter schools by mandating that the non-classroom based charter schools have to submit a funding determination during their first and third year of existence and never submit a funding determination after that unless they meet certain criteria, including:
- The charter school receives a notice to cure for financial reasons.
- The charter school receives a notice of revocation.
- The charter school receives an apportionment significant audit exception.
- The charter school initiates a request for an additional funding determination for the purpose of seeking a change to its current funding level.
The Governor proposes to move both the Charter School Revolving Loan Program and the Charter School Facility Grant Program from the California Department of Education to the State Treasurer’s Office, allowing the California School Finance Authority to administer the programs.

With the issuance of these trailer bills, the Governor has again shown his support for school choice. This is tremendously encouraging and we hope for continued success in the Governor’s pursuit of more freedoms for charter schools.

Now that the state of California’s Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS) has set their hearing for February 6th it has become apparent that non-classroom based charter schools will have a more difficult time with the SB 740 regulatory process in the future. Schools that were once deemed to be in full compliance with the regulations are now seeing California Department of Education (CDE) staff recommend that their mitigating factors be denied and that their charter school funding be drastically reduced. CDE staff has not announced any changes to the way that they are handling the regulatory process but schools that have always received 100% of their charter school funding are now seeing their funding cut.
On the February 6th ACCS agenda there are 23 non-classroom based charter schools that have requested mitigating circumstances from the SB 740 regulations. All of their documentation was submitted between January and March of last year and all of their hearings and determinations were delayed until next month. CDE staff is recommending that 5 of the schools have their funding completely denied, 4 schools were recommended for 70% funding and 5 schools were recommended for 85% funding. All of these schools had their request for mitigating circumstances denied. Of the remaining schools on the list, 1 school was recommended for 85% funding and had their request for mitigating circumstances (reserves and exclusion of one time funding sources) approved. Another school was recommended for 100% funding but also had its request for mitigating circumstances denied and 7 schools were recommended for 100% funding and their request for mitigating circumstances is recommended for approval.
It remains to be seen if the ACCS will follow the CDE staff recommendations. However, the negative tone from CDE seems to be getting worse when it comes to charter schools. This is undoubtedly why the administration has put forth proposals, in the Governor’s January budget, to move two charter school programs from CDE to the California School Finance Authority (CSFA) in the State Treasurer’s office. The Governor would like to move both the Charter School Facility Grant Program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Program over to the Treasurer’s office. With CDE’s recent actions charter school supporters and advocates should be cheering and calling their legislator to urge that they approve the Governor’s proposal. If the administration’s proposals are approved it would remove many barriers that charters face when they deal with CDE. Currently, the CSFA runs its own charter school program that is funded with federal dollars and assists numerous charter schools with facility issues. Their staff is easier to deal with than the CDE staff and they are actually helpful and willing to work towards the best interest of the charter school. That is something that we have not seen in the CDE staff in years.

With California Governor Jerry Brown releasing his January budget proposal the administration’s educational priorities have become clear for everyone to see and it will ultimately help charter schools and their funding. The budget proposal increases per pupil funding by $1,100 for 2013-14 and projects per pupil funding to gradually increase until 2016-17 when there will be an increase of $2,700 per student over the current funding level. Proposition 98 overall will see an increase of $2.7 billion dollars with $1.8 billion going to pay back deferrals that the legislature has instituted.
The Governor has also doubled down on his Student Weighted Formula proposal from 2012 and has proposed a newly crafted student funding formula for 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula. Resembling last year’s proposal, this year’s proposal still starts with a base level of funding that will be the same for all public schools (charters included) with increased funding for English Language Learners and students participating in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. To soothe some of the tensions from interest groups that objected to his proposal last year, the Governor included K-3 class size reduction into the funding base of his proposal. For charter schools specifically the new funding formula will greatly reduce the inadequacies in funding that charters have seen since their existence between themselves and traditional public schools. However, this measure will pit some suburban school districts vs. some inner city districts as the latter is clear to see an increase in their funding that could come from cuts to the former. Though the Governor’s proposal is far from perfect it represents a giant step forward in terms of charter schools reaching a level of funding parity with their traditional school partners.
The Governor’s budget has some other good proposals for charter school funding specifically. It contains $48.5 million for pupil growth in charter schools. He is also proposing to move two charter school programs, the Charter School Facility Grant Program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund, from the California Department of Education (CDE) to the California School Finance Authority (CSFA), which is located within the State Treasurer’s Office. This can be seen as a bonus to the charter school community because the CSFA has been an easier partner to work with than CDE. The CSFA already runs their own federally funded charter school facility program and has partnered with many charter schools to ease their overall facility and funding needs. This would also place the State’s Treasurers Office in charge of two very large charter school programs and is sure to be seen as a slight to CDE. Yet another set of positive proposals appear in the Governor’s budget as he wants to allow non-classroom based charter schools to access funding from the Charter School Facility Grant Program and ease the regulatory burden that the funding determination process places on non-classroom based charter schools. Much like his funding proposal, these are proposals that he put forward last year and shows his continued commitment to the charter school movement. It is yet to be seen how the legislature will react to these proposals but the Governor has made his stance clear. Governor Jerry Brown is a strong supporter of charter schools in California and understands the need for charter school funding.
Legislative hearings will began on the Governor’s budget proposal in the next few weeks. These hearings will continue throughout April or May. In May the Governor will submit a revision to his budget proposal which will take into account new state revenue projections and may reflect some of the issues that the legislature has weighed in through the committee process. The legislature then has until June 15th to pass an on time budget. Undoubtedly the Governor’s new per pupil funding proposal will lead to very strict legislative scrutiny but he is committed to changing the way that we fund schools in the state.
To view the Governor’s budget and other featured information visit www.dof.ca.gov.

