California Legislative Update: Conflict of Interest Legislation

Here’s your 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) is currently speeding through the legislature. The measure passed the State Senate this week and will pass through the State Assembly next week. Then it will head to the Governor for his signature and he will sign the measure. The administration has been very clear that the Governor made a commitment to charter school transparency during his campaign and SB 126 fulfills that commitment.
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. This is moving faster than anyone anticipated but will impact all charter schools in the State.
To view the bill go to https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and put in the bill number.

2018 California Mid-Term Election Update

On Tuesday, Californians went out to vote and decided a number of races; they also left a number of races to be determined as ballots are counted. So, while numbers are changing, this is an update on where we currently stand on a few of the races.
Gavin Newsom will be our next Governor; that race was decided in the Primary as the Republican, John Cox, really had no chance.
In the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction Marshall Tuck is leading Assemblyman Tony Thurmond by about 70,000 votes but that margin is shrinking as late ballots are being counted. This race was one of the most expensive in California history with total expenditures exceeding $50,000 million.
The 2018 legislative races represented a near wipeout for the Republican party in California. They will see losses in both the State Assembly and the State Senate and were shut out of all state-wide races.

A Legislative Supermajority

Democrats will have a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the legislature. In the State Senate, the Republicans are struggling in the race to replace former Republican State Senator Anthony Cannella in the 12th district where Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D) is running against Supervisor Rob Poythress (R). The candidates are separated by 1% in what would be a Democratic pickup.
In the 14th district, Senator Anthony Vidak is running behind Melissa Hurtado in the surprise race of the cycle. Senator Vidak losing was not on anyone’s radar screen and much of the Capitol community is in shock that he is trailing by 3,474 votes. Votes are still being counted, but the Democrats will have a supermajority in the State Senate next year.

The State Assembly

In the State Assembly, Democratic pickups are possible in the southern part of the state.
In the 16th district Assemblywoman Catharine Baker (R) is fending off a still challenge from Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D), but the race is too close to call with Baker ahead by almost 3,000 votes.
In the 32nd district Assemblyman Rudy Salas (D) is holding off challenger Justin Mendes (R) in what was a Republican targeted seat; Salas should hold the seat through the final tally. Though this was a low turnout race, we saw an incredible amount of money spent and, since this overlaps some with Senator Vidak’s seat, there is a belief that the funding negatively impacted Vidak’s race.
In the 38th Assemblyman Dante Acosta (R) is turning back a strong challenge from Christy Smith (D). In the one bright spot for Republicans, Assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes (D) is currently trailing Bill Essayll (R) by a few hundred votes but the race is going back and forth as ballots are being counted.
In the 74th district, Assemblyman Matthew Harper (R) is ahead of challenger Cottie Petrie-Norris by about 800 votes. Democrats will pick up a seat in the 76th where Assemblyman Rocky Chavez waged an unsuccessful run for Congress. Tasha Boerner Horvath (D) will be the new member.

Editor’s Note: This post was originally published on August 13, 2018, here, by EdSource, and was written by John Fensterwald, who writes about education policy and its impact in California. They interviewed Gary Hart – the “father” of California charter school law – and he shares how he feels about things now, 25 years later. Is it as he envisioned? What would he change? What is working/not working?
Our mission is to see continued charter school expansion, the overall growth of the charter school movement, and more students better served by having educational choice. We think it’s vital to keep tabs on the pulse of all things related to charter schools, including informational resources, and how to support 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. Please read on to see EdSource’s original post.

Gary Hart, author of California’s charter school law, reflects on its impact
He’d change the appeals process if writing it today.

