Legislative Updates Archives - Page 3 of 7

The California Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee has wrapped up and produced a budget for both houses to vote on. The vote should occur next week with both houses passing the budget bill and the trailer bills along to the Governor for his signature by June 15th. The trailer bills contain the policy language to implement the budget’s projects and priorities.
There are still a few outstanding issues that the legislature will have to resolve around the use of tobacco tax revenues and the expansion of Medi-Cal. Additionally, not all of the budget trailer bill language is in print yet. Once he receives the budget the Governor will have 30 days to sign or veto the budget. He can also ‘blue pencil’ additional spending that the legislature has added to the budget.
Here are some education highlights from the budget:

The Proposition 98 guarantee is projected to be $74.5 billion.
LCFF implementation will be funded at $1.36 billion.
There will be one-time discretionary dollars of almost $877 million, which should be released at $187 per ADA starting in the 2017-18 budget year.
The District of Choice program will be extended for five years with some reforms preposed, those reforms are not in print yet.
County Offices of Education will receive $7 million to support their work with LCAP review and support.
The COLA for the LCFF base grant remains at 1.56%.
There is $50 million for the After School Education and Safety Program.
The early education compromise would restore the increase in slots and ratio funding that was agreed upon in last year’s budget and provide $25 million to increase eligibility for parents and children. The compromise also creates a working group to study facility changes for child care centers and LEAs who provide care.
$44 million one-time for additional special education costs.
$15 million to restore the CTE Pathways program.

Many charter leaders around the country joined us on a recent webinar to hear from experts about how Federal and State policies will impact charter schools.
Panel speakers included our President and CEO Stuart Ellis, as well as two of the leading experts on charter school policy and law; Todd Ziebarth, Senior VP of State Advocacy and Support at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and John Cairns, Attorney and Consultant at John Cairns Law.
Looking at the current landscape for charter school policy and law around the country, the general feeling for charter school leaders is that they are in a “wait and see” mode. It is not yet known what the total impact on budget for education will be at the Federal level, or how the new administration’s support of charter schools will impact discussions at the state level around education reform. Ziebarth thinks we’ll know more about how these issues will be approached in the next legislative cycle. This will also impact funding available from government agencies (subsidies or direct grants) as well as the general market.
Meanwhile, momentum with charter school growth continues to gather speed with five states enacting charter school law in 2010. Maine and Washington passed their laws in 2011 and 2012 (respectively), and the unconstitutional ruling in 2015 by the Supreme Court was overturned in 2016. Also, Kentucky enacted their law this year, becoming the 44th state to have charter school law on the books. Charter opponents will continue to show up but this is a common strategy. When new charter laws goes into effect, opponents try to shut them down locally after failing at the legislative level. There is momentum toward passing charter law in five of the six states currently without charter law. Additionally, there has been progress made in states with existing laws, such as lifting caps on charter schools, strengthening school and authorizer accountability and improving facilities support.
In some cases, state legislatures continue to oppose charter school law, so there are some ongoing challenges. In Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut, and California there has been some success in pushing back against charter law, cutting funding or eliminating state authorizers.
At the Federal level there are a few key takeaways. Charter schools have a high public profile in the current administration and there are no major changes between the fiscal ’17 and fiscal ’18 budgets. Support for facilities grants remains the same, however specific grants for teacher trainings, after school and summer programs and aid in programs to first-generation and low income students have been cut. The Department of Education federal funding faces a 14% cut which could impact many key programs. Keep in mind, less than 10% of all K-12 funding comes from Federal funds currently.
On the facilities front, the federal government is showing support for facility development, but may pull back on that in the future. The staff person in Washington who oversees this thinks that there won’t be any significant decreases in funding, rather there will be some competition over where that money will get allocated. Rather than spreading the funding out nationwide, he thinks federal will favor funding specific large-scale projects in selected states.
Overall, the federal government is proposing increased charter school funding at roughly $168 million. These funds would help existing schools replicate and new charters start-up. It will also help facilities programs. Updates to federal facilities financing include the Per-Pupil Facilities Aid Program which provides competitive grants to help states administer “per pupil facilities aid” for charter schools. This appears to be the number one priority for most states as they head into legislative sessions to improve facility support for charters.
The progress being made at the state level will continue to build, given the hard work by charter advocates across the country. Charter school leaders will continue to make progress improving state policy environment for charters, such as more facilities support, clearer accountability requirements and enhanced flexibility. At the same time, opponents to charter school law are getting more sophisticated in their anti-charter strategies and tactics. An example of this is pushing legislation that would re-regulate charters through more “transparency.” It’s clear we will continue to see resistance to the charter school movement’s forward momentum.
At this point, the longstanding impact of the new administration is still unknown although typically charter schools have had a lot of support from recent administrations. While the amount of money historically spent by opponents of charter schools to campaign against them has been high, the population of charter schools has continued to grow in spite of it (from 3,000 charter schools 10 years ago to nearly 7,000 charters today). There are more than 3 million students currently attending charter schools today, who are choosing the best public education option to suit their families. The overwhelming desire and high number of students on charter wait lists – more than one million – highlights that families want the choice for the best public education available.
You can view the webinar recording on-demand and access presentation slides here.

