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

Florida Legislative Update: Mid-Session Hope for Schools of Hope

In the past two years, the Florida Legislature passed some of the most sweeping charter school policy since the original charter school legislation was signed in 1996. As Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Richard Corcoran orchestrated the revamping of the formula for calculating and appropriating capital funds to charter schools, expanded timelines for planning and opening new charter schools, created a state-sponsored scholarship for struggling readers in grades 3-5. But the most sweeping change that will play for years to come is Schools of Hope.

Schools of Hope

Schools of Hope were established as a means of closing the opportunity gap and improving student performance. The Schools of Hope legislation provided an expedited approval path to entice national high performing charter schools to become Hope Operators and open charter schools within the attendance zones of Florida’s persistently low-performing traditional public schools.
Since then, two nationally known charter school operators (KIPP and IDEA Public Schools) have received the Hope Operator designation from Florida Department of Education and have announced plans for new schools in Miami and Tampa.

A Plan to Expand

Fast forward to the present. Shortly after his inauguration in January Governor Ron DeSantis named former Speaker Richard Corcoran as Secretary of Florida Department of Education, and he is now on a mission with supporters in the Florida Legislature to expand the Schools of Hope program even further.

Legislative Negotiations

At the beginning of legislative session last month the Florida Senate offered a plan that cut funding for the existing Schools of Hope program ($140 million) as well as reclaiming money from the previous two years and increasing Hope awards available to school district’s efforts at improving those persistently low-performing schools on their own. This idea did not sit well with House members who felt the Schools of Hope was the best solution after years of failed attempts by school districts to improve performance at these low-performing schools.
The House plan cuts Hope awards available to public schools from $2,000 per student to $500 per student and shifts more money into the Schools of Hope program. Negotiations between the two chambers on policy soon began and now the policy is beginning to come together.

Senate Bills

This past week, the Senate amended its school choice bill to more closely resemble the House version and its provisions for Schools of Hope expansion.
Both bills (HB 7095 in the House and SB 7070 in the Senate) would revise the school grade requirements in the definition of “persistently low-performing” that could potentially expand the areas available for Hope Operators to open new schools. It would also provide state funds for lease payments and other costs until the school is fully enrolled.
The House version further amends the definition of “persistently low-performing” to include Florida Opportunity Zones created by the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, signed into law last December. This could add an additional 200 communities available for potential Hope Operators to consider for new school sites.

What it All Means

Both versions of the bill will continue to move closer to one another as the last two weeks of the legislative session come to a close. Regardless of what the specific language that is finally approved, this expansion of the Schools of Hope program will continue to solidify school choice and will only mean more options for closing the opportunity gap in Florida’s K-12 education system.
See our previous Florida Legislative Update here.

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

Florida Legislative Update

Editor’s Note: Here’s your Florida legislative update!
We try to do our best to make sure you have the most up-to-date information on what’s happening in the Florida Legislature and what pieces of legislation may affect education and, even more specifically, charter schools across the state.

Meetings, Meetings, and More Meetings

Every state legislature has its own unique ways when it comes to conducting its business. And Florida is no different. Meetings, meetings, and more meetings.

Interim Committee Weeks

One of the constants for the Florida Legislature is what is referred to as interim committee weeks. Prior to the official start of the 60-day Regular Legislative Session, House and Senate leadership schedule five to six weeks – over a three-month period – to have legislators and staff travel to Tallahassee and hold committee and subcommittee meetings.
While some bills are actually brought up and debated in the later weeks, the majority of the meetings are centered around who does what, how they do it, and how much it costs each year to do whatever it is they do. These meetings are where lawmakers get a better understanding of how the proverbial sausage gets made.
In education, this is the time for those of us in the process to find out who got promoted and what this year’s BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal) will be. Having just completed the final interim committee week, we are now getting a sense of legislative BHAGs for K-12 education.