What does the “father” of California’s quarter-century-old charter school law think of it now? EdSource recently caught up with former State Sen. Gary Hart, a Democrat who represented Santa Barbara in the Assembly and Senate for 20 years before retiring in 1994. In 1992, as chairman of the Senate Education Committee, he authored the nation’s second charter school law. Sue Burr, a consultant to the committee at the time and currently a member of the State Board of Education, played a major role in drafting it. EdSource writer John Fensterwald asked Hart in an interview and in writing what he was trying to do then and how, in hindsight, he might write a different law today. The answers have been edited for length and clarity.
The original law capped the number of charter schools statewide at 100, with no more than 10 in any one district and 20 in Los Angeles Unified. In 1998, the Legislature raised the limit to 250 charter schools plus an additional 100 more each year after that.
EDSOURCE: Is it as you envisioned, that we would have more than 1,200 charter schools in California?
HART: No. It’s always hard to predict how legislation is going to play out. Although it was very contentious, I didn’t view it as something that was going to be earth-shaking or have the magnitude that it has.
The original law called for up to 100 charter schools. That was changed a number of years later. When the law first passed, we had no idea as to whether there would be any charters. It was like you give a party and you don’t know if anyone will come or not. It was kind of slow in the beginning. The accelerated growth has been just extraordinary, and it’s not something that not only myself, but I don’t think anybody else could have predicted or even imagined.
EDSOURCE: So what do you attribute that growth to? Are the charter schools from what you can tell doing collectively or individually what you would have hoped?
HART: It’s really hard to generalize because charters vary so much. Generally speaking, I’m supportive. With any legislation of this magnitude, there are always going to be issues and concerns. I do think there has been such a focus on how many new charters, it’s focusing on quantity and I had hoped initially there would be a lot more focus on quality, a more careful review of charters.
EDSOURCE: One of the questions originally was whether charters should be seen as a way to innovate and set examples for other district schools to learn from or to give parents a choice in high-poverty neighborhoods where they are dissatisfied with their schools. Those are really two different focuses.
HART: I think it was both. First and foremost was innovation and reform, giving an opportunity for people to do things differently and not be constrained by all of the rules and regulations from the district, from collective bargaining.
I heard over and over again from school folks, “Stop passing all these laws. We’re spending all of our time being compliance officers and bureaucrats and we’re not able to do our jobs as educators.” I thought that there was some truth to that and so passing this law really gave an opportunity for educators to be educators and not be as concerned about rules and regulations.
After the law was passed, there wasn’t much that came forward either from teachers or administrators or school board members who had complained bitterly about state laws. Instead of going out and doing it, a lot of people resisted. That’s not to say they were wrong because going through the whole process can be quite time-consuming and there’s a lot of blood on the floor sometimes for establishing these things.
This other aspect was also important — the people who felt that the existing schools, particularly in low-income areas, were not serving their needs; their school districts were too large or dysfunctional. They needed to have something that would be their own.
One of the concerns was, “This charter law will be for sophisticated parents who have a lot of time on their hands.” It was somewhat of a surprise to see that places like LA Unified and Oakland and other large urban school districts were where the charters were taking off. I think there was a dissatisfaction on the part of parents, but also because the business community and the foundation community got behind these efforts and provided resources. I never anticipated that charter management organizations would have such an important role.
EDSOURCE: The financial impact on a district was not part of the law. Was it brought up at the time?
HART: I don’t think so. The law didn’t have large-scale financial ramifications. We were talking about 100 charters statewide.
The bill was a major effort to try to defeat the voucher proposal that was going to be on the ballot and we saw it as an alternative to vouchers that would not go down that path of providing the large taxpayer subsidies to private schools and violating the church-state separation right. (Editor’s note: Prop. 174, which would have given parents a tuition subsidy to a private or parochial school equal to half of per-student funding at public schools eventually did make the November 1993 general election ballot; voters defeated it 70 to 30 percent.)
There was strong teacher opposition to the charter legislation from both AFT (American Federation of Teachers) and CTA (California Teachers Association) even though ironically, I got the idea from Al Shanker (the late president of the American Federation of Teachers) who had written about it. I was a great fan and Shanker had come out and testified on a number of occasions to legislation that we were considering.

