Tuesday’s California Election Results

Tuesday’s California election results are still being decided in some races as ballots are still being counted. The results will not bring a significant change to the Legislature however, there were some very high profile races and a few interesting developments.

California State Senate Results

In the State Senate races there were virtually no surprises and the Democrats will still hold a supermajority after November’s general election.

The only notable races were in the 29th Senate District where the results set up a contest between Democrat Josh Newman, who was recalled after his vote for the gas tax in 2018, and current Republican Senator Ling Ling Chang. Chang only received 49.4% of the vote in the three-person primary while the two Democrat’s received 50.6% of the vote. This will make for a very competitive race in November.

In the 37th Senate District, Republican Senator John Moorlach received 50% of the vote while his two Democratic challengers received the other 50% of the vote. This sets up a second competitive race for the general election and puts another Republican seat in jeopardy.

California State Assembly Results

In the State Assembly races, there were several notable developments, but as with the Senate, the Democrats will retain a supermajority. In the 38th Assembly District, which was formerly represented by anti-charter school Democrat Christy Smith, two Republicans garnered the top two spots and will move on to the general election. This means the seat will represent a pick up for the Republicans in November. Smith is running for Congress and was not involved in the race.

In the 42nd Assembly District Independent Chad Mayes, who is a former Republican Assembly Leader, received 35.8% of the vote and he will face Republican Andrew Kotyuk who received 34.5% in the general election.

The 57th Assembly District saw a race that featured two political powerhouses as two of the candidates have relatives that serve in the Legislature. The second-place finisher was Lisa Calderon who is the mother-in-law of the current Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon. She received 19.7% of the vote. The top vote-getter was Republican Jessica Martinez with 29.5% of the vote; Calderon and Martinez will face off in November. Finishing third and missing the November primary election was Democrat Sylvia Rubio with 17.8% of the vote. Rubio has a sister that currently serves in the State Senate and a sister that currently serves in the State Assembly.

In the 59th Assembly District, the current incumbent Democrat Reggie Jones-Sawyer will face off against Democrat Efren Martinez in November. Martinez actually outpolled Jones-Sawyer 49.6% to 45.7%.

In the 72nd Assembly District incumbent Republican Tyler Diep was outpolled by former Republican State Senator Janet Nguyen 35.1% to 26.5%. The two will face off in the November general election.

In the 73rd Assembly District the current incumbent, Republican Bill Brough, failed to reach the November general election after coming in fourth place. The seat will stay in the Republican column but Brough’s time in the Legislature is coming to an end.

In the 74th Assembly District the Republican’s have an opportunity to pick up a seat as the incumbent, Democrat Cottie Petrie-Norris, failed to reach 50% of the vote. She garnered 49.5% of the vote while her two Republican opponents received over 50% of the vote.

California State Legislature: February 2020 Update

Friday, February 21st was the last day to introduce bills in the California State Legislature. The State Assembly saw over 1,500 measures introduced this year while the State Senate had over 700. These measures will now begin to have hearings scheduled in legislative policy committees. If they are passed out of the policy committee and have a fiscal impact then they will head to the Appropriations Committee.

Unlike last year, there has not been a lot of bills introduced that impact charter schools. Clearly, members of the Legislature and the administration believe that charter schools will have a tough enough time implementing SB 126, AB 1505 and AB 1507 from last year.

This year, only two bills have been introduced that are charter school-specific: SB 1423 which makes some changes to the Charter School Facility Grant Program and SB 1449 which is a charter school spot bill.

A spot bill is a measure that has not been fully amended yet but states that the intention of the bill is to change the charter school law in some manner. There are a plethora of bills that will be heard this year and I am attaching a matrix that will list a number of them, by bill number, and contains a short description of each bill’s contents.

As the year moves along and bills are amended and changed in the California State Legislature, we will keep you updated as to the measures that may impact charter schools.

Click to download the detailed list of bills here: 2020 California Legislature Bill List

Since 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

2020 California Legislative Prospectus

With 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.

LEARN MORE

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.

Since 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

Charter 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!

Since 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 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.

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.

Since 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

Charter 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.

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 $1.8 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 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 Legislative Update and Senate Bill 126

In this CHARTER EDtalk, we are honored to be joined by Branché Jones from Branché Jones Lobbying Firm, an expert in California charter school legislation and supporter of the charter school movement. Branché shares his insights into the most recent California legislative updates and how the new SB126 is going to affect charter schools across the state of California. To learn more, please watch the video or read the transcript below for the full story.

