The 1999 legislative session was a most difficult one for charter schools. Our ability to stop harmful legislation and make the limited progress we did is primarily due to two factors. The first is the hard work of charter schools throughout the state. Charter schools are demonstrating that they are able to provide a better education and to get better results than the consistently poor academic results produced by the regular K-12 system. The second is that charter schools have received tremendous support from a broad based and bipartisan coalition. These supporters include the Governor, the Secretary of Education, moderate democrats and republicans. Supporters also include members of the business community. Without the continued support of all these people and organizations, charter schools will be severely crippled and neutralized as a catalyst for the improvement of the K-12 educational system.

This section will review the major bills that became law during this past legislative session. The first group of bills, the "charter school bills," are those that deal primarily with charter schools. These are the bills that CANEC has focused on all session. The second group of bills are those that affect all schools and/or school districts. Some of these bills affect charter schools, but the majority do not. However, to the degree a specific bill may provide a new discretionary funding source or a new grant program, individual charter schools may wish to explore these bills further.

In the regular legislative session, four bills that significantly impacted charter schools become law. Two of the four bills, AB 1115 and SB 267, were urgency bills. An urgency bill, which must be approved by a 2/3 vote instead of a simple majority, becomes effective upon signature by the Governor. AB 631 and SB 434 will become effective on January 1, 2000.

I anticipate that time will show that the most important accomplishment of the 1999 legislative session was the adoption of the charter school funding model, which occurred as part of the 1999-2000 budget process for charter schools. The funding model, which was worked out through a laborious and collaborative process between the California Department of Education (CDE), the State Board of Education, and the charter community, implemented the commitment to an equitable funding model for charter schools that was contained in AB 544, the expansion of the charter schools act that was passed in 1998. The language for the funding model is just one part of the very large Omnibus Education Bill, AB 1115.

The funding model has two overriding advantages for charter schools. The first is simplicity. With just six main data elements, a charter school can determine their base funding level. This is a substantial improvement over the previous funding system. The second advantage is equity. The model provides charter schools with operational funding at levels comparable with those provided to similarly situated school districts.

AB 1115 was signed by the Governor on July 7, 1999, and, as an urgency measure, was effective immediately. There was no lead time for the CDE to develop the new internal and external systems and processes necessary to implement this new funding model. Since the passage of AB 1115, the CDE has been working hard to implement this new funding model. While a number of problems remain to be resolved, the CDE, particularly the School Fiscal Service Division, is to be commended on their efforts and success in making the system funding system operational.

The bill requires schools assigned a charter number by the State Board after June 1, 1999 to be funded by the new model. Charter schools assigned a number before that date may continue to be funded under the "old" funding model for this year and the next two years.

Initial implementation has revealed four main issues with the new funding model. The first issue is funding for new schools. The CDE made an initial apportionment in September to new schools based on an estimate of ADA (Average Daily Attendance). The CDE will also be making payments in late November or early December based on an actual October ADA count. However, the Department of Finance opposed legislative language further clarifying the CDE’s authority to provide timely payments to new schools beyond the current year. Therefore a high priority for next year and beyond is to support CDE’s policy of funding new charter schools in a timely manner. We also need to ensure the availability of appropriate funding for schools experiencing rapid growth.

A second issue is the inclusion of as many funding sources into the block grant as possible. Every funding source not included weakens value of the model and requires charter schools to submit yet another funding application. We also have concerns about the proper calculation of year-to-year increasing in the funding model. It is important that the full amount of growth in all funds is included in the calculation order to insure that funding model is not shortchanged.

The third issue is providing full and timely information to charter schools about all funding sources that are not included in the funding model. The CDE has been unable to provide a comprehensive listing of the other funding sources and application information necessary to apply for that funding. There is a serious concern that charter schools will not receive the funding that they are otherwise entitled to because they were not informed on how to apply for the funding in a timely manner.

