California Charter Schools Archives

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.

Across the country, today’s charter schools need better access to charter school funding for working capital and facilities financing at all stages of growth. Having reliable sources of charter school funding when needed allows schools to hire teachers, purchase textbooks, upgrade classroom technology, and expand the school’s facilities footprint so charter leaders can focus on what’s most important – educating students.
Working exclusively with charter schools, Charter School Capital understands the daily pressures charter leaders face. Our team works with school leaders to develop the best strategies matched to the school’s unique financial needs. By providing funding for charter schools, we’re empowering you. We give you access to the working capital and facilities financing options you need to stay focused on education, so every student has the opportunity to become someone incredible
Let us help you in planning for your school’s future.
Our team is excited to learn more about your charter school needs. Set up a one-on-one with our client services team to find out how we can help your school. Call 877-272-1001 or email GrowCharters@charterschoolcapital.com.
Want more information on growth capital and facilities financing? We offer information on growth strategies, facilities financing options, student enrollment marketing, and more.

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

As the budget process moves ahead, below we’ve outlined some key information and initiatives that impact California charter schools.
This week the California legislative budget subcommittees and the full Assembly and Senate Budget Committees will finish their work reviewing and voting on their respective budget blueprints. Once that process is complete the Joint Budget Conference Committee will begin meeting so the legislative houses can begin to ‘hash out’ the differences between their blueprints and pass one budget through both houses by June 15th. After that Governor Jerry Brown will have 30 days to sign or veto the budget; he can also blue line (or reduce) certain amounts of funding within the budget.
For the education community, including charter school funding, the budget is robust with extra funding. The Assembly has included $3.1 Billion additional dollars for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) while the Senate included $2.979 Billion. Both houses also have included over $1 Billion to pay off the mandate backlog.
For California charter schools specifically, the legislature rejected the Governor’s effort to add $20 Million for Charter School Start Up Grants. The Governor had proposed the money because California did not get approved for the next round of federal dollars for charter school funding. The legislature’s rationale is there is still over $24 Million in federal carryover dollars available for the program and they will take a look at it again next year. They did approve an additional staff person for the California School Finance Authority to work on the Charter School Facility Grant Program. Additionally, the Senate included language that will allow independent study charter schools to store their records electronically. The Assembly did not include that language so it will be a conference item.

Want more new and information about charter schools and important state and national details? Sign-up to receive relevant information that matters to you. Go to our home pages and click on Newsletter sign-up in the top right corner of the page.

Last week the California Governor Jerry Brown released his May Revision. The Revision amends the budget that he introduced in early January, reflecting the new state revenue projections and any new policy proposals that the administration wants to pursue. The Governor stated that revenues are running $1.9 Billion below projections. As such he is holding firm to his goals of keeping spending down and the budget balanced. This means that he will not support the creation or new programs or the expansion of existing programs. Though Proposition 98 will see a bump specifically: the supplemental and concentration grants in the local control formula will see an increase in the May Revision of $2.9 billion. This will bring implementation of the formula to 96 percent. Additionally, the Governor is continuing his push for a block grant for all early education programs allowing them to be administered by local education authorities. For charter schools specifically the Governor is still including dollars for the charter school start up grants since California no longer qualifies for federal funds. He has also included language in one of the education trailer bills that will allow independent study charter schools to store their records electronically. The legislative budget subcommittees will begin hearing the details of the May Revision this week and forward their recommendations to both houses of the legislature in a few weeks. Then the legislative Joint Budget Conference Committee will begin to hear ‘open’ items with final passage of the budget by June 15th.
Below are links to the Governor’s May Revision and his education trailer bills.
May Revision Budget Summary:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
Education-related Finance Letters (including related trailer bill language):
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2016-17/may_1_finance_letters/documents/MR%20FL%20Education.pdf

Charter School Advocacy Day 2016 — California students from Academia Avance visit Ohio capital on field trip #Advocacy Day

On Tuesday, May 3^rd, thousands of charter school advocates flocked to their state’s capitals to encourage legislative support and action for the charter school movement. Known across the country as Charter School Advocacy Day, this nationally coordinated effort empowers students, teachers, parents, and administrators to share their stories of charter school successes directly with state government officials.
In California, where 581,000 students attend 1,228 public schools, nearly 500 charter school supporters met with state representatives and state senators to reiterate the need for school choice, praise supportive officials, and advocate for continued expansion of the state’s substantial charter school program. Throughout the day, a bipartisan group of state officials spoke to charter school advocates, praising the innovation charter schools bring to the education space, as well as the advances charter schools have made in bringing a quality education to students from all backgrounds.
“It’s great to see the Capitol full of charter school advocates,” said Branche Jones, a charter advocate in California. “As they visit legislative offices they really enforce the importance of school choice and options while letting legislators know the benefits that they are providing for their constituents.”
Meanwhile in Ohio, where nearly 125,000 students attend charters, more than 400 families gathered at the state capital in Columbus for a series of inspirational speeches from state legislators on the steps of the Statehouse. Ohio Senate President Keith Faber encouraged everyone to keep pressing for school choice, “…remember to tell your legislator that parents know what learning environment is best for their children.”
Inside the Statehouse in Columbus, the Ohio House of Representatives passed a resolution recognizing National Charter Schools Week, reading in part, “Through the efforts of educators and administrators, Ohio’s charter schools have made significant contributions to improving the quality of life in our society.”
This resolution echoed similar resolutions of praise across the country, including official proclamations from President Barack Obama and Texas Governor Greg Abbott recognizing National Charter Schools Week.
Charter School Capital is proud to support National Charter Schools Week and Charter School Advocacy Day. With more than 1 million students still on wait lists for charter schools, every effort to educate, advocate, and advance the charter school movement is essential to making sure all children in this country have access to the highest-quality education.
Visit the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools site for more information on National Charter Schools Week.