With Election Day now behind us, it is clear that the big winner in California was the governor, Jerry Brown. Brown had staked his entire credibility on the passage of his budget-helping measure Proposition 30, and he saw it pass by a comfortable margin. With the passage of Proposition 30, schools in California will now avoid a $450 per pupil cut in their budgets. The governor’s measure passed while Molly Munger’s initiative, Proposition 38, was defeated. Another big win for Brown was both houses of the legislature electing supermajorities of Democratic members. With this new supermajority, the Democrats will not have to negotiate with Republicans to pass legislation that requires a 2/3 vote, even after raising taxes. A clean sweep was completed for members of the Democratic coalition by the unions defeating Proposition 32, seen as an anti-union measure funded by special interests from outside of the state.
For election reformers, there were additional victories as Cheryl Brown defeated Joe Baca, Jr. in California’s 47th Assembly District, and Raul Bocanegra and Ian Calderon were elected to Assembly seats in Los Angeles – great news for those interested in the potential for increased charter school funding. Ms. Brown has a long history of supporting education reform efforts and her husband, Hardy Brown, is a longtime education reform advocate in California. She was supported by education reform and tribal interests and was the number one priority of the legislative Black Caucus. Bocanegra is a moderate who was a longtime Assembly staffer, and Calderon has already signaled that he will champion education reform issues in the Assembly. Overall, though the Assembly Democratic caucus is larger, it is also more moderate, which should be a good sign for education reform and charter funding throughout the state.
For more news about changes in charter school funding and information about financing your school, visit our blog.

As Election Day draws near, the battle between Proposition 30 (the California governor’s tax plan to help balance the state budget) and Proposition 38 (Molly Munger’s education tax plan) is heating up – as is the ultimate impact on charter school funding in California. Munger has spent more than $30 million on her ballot measure and has started running commercials that are in opposition to the governor’s efforts. Meanwhile, the governor has also raised millions of dollars for his measure and has vowed to begin non-stop campaigning.
If this were not enough to make for an interesting finish to the campaign season, a few additional factors are at play. Munger’s brother, Charles Munger, Jr., is funding an independent expenditure committee that is also spending money against the governor’s ballot measure. With all of the dollars being spent on competing campaigns, both measures are polling below 50%, which means it’s possible that education could get no additional money from taxpayers, charter school funding will be impacted, and the state budget will still be wildly out of balance after the election. All of these factors have led to Carol Kocivar, the head of the PTA and backer of the Munger proposition, to try to broker a peace treaty between the governor and Molly Munger. The effort has not been successful in either camp.
In the backdrop of all of this is Proposition 32, which the state’s unions are heavily opposing. Prop 32 would place severe limits on organized labor’s ability to contribute to candidates and campaigns, and would restrict their ability to collect union dues for political purposes. Defeating the measure is the union’s number one priority, and the money spent to fund the opposition is money that would otherwise go to support the governor’s ballot measure.
For charter schools preparing school budgets, we suggest they budget conservatively with the assumption that neither Prop 30 nor Prop 38 passes. The general consensus in the world of political consultants is that with the campaigns deepening their opposition, it will be difficult for either measure to pass.
For more information on how the California state budget may impact charter school funding, see Understanding the California State Budget Impacts on Charter School Funding, a recent Charter School Capital post.
UPDATE: As of October 15, Molly Munger pulled one ad attacking Proposition 30, according to the LA Times.

