Last week the California legislature finished their Budget Subcommittee hearings on the Governor’s revision to his January budget proposal. The Governor’s charter school proposals, while not totally intact, all survived the hearings and are now headed to be deliberated in the budget conference committee. The conference committee will begin meeting this week in an effort to ‘iron’ out the differences between the Assembly and Senate in their budget recommendations. Once the conference committee has adopted a final product it will head to both houses of the legislature for a final vote with June 15th being the deadline to pass a budget before legislators start to get docked paychecks. For charter schools: extending the Governor’s proposal to allow them first refusal of school district surplus property, fixing the issues around county-wide charter schools, expanding the SB 740 program to include non-classroom based charters and changing the funding determination process for non-classroom based charter schools will all be before the conference committee. Both houses have already adopted the proposal to move the Charter School Facility Grant Program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Program from the California Department of Education to the California School Finance Authority in the State Treasurer’s Office. This means that the Governor has kept his strong commitment to charter schools, charter school funding and is fighting hard to address their concerns.
Also of interest to charter schools will be how the Governor’s Local Control Funding Formula will be implemented. Both the State Assembly and State Senate have their own versions of the Governor’s funding formula that they would like to implement but the Governor, while willing to negotiate, is still pushing the general concept and premise of his proposal: that district’s and charters in harder to serve communities get more dollars from the state than other districts. For charter schools the Governor’s plan means an immediate boost in funding since for the first time in the state’s history they would be funded, through the base grant, the same as school districts. This will wipe away an inequity in funding that the Legislative Analyst identified in a study of charter school funding last year. To view the study go to http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/edu/charter-schools/charter-schools-012612.pdf.
Category: Legislative Updates
On Tuesday the California Governor released his May Revision which contains changes to his January budget proposal. As expected, with some tweaks and changes, the Governor doubled down on his efforts to change how we fund education in California. The May Revision estimates that revenues will be up $2.8 Billion over estimates provided in January. Though this is good news it is a low projection when thoughts were that revenues could have increased as much as $4.5 Billion. However, these funds have allowed the Governor to increase spending in some areas while still maintaining an overall modest budget proposal. Specifically, for Proposition 98 the Governor proposes a one-time investment of $1 billion for Common Core implementation allocated to all schools outside of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) on an ADA basis. This will be about $170 per student. Ignoring the complaints about the base funding being too low for schools in his LCFF and that his concentration grants should be eliminated, the Governor has produced data showing that 80% of his LCFF funding going to base grants, 16% to supplemental grants (for ELL students, students in poverty and foster youth) and only 4% going to the concentration grants.
Additionally, the Governor’s May Revision provides additional Proposition 98 funds for the following one-time K-12 uses including:
- $1.6 Billion to accelerate repayment of inter-year deferrals and;
- $61 Million to backfill the reduction in federal funding for Special Education under the sequestration cuts
For charter schools specifically the Governor did not change any of his January proposals which is very positive. The only issue that will affect charter schools is he has dropped his proposed changes to ‘online’ education and said that he will pursue those changes during next year’s budget debate.
To view the May Revisions and all of the proposed changes go to the Department of Finance’s website at www.dof.ca.gov.
Last week the Assembly Education Committee passed AB 948, as amended, out of committee on a unanimous vote. AB 948 is authored by Assemblywoman Kristen Olsen and sponsored by the California Charter Schools Association. The amendments adopted in committee would expand the SB 740 facility grant program by lowering the threshold of the program below 70% free and reduced lunch by one percentage point at a time once the schools in areas with greater than 70% are fully funded. The measure also allows the program to be used to purchase facilities and on debt service for facilities. That is the one step forward; the two steps backwards are the concessions that the Association agreed to in order to use the program for purchase and debt service. If the program is going to be used for purchase or debt service then the charter schools will have to adhere to the field act. Additionally, the measure subjects all charter schools utilizing the SB 740 facility grant program to the audit guide. The field act and the audit guide are two areas that charter schools have worked hard to stay away from over the last two decades. So though AB 948 expands the facility grant program it includes charter schools in two areas that are detrimental to the movement. These are two vital concessions that never should have been made.