This week saw a lot of action on charter school legislation as Friday, April 28 represented the last day for California legislative policy committees to hear and act on bills that are keyed fiscal. Being keyed fiscal means that they will have to be heard in the respective appropriation committees over the next several weeks. Below are some of the key highlights from those bills.
AB 950 by Assemblywoman Rubio greatly expands the power of county boards of education and the State Board of Education to authorize charter schools. Some charter leaders and County Boards of Education view this measure as a big step forward as it eases some of the tensions that exist between an authorizer and its charter school by allowing other means for authorization. It passed the Assembly Education Committee by a 4-1 vote with 2 abstentions. It will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 806 by Senator Glazer would have applied conflict of interest policies and self dealing policies to charter schools including the Political Reform Act and Public Records Act. It would have also created a ‘fire-wall’ between charter schools and the for-profits that they work with while banning for profit companies from operating charter schools. The measure divided the charter school community as the Charter School Association sponsored the bill and other charter school organizations opposed the measure along with the Association of Clerks and Election Officials and numerous union and trade organizations. The bill failed by a 2-1 vote with 4 abstentions in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 808 by Senator Mendoza would have removed a charter school’s ability to appeal a denial or revocation at the County Board of Education or the State Board of Education. It would have only allowed school districts to approve a charter school and if they did not approve that charter petition the charter would essentially be dead. Senator Mendoza presented the bill in the Senate Education Committee for testimony only with no vote. There was a contentious debate on both sides but the bill should not move out of committee.
AB 1661 by Assemblywoman Caballero is sponsored by the Department of Education and is their attempt to move the state from the API to a new measurement. The bill is still a work in progress and the Department should be amending it as it moves forward but I want to make sure it is on your radar screen because it will affect charter schools. The measure passed the Assembly Education Committee 4-2 with 1 abstention. It will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1224 by Assemblywoman Weber would have created a pilot program in the state for charter school authorization. The program would have allowed three county offices of education to authorize up to five new charter schools in their county or the neighboring counties. It would have also authorized existing CMOs to consolidate up to 10 existing schools, located anywhere in the State, under a county office of education and exempted these CMOs from existing resource center requirements. Assemblywoman Weber did not take the bill up in the Assembly Education Committee because she did not have the votes so it is effectively dead for the year.
AB 1360 by Assemblyman Bonta would establish expulsion and suspension procedures for charter schools, limit the type of preferences they can use for admission and state that parental involvement cannot be a requirement to attend a charter school. The measure passed the Assembly Education Committee 5-2 and will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
To view any of these measures or their committee analysis please go to www.legislature.ca.gov and hit the bill information tab on the top left and place in the bill number.

With the bill introduction deadline ending two weeks ago, the California legislature is now beginning to hold its first hearings on individual pieces of legislation. There were more than 2,600 bills and resolutions introduced, and several of those bills could impact charter schools. Below is a short summary for some of those bills.
AB 318 by Assemblywoman Caballero would require certificated employees and each pupil in certain independent study programs to communicate either in person, or by a live visual connection at least once per week.
AB 406 by Assemblyman McCarty would prohibit a charter school from contracting with a for-profit company for managing or operating a charter school.
AB 950 by Assemblywoman Rubio would allow a renewal of a charter petition that has been approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) on appeal to be heard either by the district that originally denied the petition or the SBE. It would also expand the use of “state-wide” benefit charter schools.
AB 1182 by Assemblyman Low is an independent study spot bill. A spot bill is a measure that has not yet been fully drafted, but has language in it that states the author’s intent.
AB 1224 by Assemblywoman Weber would create a pilot program allowing 5 County Offices of Education, picked by the SBE, to authorize 10 charter schools each throughout the state. CMOs with multiple schools would be able to apply to the program also.
AB 1360 by Assemblyman Bonta is a charter school admission and due process spot bill.
AB 1478 by Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer would apply the Brown Act, California Public Records Act and the 1974 Political Reform Act to charter schools.
AB 1528 by Assemblyman Acosta would extend the provisions allowing a virtual charter school to serve a student that has moved out of their geographical area during the school year to 1/1/21.
AB 1536 by Assemblyman Grayson is a charter school spot bill.
SB 806 by Senator Glazer is a charter school governance and oversight spot bill.
SB 808 by Senator Mendoza abolishes the appeal to the county office of education or SBE for denials and revocations of charter schools unless the county office finds that the district made a procedural violation during the hearing. It also allows a charter school petition to be denied if the district makes a finding that approving the charter would have a negative fiscal impact on the district.
To read more about these bills, visit the California Legislative Information website.