“Charter fights in places like L.A. Unified have become almost religious wars, where large amounts of money are spent, and having an appeals process that is less political makes sense to me.”

The focal point of the unions was largely to ensure that collective bargaining laws would not be tampered with in the charter law. That issue was very contentious and I refused to budge. My position was that there needed to be a choice for teachers whether to form a union at a charter school.

Legislative ‘jiu-jitsu’

EDSOURCE: How did you ever get it passed?
HART: It wasn’t easy. The unions were strongly opposed and many other education groups — ACSA (Association of California School Administrators) and CSBA (California School Boards Association) — were neutral perhaps because they didn’t want to antagonize CTA. It was pretty lonely out there. We engaged in some legislative jiu-jitsu and pulled the bill out of conference committee and passed it quickly off the Senate floor with no debate and sent it to Gov. Wilson, who signed it into law. If we had followed traditional procedures and the unions had had time to work the bill, it likely would not have passed.
EDSOURCE: Did it become apparent that there would be resistance and that some folks in many districts at the time didn’t like competition? You knew that, right, because you set up an appeals process?
HART: We did, and it wasn’t that we had a cynical view towards school districts, but there was a potential conflict of interest that made, I thought, an appeals process a good idea. School boards and school administrators might oppose any charter because it might mean less district control, less revenue and more competition. So having an appeals process made sense and I thought county boards, who were also elected and had a sense of local issues, were the right bodies to hear appeals. Six years later the charter law was amended to provide another appeal to the State Board of Education. I understand now the state board spends up to half its time hearing charter appeals, which I’m not sure is a good use of state board time given all the other policy matters on their plate.
EDSOURCE: Would you eliminate that ultimate appeals process because it’s not a good use of (state board) time, or do you think someone else ought to be the ultimate authority or should you just keep it at the county level and whatever happens there happens?
HART: I still believe a charter appeals process is a good idea but charters are now becoming a campaign issue with some county boards of education so I’m not sure they are the right venue for appeals. Charter fights in places like L.A. Unified have become almost religious wars, where large amounts of money are spent, and having an appeals process that is less political makes sense to me. Perhaps the State Board of Education could appoint an expert panel to review and have the final say on charter appeals. I favor making the process less political and handled by more neutral people.

Financial impact on districts

EDSOURCE: Some districts are very frank about the financial impact of charter schools. “Look, we can’t afford it. We’re making cuts and you’re asking us to start new charter schools adding to the financial problems we have.” If you were to redo the law, would you hold a district harmless for the financial impact or compensate it for the impact of a charter?
HART: Some districts face loss of revenue due to charter growth, and many districts face unsustainable long-term employee health care costs and all districts face escalating pension contributions. A review of state financing seems in order. We have had funding adjustments to mitigate for declining enrollment. Perhaps something like that ought to be considered for districts with many charter schools. But a strict “hold harmless” for districts losing students to charters doesn’t make sense, as it would reward districts for not being competitive and it might also provide an incentive for districts to push out “undesirable” students. Trying to accommodate various factors that are affecting the financing of a district gets very complicated. There are unintended consequences you have to be careful about.
Districts have many financial challenges and it seems to me that charters are not the primary or even significant part of the financial problems districts face in the long term — those problems are going to remain with or without charter schools.
EDSOURCE: Looking back, seeing what people are saying now are some of the challenges to the law, what changes might you make?
HART: We now have more than 1,000 charter schools in California and we know little about their successes and failures. Some work has been done comparing charter to traditional public schools on student achievement but, given the great variety of charter schools, I’m not sure about the value of that body of research.
I would be interested in research on topics like school size — charters tend to be smaller. School mission — charters tend to have a specific rather than a comprehensive mission. Accountability — it’s easier to dismiss staff in charter schools. And school governance — charter board members are not elected by the general public and do not have to raise money to run for office. There’s a lot to explore with 25-plus years of experience and data.
I think we’re hungry for highlighting and replicating what is working well, whether it’s in a charter school or in a traditional school. We don’t do a good job of that.

