Charter bill reveals potential to widen divide with LEAs
John Yeh , partner with Burke , Williams & Sorensen , LLP , wrote the following article . Yeh specializes in representing school districts on charter school oversight . The views expressed in this article are his own .
Although it does not appear that Senate Bill 1434 , Glazer , D-Orinda , will make it to the governor ’ s desk this legislative term , the proposed changes to the Charter Schools Act in Education Code section 47600 et seq . reads like a policy “ wish list ” for those who believe restraints against growth of charter schools should be weakened .
SB 1434 ’ s primary components include :
• A grievance process against authorizers who are perceived to be insufficiently supportive of charter schools .
• The imposition of penalties against these allegedly “ bad ” authorizers .
• A higher evidentiary standard for a local agency to deny a charter petition .
• A documentation requirement for the statutory authorizer oversight fee .
• A lower bar for forming countywide and statewide benefit charters .
Grievance procedure
SB 1434 proposes to add Ed Code 47604.6 , which would provide that a school district , county office of education or charter school may file a grievance with the State Board of Education against a charter authorizer ( school district or county office of education ) alleging violation of any “ code or regulation ,” based on specific evidence . The Advisory Commission on Charter Schools would hold a hearing and make a recommendation to SBE , similar to the procedure that exists now when the SBE considers a charter petition appeal , revocation or request for material revision . SBE may impose corrective action , including “ suspension or revocation of the chartering authority ’ s authority to approve , oversee or revoke charters .”
SB 1434 further proposes that the SBE may approve a school district or COE “ with demonstrated authorizing and oversight capacity ” to serve as an “ expanded authorizer .” Such “ preferred ” authorizers may perform authorizer duties of another school district whose authorizer status has been revoked , and would be exempt from the geographic restrictions in EC 47605.1 requiring charter schools to be located within the boundaries of their authorizers ( with stated exceptions for resource centers for non-classroom based charter schools ). Nonprofit corporations operating multiple charters may request that charters be consolidated under SBE authorization .
The proposed addition of EC 47604.6 accomplishes several objectives for those who see the traditional public school system as an impediment to charter school growth . It allows for an expedited legal recourse against school districts and county offices before a tribunal – the SBE – that has an
STRS
Continued from page 1
CalSTRS ’ Secure Employer Website , before the individual begins performing services .
• Await approval . Within 30 days , CalSTRS will notify the employer and retired member as to whether the exemption is approved .
The school district may start this process at any time before or after the individual has retired . ACSA strongly advises allowing 45 to 60 days to complete the process and receive STRS approval before the individual performs any work .
This is critically important because a retiree is subject to a significant penalty in the absence of approval , especially those who retired under the Retirement Incentive Program . This exemption will not affect the annual post-retirement earnings limit , which is $ 42,732 in 2016 – 17 .
For questions regarding this issue , please contact ACSA Legislative Advocate Laura Preston at lpreston @ acsa . org . established charter-friendly track record . It provides an expedited legal mechanism for taking local control over charter authorizing and oversight away from school districts deemed worthy of punishment .
Lastly , it weakens the existing restrictions against charter schools locating outside of the boundaries of their authorizers – whose loopholes have been subject to abuse and considerable litigation – to allow school districts to authorize the operation of charter schools within the boundaries of other districts .
Other provisions
The proposed legislation would also amend EC 47605 to require that the denial of charter petitions be “ based on substantial evidence that is provided to the petitioners and made available to the public ” supporting grounds for denial , and to make a school district ’ s failure to act or make findings on a petition as a trigger to the right to appeal .
SB 1434 would also require LEAs providing oversight for an SBE-authorized charter school under EC 47605 ( k )( 1 ) to submit an annual financial statement to the charter justifying oversight fees under EC 47613 . Charter schools can make a complaint to the county superintendent regarding a district ’ s oversight fee , with potential penalties including reimbursement , an annual report to the county superintendent , and filing a grievance with the SBE . The proposed legislation would also require that administrative services purchased by a charter school be at “ fair market value .”
Lastly , SB 1434 would revise existing requirements to form countywide charters under EC 47605.6 , and Statewide Benefit
Region 2 leaders join for training
June 27 , 2016 EDCAL 3
ACSA Region 2 leaders committed to learning all about membership at their recent leadership training in South Lake Tahoe . ACSA Region 2 represents educational leaders from the Northern California counties of Butte , Colusa , El Dorado , Glenn , Nevada , Placer , Plumas , Sierra , Sutter and Yuba .
Charters under EC 47605.8 to eliminate the requirement that the petitioner demonstrate that a countywide or statewide benefit is necessary to provide services that cannot be provided as well by a single district / COE . Instead , the petitioner must show that students will benefit from services ; the charter will provide a “ high-quality ” educational program ; and that the school will share best practices with low-performing public and charter schools .
Potential ramifications
Even if few of the provisions of SB 1434 eventually make it into law , either in this or future legislative sessions , the proposed legislation provides a window into the mindset of those who believe the charter school movement is the only antidote to the bureaucratic monolith that governs public education in California . The proposed legislation is replete with mechanisms of retribution against local agencies that are perceived to be insufficiently supportive of charter schools , including the plan to
punish and replace “ bad ” authorizers with “ preferred ” authorizers ; to ensnare allegedly “ bad ” authorizers in a cumbersome grievance proceeding ; and the ability of “ preferred ” authorizers to approve charters to operate within the geographic boundaries of the allegedly “ bad ” authorizers .
While the Charter Schools Act was originally enacted to provide choice , competition and increased learning opportunities for all students , this latest bill seeks to further hamstring districts , especially when it comes to charter formation and oversight .
As the California Supreme Court recognized in Today ’ s Fresh Start Inc . v . Los Angeles COE , school districts alone are tasked with providing general education services to the mass student population within their boundaries who don ’ t enter the private school , homeschool or charter school system , or who don ’ t receive specialized services from their local COE . Bills like SB 1434 seek to reinforce the divide that is deepening between the traditional school system and the charter school system .