– Not to the benefit of charter schools
Last week the legislature’s Assembly Education Committee continued its year-long process of passing anti-charter school legislation that could impact charter school funding. After passing AB 917 earlier this year, which adds classified employees to the list of signatures needed for a charter school conversion, the committee passed AB 1032 this week. AB 1032 radically changes the Proposition 39 facility options for charter schools with new requirements around how you quantify facilities and what the district’s responsibilities are. Additionally, AB 377 was voted down by the committee. That measure would have allowed non-classroom based charter schools to claim ADA for any student anywhere in the state. This is similar to proposals in the Governor’s budget that would address the contiguous county limitation that non-classroom based charter schools currently are hampered by. The anti-charter school legislative assault will continue this week in the Assembly Local Government Committee when they hear AB 913 which would create conflict of interest laws for charter schools and possibly make certain board violations criminal by applying Government Code 1090. To view any of these bills go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and type in the bill number.
On a positive front, the Administration continues to support strong policy changes for charter schools in the budget subcommittee hearings – policies that support charter school funding. Both the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees have voted to transfer the SB 740 facility grant program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Program from CDE to CSFA in the State Treasurer’s Office. The administration’s other charter school changes are still being held ‘open’ in the subcommittees. These changes include:
- Adding non-classroom based charter schools to the Sb740 facility grant program
- Dramatically altering the SB740 regulatory process
- Extending the surplus property requirements for charter schools
- Making the law more flexible for all online schools in the state
The Governor’s new funding formula, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), is also still being considered by the legislature and it appears they are coalescing around a few changes which would include:
- Increasing the base grants for all districts and charter schools
- Requiring the SPI to review accountability plans in order to maintain flexibility over categorical funds
- Providing some increase to the base grant for redesignated EL students after year five
- Pulling ou some key categorical programs from the flexibility provisions (e.g. CTE programs, Adult Ed)
- Reducing or changing the county office of education funding formula to be “less generous”
This week, the Assembly Education Committee will hear AB 88. AB 88 contains the Governor’s Local Control Funding Formula proposal. While members of the Legislature and education stakeholders are expected to air their concerns, there will not be any major action on the proposal until after the Governor releases his May Revision on May 15.
It may become more difficult to open a California charter school that is a new conversion. This week the California Assembly Education Committee will hear AB 917 by Assemblyman Bradford. AB 917 would add the signatures of classified employees to the signatures that are needed to convert an existing public school into a charter school. The bill is being sponsored by SEIU and supported by the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA). It is unclear what has led the CCSA to support this measure but they are actively behind it.
Adding classified employees will make it more difficult to convert a school into a charter. In some cases like in Los Angeles, it could add up to 60 new signatures that will need to be gathered during the petition process. For other parts of the state the new requirement may not be that onerous but it would depend on how many classified employees actually work at the school site. For the sponsor it is a manner of including classified employees in the decision making process at individual schools but for charter school supporters it means that they would have to work to organize both the teachers union and the classified union employees.
The bill also raises a serious policy issue: should classified employees be involved in the conversion process at all? When the charter school statute was drafted it was meant as a tool for teachers and parents at and around a particular school. Clearly, AB 917 expands the law to include individuals that the original statute did not intend to cover.
Luckily for charter school advocates this measure is similar to AB 86 from 2011 and AB 2363 that was run a year prior to that. AB 2363 failed in the Senate Education Committee and the Governor vetoed AB 86. If the California Governor keeps his same position he will veto AB 917 once it reaches his desk.
To view any of the bills listed above go to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml and put in the bill number.