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.

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.

Late last month, the California legislature adjourned for the year, ending the 2015-2016 legislative session. The session saw a flurry of legislative activity, some related to charter school operations in the state.
We’ve invited Branché Jones, California Legislative Consultant, and Barrett Snider, Partner at Capital Advisors Group, to join our President and CEO, Stuart Ellis, for a California Budget and Legislative Update webinar that will provide high level updates and commentary around the most recent budget and legislative cycle.
California Budget and Legislative Update, Tuesday, October 27, 9:00 – 10:00 a.m. PST.
Branché, Barrett, and Stuart plan to cover the following:

Political Updates
Legislative Updates
Budget Updates
2016 Prospectus

Please join us by registering for the webinar. We look forward to seeing you there!

Today the Seattle Times Editorial Board said, “The Washington Supreme Court should reconsider its ruling that the state’s charter school law is unconstitutional.”
It’s unfortunate that the state court’s ruling came days prior to the 2015-16 school year after 11 months with the court, impacting more than 1,200 students and their families. The growth of charter schools comes out of choice families are seeking for new and different ways of education for their children.
Below is the Seattle Times piece.

By Seattle Times editorial board, The Seattle Times

The state Supreme Court should heed requests to reconsider its ruling that Washington’s fledgling charter schools violate the state constitution.

The timing of the ruling – about 11 months after hearing arguments and after charter school classes commenced – was perplexing, but its repercussions are serious. More than 1,200 students are enrolled in the state’s nine charter schools, eight of which are starting their first year. In 2012, voters approved Initiative 1240 to authorize publicly funded charter schools that give higher priority to serving at-risk kids. Charters have greater flexibility to respond to students’ needs, something the traditional system does not provide or encourage enough of.

Read the full article.
Do you agree with the Seattle Times Editorial Board? What are your thoughts? Share your comments below.

In a big victory for California charter schools, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Los Angeles Unified School District was required to reevaluate the method with which they’re assigning facility space to charter schools.
According to the California Charter School Association (CCSA), who filed the initial lawsuit, “The Court’s decision affirms CCSA’s position that the district’s methodology was not legal or fair, and potentially denied classrooms to charter public school students. This ruling requires L.A. Unified to make changes to its Prop 39 process in order to ensure that its method of allocating classrooms to charter public schools is lawful.”
Legislative consultant Branche Jones said, “It’s great to see the court confirm that LAUSD has been out of compliance by not meeting its Prop 39 obligation and providing facilities for charter schools. Hopefully the district will now revise their policies.”
Read more about the ruling on the CCSA website or in this LA Times article.

This month, budget hearings are set to begin as the California Budget Subcommittees of the Legislature look at the Governor’s January budget proposal. Each subcommittee will start hearing the respective issue areas that they have jurisdiction over.
For education this means that Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2 and Senate Budget Subcommittee #1 will start examining the Governor’s proposal for funding Proposition 98. The Governor has proposed to increase Proposition 98 funding by $7.8 billion for schools and community colleges. Specifically, $5 billion will be for programmatic increases and $2.8 billion will be for retiring existing debt. The legislative analysts office has examined all of the Governor’s proposals and published recommendations on all of them.
As budget hearings begin, another issue is gaining steam in Sacramento: Should the state propose a school bond?
It is well accepted that school districts and charter schools throughout the state are in need of facility assistance. The administration has been resistant to legislative efforts to sponsor a school bond while members of the legislature have introduced two measures to place a bond on the ballot. Additionally, a coalition of school builders and construction officials have submitted a $9 billion proposed bond to the state and are beginning to gather signatures to get it qualified for the ballot. They will need to gather 366,000 signatures to get it on the ballot.
It is unclear if this is a serious effort (because the bond campaign would cost millions of dollars and everyone is not on board yet) or if it is an effort to force the state to place a bond on the ballot by applying additional pressure to state officials. What is clear is the fight will only intensify over the next few months as we go through the budget hearing process.
Check back for more details and legislative updates.