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

The Potential Impact of the California Legislative Session on Charter Schools

Last Friday, the California State Legislature adjourned for the year after sending hundreds of bills to the Governor for his signature. Several of the proposed bills from this recent California legislative session could have an impact on charter schools.
With elections being held in November, a new legislature will convene on the first Monday in December for an organizational session. They will meet for one day and then they will reconvene again in January.
Here are the bills – that could impact charter schools – on the Governor’s desk awaiting his signature or veto:

AB 406 by Assemblyman McCarty would ban charter schools operating by or as a for-profit.
AB 1871 by Assemblyman Bonta would require charter schools to provide meals for students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program.
AB 2601 by Assemblywoman Webber would mandate that charter school students in grades 7-12 receive comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education.
SB 328 by Senator Portantino would mandate that middle and high schools could not start school before 8:30 a.m.
SB 972 by Senator Portantino would require all schools serving pupils in grades 7-12 that issue pupil identification cards to have printed on that card the number for a suicide prevention hotline or crisis text line.

Fortunately, the Governor has been a strong charter school supporter and will probably look favorably on these pieces of legislation. If he signs any of them, charter schools will need to make sure that they are prepared for changes in the laws. At the very least, it would be a lot to implement at the local level.
To view any of these measures in their entirety, go to leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and hit the bill information link at the top left of the page.

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 $1.6 billion in support of 600 charter schools that educate 800,000 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 Election: Primary Results Come In

Tuesday, Californians went to the polls to vote in the ‘jungle’ primary. There were two notable results from the California primary election that will affect the charter school and education reform community. As I have stated before the races for Governor and Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) turned into proxy wars between the reform community and the traditional education establishment. Antonio Villariagosa, who was backed by heavy expenditures from the reformers, came in third in the race for Governor with 13.5% of the vote. That means he will not be in the runoff in November. That race will feature Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, who received 33.3% of the vote, against John Cox, who received 26.2% of the vote. Since California is a dark blue state, Newsom is expected to prevail in November by double digits. It remains to be seen what the charter school supporters will do now as they placed all of their efforts and hopes on Villariagosa making the run off. They spent almost $30 million on independent expenditure tv adds and mail and used some of that money to directly attack both Newsom and Cox. Their campaign efforts were a flop and left many political experts scratching their heads and questioning their strategy. What will be the next Governor’s view of charter schools and education reform is an open question, but there is no incentive for him to be supportive.
The reformers fared better in the race for SPI. In a four way race their candidate Marshall Tuck lead the way with 37.1% of the vote. The traditional education establishment’s candidate Tony Thurmond came in second with 34.3% of the vote. This sets up a November matchup between the two. Marshall will have the clear advantage because of his higher name identification, as he previously ran for SPI.
Additionally, the Democrats in the State Senate were dealt a serious blow as Senator Josh Newman was recalled for his vote in favor of higher taxes last year. This will put the Democratic two-thirds supermajority in risk in the Senate if they do not pick up an additional seat in November.

Upcoming California Primary Election

On Tuesday, June 5th, Californians will go to the ballot to vote in our Primary Election. There are two major races in the California primary election that will affect the charter school and education reform communities:
• the race for Governor; and
• the race for Superintendent of Public Education.
The race for Governor has turned into a very expensive race that pits education reform groups against the traditional education establishment. The same dynamic is playing out in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction. To date, education reform supporters have spent over $22 million on both races. The establishment is also spending heavy and I expect the cost for both of the races to exceed $30 when the Primary is over.

The Governor’s Race

The Governor’s race features Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, businessman John Cox, former Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa, Assemblyman Travis Allen and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin as the leading candidates. Cox and Allen are the Republicans while the others are Democrats. In all of the polls, Gavin has been the consistent leader while Cox and Villaraigosa have jockeyed for second place.
Under California law, the top two candidates advance to the November General Election. With this in mind, interest groups are going all out to support their respective candidate – and Newsom is the favorite candidate of the Teacher’s Union. Villaraigosa has been the recipient of a multi-million dollar television independent expenditure campaign paid for by the education reformers; Cox is self-funding his campaign but has been endorsed by President Trump. If Newsom prevails, the reformers believe he will crack down on charter schools while Villaraigosa is a strong supporter of charter schools.