The Legislative BHAGs

Family Empowerment Scholarship:
Legislative education leaders rolled out the Family Empowerment Scholarship, a voucher-type scholarship funded with state dollars and designed for children in low-income families to attend an eligible school of choice.
Florida Tax Credit Scholarship
Legislators want to create this program to help reduce the number of children on the waiting list for the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship, a program that pays for scholarships using corporate tax credits for contributions to non-profit organizations.
Addressing Statewide Teacher Shortage
Legislators also want to take steps to address Florida’s teacher shortage by making it easier for school districts to retain their most effective teachers. This policy would allow teachers more time to demonstrate their mastery of general knowledge, allowing for three years instead of the current one year. They also want to direct the State Board of Education to restructure examination fees for certification exams as well as fees for exam retakes to assist in removing financial barriers for teachers wishing to remain in the field.
School Facilities Regulations
Another major legislative initiative will be a change to regulations regarding school construction and facility improvements when school districts use only local funds, including ad valorem revenue, for facility construction. The legislation would no longer require school districts to file an educational plant survey recommendation before beginning facility construction as well as eliminate cost per student station restrictions for construction.
Investing in School Safety
Lastly, legislators are looking to improve on efforts regarding school safety and mental illness that were taken last year in response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, FL. Legislation has already been filed that will implement recommendations made by Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Commission that created last year to review deficiencies in school and student safety statewide. Funding will also be included to give schools greater flexibility to transfer funds for school safety expenditures and to sustain investments made in school security enhancements.

These broad education initiatives will benefit both traditional public schools and public charter schools in Florida who face similar problems in recruiting and retaining quality teachers and dealing with facility costs, particularly those aimed at school safety and school hardening.
No one – not even the Florida Legislature – takes great pleasure in meetings, meetings, and more meetings. But sometimes the results are worth the effort.

Florida Elections: State of the State

Elections Matter.
For the last several years a common phrase has been used by winning candidates everywhere. Elections matter. And that could not have been any more significant for school choice advocates in Florida than the most recent statewide elections.
In 1996, Jeb Bush partnered with community leaders and opened Florida’s first charter school in Liberty City in Miami-Dade County under legislation signed by then Democrat Governor, Lawton Chiles. Bush, a Republican, would go on to become Florida’s Governor in 1999 and together – with the Republican-controlled state Legislature – would control two of three branches of Florida’s state government for the next nineteen years. This Republican control resulted in legislation advancing school choice, particularly charter schools and charter school expansion.
During this time of Republican control, school choice opponents sought relief in the state’s court system to attack and beat back legislative policies favorable to school choice and charter schools. Over the past several years, the liberal-leaning Florida Supreme Court has been a major stumbling block to expanding school choice and charter schools in Florida. That all changed this past November.
Former Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis was elected Governor in November, and with it came the opportunity to appoint three new members of Florida’s Supreme Court. These appointments resulted from the vacancies created by three justices reaching the mandatory retirement age just as DeSantis was inaugurated as Florida’s newest Governor. These retiring justices were first appointed by previous Democrat Governors and helped keep the Court a more liberal body that routinely sided with school choice opponents in a number of high-profile cases it heard.
Most recently, the Court struck down a proposed constitutional amendment that would have set term limits on elected school board members. The amendment would also maintain the school board’s duties to public schools it establishes but would permit the state to operate, supervise, and control public schools not established by school board (charter schools or other schools of choice).
Shortly after his inauguration, Governor DeSantis appointed three very qualified, conservative justices to the Court, and as some observers have said, created one of the most conservative state Supreme Courts in the country.
When speaking about these appointments, newly elected Lt. Governor Jeanette Nunez said, “(these appointments) will single-handedly be the most important thing for the future of this state that we have ever seen.”
Shortly after naming the three new justices, Governor DeSantis also selected former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives Richard Corcoran, a staunch charter school proponent, as the new Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education.
These executive appointments signal a sea change in the state’s political landscape and send a clear message that Florida’s new Governor is serious about K-12 education, and even more serious about advancing school choice options in the state. His rhetoric on the campaign trail has translated into action, and charter school proponents in Florida should be very pleased with what they see over the next several years.
The recent Florida elections – and subsequent changes in leadership – are a great example of how much elections indeed matter.
About the Author: Larry Williams is the owner/principal at Larry Williams Consulting LLC. They offer comprehensive consulting and lobbying services in the legislative and executive branches of state government as well as state agencies. Larry Williams Consulting LLC has established a network of relationships within the legislative, executive, cabinet and government agency arena as well as extensive knowledge of the issues.

LEARN MORE

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.

Florida’s new funding plan could help relieve some charter school tensions

Editor’s Note: This blog post was originally published On March 8, 2018 here by RedefinED and was written by Travis Pillow. We think it’s vital to keep tabs on the pulse of all things related to charter schools, including informational and legislative resources, and how to support charter school growth. We hope you find this—and any other article we curate—both interesting and valuable.