Last Friday, August 31, the California legislature adjourned for the year, completing their work on several controversial issues in the 2011-12 legislative session. For charter school supporters and advocates, there were a few pieces of legislation that may affect your interests – specifically those which may affect financing California charter schools. All of the following measures are currently on the Governor’s desk awaiting his signature or veto.
AB 1594 by Assemblyman Eng mandates charters schools to gradually begin to participate in the Free and Reduced meals program if they have eligible students (though non-classroom based charter schools are exempt.) This bill follows a state-wide audit mandated by legislators to determine whether or not charter schools have been participating in this program.
AB 1811 by Assemblywoman Bonilla deals with conversion charter schools and their funding rates. This has been a long-running issue on which legislation is usually proposed every few years. AB 1811 says that once the school converts into a charter school, it cannot receive more funding than it would have gotten if it continued as a traditional public school. Conversion funding rates are an issue for the state, because some policymakers believe that some schools only converted in order to qualify for the higher level of funding (depending on the grade level span) and ultimately receive more financing for California charter schools from the state.
AB 1919 by Assemblywoman Brownley deals with access to student data and the access to that data by the authorizer. Amendments were taken to ensure that the bill complies with FERPA (and ensure the protection of the student’s and parent’s rights).
SB 1290 by Senator Alquist makes reaching pupil growth targets the most important part of charter school renewal from all of the different subgroup targets. The bill is sponsored by the Department of Education and backed by the US Department of Education. The Federal Government claims that the state has to make the change to continue to be eligible for the charter school start-up grant. This leaves to question whether or not the State Board of Education can draft regulations to make the change, therefore making legislation unnecessary.
To view any of these bills in their entire form visit http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html and type in the bill number in the search bar. For more information about financing California charter schools, visit our blog.

Yesterday, Senator Elaine Alquist amended her bill SB 1290 to change how charter schools are renewed in California. This may affect funding for California charter schools, should they not meet the new qualifications to renew. The bill proposed by Senator Alquist states that charters must meet their Academic Performance Index (API) growth target overall, as well as for each of their subgroups, in order to qualify for renewal of their charter school status. (To view the bill, go to www.leginfo.ca.gov, click on the ‘Bill Information’ link, and type in ‘SB 1290’ in the search bar.) The bill is being sponsored by the California Department of Education, while other opinions are mixed. The California Charter Schools Association is neutral on the measure, but a number of individual lobbyists and education reform advocates are opposed to it and fighting against it. The bill will be heard in the Assembly Education Committee next Wednesday at 1:30 PM. To voice your opposition to Senator Alquist’s attempts to re-regulate and change funding for California charter schools, please contact her office via telephone at (916) 651-4013 or fax at (96) 324-0283.

Tuesday, June 5th was Election Day, and the results may have an impact on funding for charter schools in California . This election was the first time California saw its new top-two primary voting system go into effect. Under the new system, the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of political affiliation, advance from the primary to the general election (as opposed to the top-two vote getters from differing political parties). Voters enacted the new system with the hope that more moderate candidates would be elected to the California State Legislature, and our state politics would become less polarizing. This new system also allows moderate groups an opportunity to be more successful when attempting to elect legislative candidates. Redistricting that was done a decade ago had led to various unions and business groups in zones that supported the Democratic and Republican candidates respectively, meaning there were few, if any, moderates who were being elected from either party to the state legislature.
With this in mind, the education reform community in California fared relatively well on election-day in the two legislative races in which they supported specific candidates. In the 57th Assembly District, Democrat Ian Calderon defeated Democrat Rudy Bermudez, enacting a general matchup with a Republican in November that Calderon is projected to win. He has been outspoken about the need to reform our current education system in California, and was heavily funded by a host of education groups throughout the state. In the 46th Assembly District, Democrat Brian Johnson, a Teach For America alumnus and former charter school executive director, is currently on pace to join another Democratic candidate in the November general election. Johnson holds a slim 82 vote lead over the Republican candidate in the race, who finished a close third in the balloting. This is sure to trigger a recount, but if Johnson can hold on, it will mean yet another victory for education reform groups. Like Calderon, Johnson was heavily backed. If both Calderon and Johnson are victorious come November, it could mean a much-needed increase in funding for California charter schools. To find out more about charter school financing options, visit our website.