If you believe in charter schools or education reform Villaraigosa is the candidate to support.

Ironically, Newsom does not have a long education reform record, but with the money that has been spent against him, he will probably be hostile to their interests if elected. Additionally, Newsom has called for a moratorium on charter schools until conflicts of interest and transparency laws are applied to them.

The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction

The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) has the same dynamics as the Governor’s race but with only two major candidates running who are both Democrats. Again, it is the reformers vs. the education establishment. Marshall Tuck formerly ran Green Dot Public Charter Schools and Mayor Villaraigosa’s schools in Los Angeles. He has a strong education reform record and ran and lost a very close race against the current SPI, Tom Torlakson, in 2014.
The race has seen both sides spend millions in support of their respective candidate. Tony Thurmond is a two-term Assemblyman from the Oakland/Berkley/Richmond area. He currently serves on the Assembly Education Committee and is a strong supporter of the education establishment. If elected he would pursue efforts that would make it harder for charter schools to operate in California.

As with the Governor’s race if you believe in charter schools or education reform Tuck is the candidate to support.

Please remember to get out and vote at the California Primary Election on June 5th.

California Education Reform: Races Heating Up

As Election Day nears, two races are heating up that could severely impact California education reform efforts. The races represent fights between education reformers and members of the traditional education system. We saw this fight play out four years ago in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction. In that race, the reformers backed Marshall Tuck, who formerly headed up the Green Dot Public Charter Schools. The traditionalists supported Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson in his bid for re-election. The race was decided by about four percentage points and ended up costing $24 million between all of the interests involved.
This year, Torlakson is termed out and cannot run again, but Tuck is back again with heavy reformer support. He will face off against Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, who represents the Oakland/Berkley area and is receiving strong support from the traditionalists. Whoever wins the race will be the next Superintendent of Public Instruction and will be in charge of the Department of Education. For our interests this would be a huge deal and could impact hundreds of charter schools throughout the state; touching everything from charter appeals, SB 740 funding determinations, requests from CDE, facility issues and how statutes are interpreted. I expect both sides to spend large amounts of money on this race but it will seem a tiny amount compared to what will be spent on the Governor’s race.
The Governor’s race pits the same two interests against each other with other groups also joining the fray. The latest polling shows Gavin Newsome with a slight edge but there is plenty of time for that to change. The SurveyUSA poll has Gavin Newsom (D) with 21%, followed by Antonio Villaraigosa (D) at 18%, John Cox (R) at 15%, Travis Allen (R) at 10% and John Chiang (D) at 9%. Several other candidates poll between 1% – 3%.
In California, we have a top-two primary so the top two vote-getters will move on to the November general election. The Republicans are assisting John Cox with numerous efforts because they cannot have two Democrats running on the general election ballot for the state’s top office. They are convinced that would suppress Republican turnout throughout the state and hurt many of their congressional candidates in the general election. The reformers are backing Antonio and have already begun funding independent expenditures that will run adds on his behalf.
Reed Hasting, the CEO of NetFlix has donated $7 million and Eli Broad has kicked in $1.5 million to date. The traditionalists have also declared that they will spend as much money as it takes to back Gavin. They will be joined in this effort by other labor unions who view Gavin as more open to their issues than Antonio. While Mayor of Los Angeles, Villaraigosa led a number of education reform efforts and attempted to take over the Los Angeles Unified School District. He eventually gained control of a group of schools that he used to increase student performance and implement his proposals. Marshall Tuck ran these schools for a period of time. So again, this race will have huge ramifications for California education reform efforts and charter schools.
We will update you again on as election day gets even closer and the race becomes more clear.