TRANSCRIPT

Ryan Eldridge: Hello, and welcome to this episode of CHARTER EDtalks. I’m Ryan Eldridge, Charter School Advisor for Charter School Capital, and I’m honored to be joined by Branché Jones from Branché Jones Lobbying Firm. And we’re here to discuss the California Legislature and Senate Bill 126. So Branché, I know that you’ve got your pulse on things, and we just wanted to find out a little bit more about how 126 is going to impact the charter schools in California.

About Senate Bill 126

Branché Jones: Sure. SB-126 is a culmination of about 15 years of efforts to apply conflict of interest provisions to charter schools in the state. It has the Brown Act in it, the Political Forum Act, the Public Records Act, and you’ll have to comply with government code 1090, which is the governing body of law for elected officials and board members. What it’s going to do is you’re actually going to have to change your provisions, how you operate your Board. Your governing structure may have to change, who you can hire, what terms they’ll be working for you under, things of that nature.
Additionally, for non-classroom-based schools, they have some teleconferencing provisions. So when you’re having a board meeting, there’ll have to be some type of device at every location where people can testify and hear what’s going on in the board meeting.
As I said in the beginning, it was about 15 years in the making. Charter schools have been able to fight it off and different descriptions of it, different bills, Assembly bills, Senate bills. The previous governor, Mr. Brown, was very supportive of charter schools, everybody knows, and he would not sign this piece of legislation.
This governor, Mr. Newsom, said in his campaign that he was going to enact some charter school transparency laws around conflict of interest and things of that nature. So, this bill actually passed in warp speed. It took one week to get through the State Assembly. State Senate first, one week to get through the State Assembly, then it was on the governor’s desk, and he signed it. It’ll go into effect on January 1st, 2020.
In my personal opinion, this was coming in some form or another. We had lived free of those laws since the inception of the Charter School Act, so this was kind of like government creep. It was coming.
Eldridge: Inevitable. Right?
Jones: One way or the other—it was. Correct. It was inevitable. Many schools already live under these provisions and adhere to these provisions. The one thing to add is the bill also applies those same provisions to charter school management corporations (CMOs), so anybody managing or running a charter school has to comply with all those laws as well. That’ll be something that I think people really have to make sure they have a tight grip on because you don’t want to be out of compliance with the statute. That would be reasons for revocation, and that could be the case in some places.
We know there are some interesting governance models out there, but that’s the one twist they put on the bill. So it applies to the entire charter school structure. There was little to no opposition because it was inevitable. The governor wanted this on his desk. He wanted it to be the first thing he signed, and he made sure everybody knew that. We all had our meeting in the Horseshoe with the staff. That’s the governor’s office. They explained the realities of the situation to us all. So this was going to happen, and it basically … It almost went through unanimously, with a couple Republicans in the State Senate and State Assembly voting against it.

What does this mean for the rest of 2019?

Jones: What this means moving forward for 2019, this is the first bill of many that will apply to charter schools. There’s 1505 that would take away your rights to appeal and do a number of wacky things. I know there are some amendments out there to it, but everyone will be in opposition to that. 1506 has not been amended yet at this date, but it will have a cap of some kind in it for charter schools. 1507 closes a loophole that says you can put your site … if you can’t find a location for your school in the district you’re authorized in, you can put it in the district next door. And 1508 will deal with districts … It hasn’t fully been amended, kind of like 1506. They’re working on the language, but it will deal with the financial impact charters have on districts and probably allow a district to deny a charter for fiscal reasons.
Now, the last point I’ll add is the governor has not … the administration hasn’t taken a position. We know people will be fighting these measures as they go through the State Assembly. I don’t know where the State Senate will be. I don’t know that they all reached the governor’s desk, but he did not want to put a cap or a moratorium in his piece of legislation. So that might hint as to where he is on it, but we’re not clear at this point. The only other thing to add is there’s a charter school commission that’s been created to look at the fiscal impact charters have on districts and should have a report out the end of June.
Eldridge: Okay
Jones: That’s the legislative makeup.
Eldridge: So some more information may be coming in the June timeframe, so you can maybe do another one of these with us?
Jones: Yes, we’ll do another one.
Eldridge: And get some updates?
Jones: Yes. And then after June, we’ll know. The governor’s May revision will be out, so we’ll know where the budget numbers are as well.
Eldridge: We appreciate it. This wraps up this version of Charter Ed Talks. We appreciate your time, and thanks for joining us.

LEARN MORE

California Legislative New Update: Conflict of Interest Legislation on the Governor’s Desk

Here’s your latest 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) has passed the legislature and is heading to the Governor for his signature. The Governor had promised that he would implement conflict of interest standards on charter schools during his campaign and he is keeping that promise.
The measure was fast-tracked through the legislature and sent to the Governor in two weeks. 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.
To view the bill go to https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and put in the bill number.

LEARN MORE