Last week the California Governor Jerry Brown released the funding projections for school districts and charter schools under his new Local Control Funding Formula. The much anticipated numbers from the Department of Finance have districts throughout the state positioning themselves for a bruising battle over winners and losers. All districts would see an increase in funding or continued funding at their current levels but many urban districts and some rural districts would see a jump in funding due to their student populations. However, this jump in funding would not appear for many suburban school districts. Their funding would be stagnant or a little better under the best case scenario. For all districts and charter schools the proposal increases funding by $2,700 per student over the first five years of its implementation. Supplemental funding would be provided for disadvantaged students that could equal as much as 35% of the base funding. For districts with 50% or greater disadvantaged students the state would provide an additional concentration grant equal to 35% of their base funding for each English Language Learner and disadvantaged student over the 50% threshold. So undoubtedly the fight will be over how you define a disadvantaged student and what do you do for suburban districts that do not serve this student population. For charter schools, the Governor’s proposal wipes out the funding disparity that the Legislative Analyst’s Office identified last year. There are still charter school funding issues but this proposal is a huge step in the right direction.
To view the Department of Finance’s funding projections go to: http://www.dof.ca.gov and hit the link for the Local Control Funding Formula.
The Governor of California has released his education trailer bills (trailer bills are the implementing legislation used to enact changes in the California state budget) and they have a number of good provisions in them for charter schools in California. Clearly, the Governor is doubling down on his support of charter schools. In 2012 he proposed numerous provisions in the budget for charter schools and even authored his own charter school trailer bill. Now he is taking it a step further and actually proposing major initiatives that would benefit charter schools and charter school funding all over the state. Listed below are some of the provisions that the Governor is proposing.
In the education trailer bill here are some of the changes that the Governor proposes for charter schools:
- Extending the current language that allows a school district’s surplus property to be made available to charter schools for five more years.
- Allowing the State Board of Education to delegate oversight and supervisorial powers to any LEA.
- Changing the SB 740 funding determination process to make it more friendly for charter schools by mandating that the non-classroom based charter schools have to submit a funding determination during their first and third year of existence and never submit a funding determination after that unless they meet certain criteria, including:
- The charter school receives a notice to cure for financial reasons.
- The charter school receives a notice of revocation.
- The charter school receives an apportionment significant audit exception.
- The charter school initiates a request for an additional funding determination for the purpose of seeking a change to its current funding level.
- The Governor proposes to move both the Charter School Revolving Loan Program and the Charter School Facility Grant Program from the California Department of Education to the State Treasurer’s Office, allowing the California School Finance Authority to administer the programs.
With the issuance of these trailer bills, the Governor has again shown his support for school choice. This is tremendously encouraging and we hope for continued success in the Governor’s pursuit of more freedoms for charter schools.
Now that the state of California’s Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS) has set their hearing for February 6th it has become apparent that non-classroom based charter schools will have a more difficult time with the SB 740 regulatory process in the future. Schools that were once deemed to be in full compliance with the regulations are now seeing California Department of Education (CDE) staff recommend that their mitigating factors be denied and that their charter school funding be drastically reduced. CDE staff has not announced any changes to the way that they are handling the regulatory process but schools that have always received 100% of their charter school funding are now seeing their funding cut.
On the February 6th ACCS agenda there are 23 non-classroom based charter schools that have requested mitigating circumstances from the SB 740 regulations. All of their documentation was submitted between January and March of last year and all of their hearings and determinations were delayed until next month. CDE staff is recommending that 5 of the schools have their funding completely denied, 4 schools were recommended for 70% funding and 5 schools were recommended for 85% funding. All of these schools had their request for mitigating circumstances denied. Of the remaining schools on the list, 1 school was recommended for 85% funding and had their request for mitigating circumstances (reserves and exclusion of one time funding sources) approved. Another school was recommended for 100% funding but also had its request for mitigating circumstances denied and 7 schools were recommended for 100% funding and their request for mitigating circumstances is recommended for approval.