Overview

This week, the Governor presented his final Californian budget proposal. As he has in the past, the Governor was very cautious about proposing spending on new programs. He also continued to warn about recessions that might be around the corner for Californians. This manifests itself in the budget as an increase in the ‘rainy day’ fund that has been established to protect the state against future economic downturns.
Now that his budget has been introduced, the legislature will begin budget subcommittee hearings on the proposal and then, in early May, the Governor will release the May Revision of his budget to reflect tax receipts and revenue projections. The legislature will then pass a final budget for the Governor’s signature by June 15th. Below are some education highlights from the proposal.
2018-19 Budget Proposal includes:

$135 billion in General Fund revenues
$15 billion total state budget reserves
$78.3 billion Proposition 98 guarantee
$2.9 billion for full implementation of LCFF
$1.8 billion one-time, discretionary funding ($295 per ADA)

For charter schools specifically, the budget proposes an ongoing increase of $28.3 million to the SB 740 Charter School Facility Grant Program. With $112 million in the base, this increase results in about $140 million in ongoing funds in 2018-19.

Proposition 98 and LCFF Implementation

The Department of Finance (DOF) calculates the 2018-19 Proposition 98 guarantee to be $78.3 billion, an increase of $3.8 billion over the 2017-18 Proposition 98 guarantee provided in the 2017 Budget Act. The DOF’s Proposition 98 calculation is a little higher than the $77.8 billion estimate by the LAO in November 2017. Based on revenue growth, the 2017-18 guarantee was increased by $700 million to $75.2 billion, and an additional $3.1 billion was added for 2018-19.
Growth in Proposition 98 allows the Governor to achieve “full implementation” of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2018-19, two years earlier than anticipated when this school funding reform was adopted six years ago. The budget proposes about $2.9 billion to close the remaining LCFF funding gap, including a cost of living adjustment (COLA) of 2.51%. This is welcome news, and schools will now actually receive the LCFF grant amounts (base, supplemental and concentration) calculated by the state rather than merely having those amounts be a “target.”

One-Time Discretionary Funding

Continuing his fiscally conservative approach over the last several years, the Governor avoids any significant on-going expenditures other than for LCFF, and proposes nearly $1.8 billion in discretionary, one-time funding for school districts, county offices, and charter schools. This amounts to about $295 per average daily attendee (ADA). These funds offset any outstanding mandated costs reimbursement claims by local educational agencies.

Special Education and Teachers

Last spring, the DOF held four special education stakeholder discussions, during which stakeholders expressed the need for a number of changes to the current special education system, including: more local transparency and accountability, additional financial support for special education, a shift to a system improving outcomes for students with disabilities, and integrating special education and general education into a cohesive system. However, it appears as if Jerry Brown has decided not to tackle major special education reform in his final year as Governor.
Instead, the Governor proposes $10 million in ongoing Proposition 98 funding for Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) to work with County Offices of Education (COEs) to provide technical assistance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to improve student outcomes. The proposal also places additional requirements on SELPAs, requiring them to complete a SELPA local plan template that aligns their services and resources with the goals in their member districts’ Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAPs) and to summarize how a SELPA’s planned expenditures and services align with the improved student outcomes strategies include in their SELPA plan.
To help address the state’s need for more special education teachers, the Governor has also provided $50 million for a Teacher Residency Grant Program to support locally sponsored, one-year clinical teacher preparation programs aimed at preparing and retaining special education teachers; and another $50 million for a Local Solutions Grant Program to provide competitive grants to LEAS to support locally identified solutions (new or existing) that address a local need for special education teachers, for a total of $100 million in one-time Proposition 98 funding.