The budget deal reached between Florida’s House and Senate could ease some tensions between charter schools and districts fighting over last year’s education law. It would also boost overall charter school capital funding.HB 7069 required school districts to provide charter schools an equal per-pupil share of property tax revenue for capital funding.That funding, about $91.2 million, went out to charter schools last month — but not without drama in a few districts. And it’s at the center of two lawsuits challenging the law.Things would change under legislative proposals already passed by both chambers, combined with next year’s state budget.
Late Wednesday night, Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island and Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami, agreed to their plan for school construction spending. It includes $145.3 million for charter school capital outlay. The House proposed $120.3 million in its initial spending plan, and added an extra $25 million this morning.*
The state would distribute that money to eligible charters to pay for school buildings and other long-term expenses. Right now, about 544 of the state’s nearly 650 charters qualify.
Next year’s statewide total would be more than the $141.2 million charters received this school year. And all of the funding would come from the state. School districts would no longer have to share their local property tax revenue with charters — at least initially.
Under this year’s HB 7055, which has already passed, next year’s state funding level would become a new benchmark for charter school capital outlay. That benchmark would rise each year, to adjust for inflation and enrollment growth. If state funding ever fell below the benchmark, then districts would have to share property tax revenue with charter schools to make up the difference.
And charter school funding would be more equal. Charter schools in districts like Polk, Pasco and Lake Counties don’t receive much local funding under last year’s law. That’s because HB 7069 lets districts set aside funding they need to cover their debt obligations before HB 7069’s revenue-sharing provisions kick in.
In addition, the budget plan would give districts $50 million in state funding to help with their capital expenses.
Local media reports suggest this new funding arrangement may have come about, in part, due to behind-the-scenes advocacy by Miami-Dade County Public Schools, which didn’t join other districts challenging the new law in court.
Whether it can ease the political tensions or legal battles last year’s law provoked remains to be seen.

Charter School Bills Introduced in the California Legislature

Last Friday was the bill introduction deadline for the California legislature. At the close of business, thousands of bills were ‘placed across the desk.’ Now that the deadline has passed the legislature will begin holding policy hearings on each proposal. After the introduction, the bills can still be amended at several points in the process and several bills were introduced as ‘spot bills.’ Spot bills are bills that have been introduced stating that they will change a section of law but are not fully amended yet.

Below are bills that we identified which could impact charter schools in California:

AB 1743 by Assemblyman Chu would require all public school students to complete a course in college and career preparedness in order to receive a high school diploma.
AB 1871 by Assemblyman Bonta would require a charter school to provide each needy pupil with one nutritional free or reduced-price meal.
AB 2011 by Assemblyman Kiley would exempt non-classroom based charter schools from geographical restrictions for state-mandated purposes.
AB 2082 by Assemblywoman Garcia would prohibit Teach for America teachers from being assigned to any California public school that has at least 40% of its pupils coming from low-income families as defined by the federal Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965.
AB 2289 by Assemblywoman Weber would include as an excused absence, 4 absences per school year to care for a sick child, which a doctor’s note is not required for. The bill would also allow a parenting pupil who expects to give birth up to 6 weeks of parental leave or 8 weeks of parental leave for a caesarian section birth or birth with complications and allow a parenting pupil not giving birth up to 4 weeks of parental leave after birth.
AB 2291 by Assemblyman Chiu would require schools and charter schools to annually provide an online bullying training module, developed by the Department of Education, to certificated school-site employees.
AB 2601 by Assemblywoman Webber would mandate that charter school students in grades 7 -12 receive comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education.
AB 2891 by Assemblyman Holden would authorize the governing body of a charter school to enter into a College Career Access partnership with an agreement with the governing board of a community college district.
AB 3058 by Assemblyman O’Donnell would require a charter school to notify the county superintendent of schools of their location, in that county, 60 days prior to commencing operations.
AB 3167 by Assemblyman O’Donnell would require a charter school to reply to inquiries from the Superintendent of Public Instruction within 30 days of the request.
Additionally, AB 2488 by Assemblyman O’Donnell is a school bond measure which includes funds for charter schools and traditional schools and SB 1216 by Senator Glazer is a charter school spot bill that has yet to be amended.

If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at branchejones@gmail.com.