It remains to be seen if the ACCS will follow the CDE staff recommendations. However, the negative tone from CDE seems to be getting worse when it comes to charter schools. This is undoubtedly why the administration has put forth proposals, in the Governor’s January budget, to move two charter school programs from CDE to the California School Finance Authority (CSFA) in the State Treasurer’s office. The Governor would like to move both the Charter School Facility Grant Program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Program over to the Treasurer’s office. With CDE’s recent actions charter school supporters and advocates should be cheering and calling their legislator to urge that they approve the Governor’s proposal. If the administration’s proposals are approved it would remove many barriers that charters face when they deal with CDE. Currently, the CSFA runs its own charter school program that is funded with federal dollars and assists numerous charter schools with facility issues. Their staff is easier to deal with than the CDE staff and they are actually helpful and willing to work towards the best interest of the charter school. That is something that we have not seen in the CDE staff in years.
Not only is Minnesota the birthplace of charters, its current charter school laws are earning the state praise.
The National Alliance of Public Charter Schools issued its annual ranking report of state charter school laws this month and awarded top billing to Minnesota. Among the reasons for Minnesota’s high score are the absence of enrollment caps and its support for school variety.
For a detailed breakdown, read the full report here.
Charter School Capital is proud to be a part of the Minnesota charter school system through our funding of many charter schools the Twin Cities area. We have been supporting charter schools in the state since the initial hold-backs began to impact the financial stability of charter schools.
Source: Minnesota Public Radio
With California Governor Jerry Brown releasing his January budget proposal the administration’s educational priorities have become clear for everyone to see and it will ultimately help charter schools and their funding. The budget proposal increases per pupil funding by $1,100 for 2013-14 and projects per pupil funding to gradually increase until 2016-17 when there will be an increase of $2,700 per student over the current funding level. Proposition 98 overall will see an increase of $2.7 billion dollars with $1.8 billion going to pay back deferrals that the legislature has instituted.
The Governor has also doubled down on his Student Weighted Formula proposal from 2012 and has proposed a newly crafted student funding formula for 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula. Resembling last year’s proposal, this year’s proposal still starts with a base level of funding that will be the same for all public schools (charters included) with increased funding for English Language Learners and students participating in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. To soothe some of the tensions from interest groups that objected to his proposal last year, the Governor included K-3 class size reduction into the funding base of his proposal. For charter schools specifically the new funding formula will greatly reduce the inadequacies in funding that charters have seen since their existence between themselves and traditional public schools. However, this measure will pit some suburban school districts vs. some inner city districts as the latter is clear to see an increase in their funding that could come from cuts to the former. Though the Governor’s proposal is far from perfect it represents a giant step forward in terms of charter schools reaching a level of funding parity with their traditional school partners.
The Governor’s budget has some other good proposals for charter school funding specifically. It contains $48.5 million for pupil growth in charter schools. He is also proposing to move two charter school programs, the Charter School Facility Grant Program and the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund, from the California Department of Education (CDE) to the California School Finance Authority (CSFA), which is located within the State Treasurer’s Office. This can be seen as a bonus to the charter school community because the CSFA has been an easier partner to work with than CDE. The CSFA already runs their own federally funded charter school facility program and has partnered with many charter schools to ease their overall facility and funding needs. This would also place the State’s Treasurers Office in charge of two very large charter school programs and is sure to be seen as a slight to CDE. Yet another set of positive proposals appear in the Governor’s budget as he wants to allow non-classroom based charter schools to access funding from the Charter School Facility Grant Program and ease the regulatory burden that the funding determination process places on non-classroom based charter schools. Much like his funding proposal, these are proposals that he put forward last year and shows his continued commitment to the charter school movement. It is yet to be seen how the legislature will react to these proposals but the Governor has made his stance clear. Governor Jerry Brown is a strong supporter of charter schools in California and understands the need for charter school funding.
Legislative hearings will began on the Governor’s budget proposal in the next few weeks. These hearings will continue throughout April or May. In May the Governor will submit a revision to his budget proposal which will take into account new state revenue projections and may reflect some of the issues that the legislature has weighed in through the committee process. The legislature then has until June 15th to pass an on time budget. Undoubtedly the Governor’s new per pupil funding proposal will lead to very strict legislative scrutiny but he is committed to changing the way that we fund schools in the state.
To view the Governor’s budget and other featured information visit www.dof.ca.gov.