Early Learning and Child Care Access

Aimed at increasing early education and case access for children aged zero to five years old, especially in low-income areas and areas with relatively low access to care, the Governor proposes to create the Inclusive Early Expansion Program. This competitive grant program would be funded using $125 million in one-time Proposition 98 funding and $42.2 million one-time federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program funding.
In the 2016 Budget Act, the Governor and Legislature entered into a multi-year agreement that included reimbursement rate increases and additional full-day State Preschool slots for the next three years. As part of the third and final year of that agreement, the Governor has provided an approximately 2.8% reimbursement rate increase for providers that contract directly with the California Department of Education and added the scheduled increase of 2,959 full-day slots to the State Preschool Program. The Budget also makes permanent the temporary hold harmless to the 2016 Regional Market Reimbursement Rate Survey for those providers accepting vouchers.

California Prop 39 Deadline for Charter Schools
California’s Prop 39 zero-cost energy upgrades can yield charter schools up to 40% reduction in ongoing utility costs. The State of California has generously allocated $55k-$500k+ to every California charter school for energy upgrades.
So far, only 40% of schools have taken advantage of the program. We think the reason for low participation is either:

Schools think this is the previous Prop 39 – which had nothing to do with energy upgrades, or
Schools believed that if they didn’t own the building, they could not participate in the program

Not only can any charter school participate; but – in some cases – you can bill the program for upgrades that have been implemented in the past.
We believe in the program so much that our affiliated real estate arm is supporting upgrades on 100% of our properties in California.
The program is simple and we can help
All that is required is to 1) invite a qualified energy consultant (we can help you get in touch) into your school for an energy audit; and 2) provide them with your last 12 months of utility bills, and that’s it.
The audit you’ll get back will include:

Projected costs (which you can pay for with your allocation)
Projected savings on your utility bill every month
A non-intrusive implementation plan so your students and teachers are not interrupted

This is a great program, but your allocation will evaporate on February 26^th 2018 if you have not filed the paperwork (the energy consultant will do this for you). You would have 2+ years to actually conduct the upgrade.
We can help you look up your allocation, provide you with energy auditor contacts, answer your questions and provide contacts at the California Dept. of Ed and Energy Commission.
Thanks. Let’s talk. And soon.

On August 21^st, the legislature will reconvene from summer recess and make one final push to put legislation on the Governor’s desk. Once they’re back they will have until September 15th to act on all remaining legislation before they adjourn for Interim Recess. After adjournment, the Governor will have until October 15th to sign or veto all legislation, with legislation that he signs becoming law on January 1, 2018 unless the measure has an urgency clause in it. The legislature will then reconvene on January 3, 2018 to begin the second year of the 2017-18 legislative session.
When the legislature does return there will be two bills left that could impact California’s charter schools. The measures are AB 318 by Assemblywoman Anna Caballero and AB 1217 by Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra; they will both be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee before heading to the Senate Floor for a vote if they pass out of committee.
AB 318 would require all independent study programs in the state to implement a policy that has a teacher interact with each student bi-weekly either in person or by a visual aid. This measure has strong opposition from the California Consortium for Independent Study and charter school groups. It originated from a student tragedy in Monterey County and it is sponsored by the Monterey County Office of Education. Though the bill has stiff opposition it has steadily moved through the legislature. If it passes the Senate Appropriations Committee it will head to the Senate Floor and then back to the Assembly Floor for a concurrence vote on the amendments that were taken in the Senate.
AB 1217 would create a statewide STEM school based in Los Angeles, however the measure would provide charter school funding through the charter school statute and would provide a facility for the school through the SB 740 charter school facility grant program. 1217 is a typical “gut and amend” meaning that it was created and first appeared in print in its current form on July 19th. The legislation did not exist in print until then and there were no hearings on the measure before it was amended. Though the measure does not directly impact charter schools it is alarming that they are utilizing the charter school statutes to create the school though it is not considered a charter school. This should raise questions about how the charter school statutes may be utilized in the future. Similar to AB 318, if this measure passes the Senate Appropriations Committee it will head to the Senate Floor and then back to the Assembly for final action.
To view these measures go to legislature.ca.gov hit the bill information link on the top left of the page and put in the bill number.