The third issue is special education funding. The funding model mandates a charter school to declare itself a school (and therefore dependent on its sponsor for special education purposes) or a local education agency, for special education purposes. It also defines the residency of a students to be the district that sponsored a charter school, not where the student resides. How special education funding and service delivery will actually work out under these provisions, and whether many charter schools will be significantly harmed by the structure, remain serious concerns.

SB 434 places a number of new restrictions on all charter schools. It requires that charter schools provide at least the same amount of instruction time per year as regular public schools. Charter schools must document all student attendance and make the records available for audit. As a condition of apportionment (eligibility for funding), charter schools must also certify that students have participated in state testing programs in the same manner as other public schools. The bill also imposes independent study law and regulations on charter school students in non-classroom based programs.

The bill is not an urgency bill, and therefore will take effect on January 1, 2000.

Through much of the final weeks of the budget process, the budget bill contained language that would have eliminated funding for virtually all students in non-classroom based programs. Senator Jack O’Connell placed the language in the budget bill due to continuing concerns by some legislators, the Department of Finance and others, that abuse was occurring in non-classroom based charter schools. It was also seen by charter opponents as an opportunity to restrict and weaken the charter school law. This original language would have closed virtually 1/3 of all the charter schools in California. The language in SB 434 represents a compromise made by legislators and the Governor’s office and places significant new requirements on all charter schools while also placing non-classroom based programs under most independent study law and regulations.

CANEC and the charter school community are working with CDE as it drafts regulations for the implementation of independent study law on charter schools for consideration by the State Board.

AB 631 preserves the flexibility of charter schools to operate in a manner that the school finds most effective in educating children while providing charter school employees the right to organize. This bill, as amended, provides that charter school employees have the right to organize under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) if they choose to do so, and gives them the right to choose their exclusive representative. The bill does not require a charter school to change it charter or its current manner of operating. It does require a charter school to identify if it is to be the Public School Employer for purposes of EERA, by March 31, 2000.

AB 631 does not mandate collective bargaining at any charter school. The only specific action called for in the bill is that by March 1, 2000, every existing charter school needs to declare whether it, or its sponsor, is the employer for collective bargaining purposes. We must note here, however, that this is a critical decision for each charter school. Specifically, declaring the sponsor as the employer for purposes of this law will impose on the charter school whatever collective bargaining arrangements and agreements the sponsor is party to. Charter schools need to have a good understanding of the collective bargaining law in order not to violate an employee’s rights, as well as to insure the school’s ability to effectively educate students. CANEC is actively discussing how we can best assist charter schools in this area. Initially we will be providing written guidance. There also will be one or more sessions on collective bargaining offered at the CANEC spring conference. Additionally, we are recommending that all CANEC members participate in any technical assistance workshops on this subject that will be offered by the Charter School Development Center.

SB 267 makes a number of important improvements to the charter school revolving loan fund. It helps address one of the more critical problems facing charter schools today, the lack of adequate start-up funding, especially to assist in securing appropriate school facilities. It raises the maximum loan amount from $50,000 to a more realistic $250,000, and extends the payment period to up to five years. Most importantly, it allows a charter school to borrow on its own behalf.

In the final days of the session, a hostile amendment was made to the bill by the Chairwoman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, Assemblywoman Carole Migden, which places the responsibility for repayment of the loan in the case of a default by a charter school back onto the sponsoring agency.

SB 267 was an urgency bill, therefore it became effective the day the Governor signed the bill, October 7, 1999. Eligible charter schools may apply immediately for the higher loan amount. The CDE has indicated that they will be providing additional guidance in the near future.

Upon taking office in January of 1999, Governor Davis called for a special legislative session to address K-12 education, indicating that education was his 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd priority. That session saw the passage of four bills that the Governor considers the foundation of his approach to improve K-12 education.

Following is a short summary of the four bills prepared by the Assembly Education Committee staff.

This bill repeals the existing Mentor Teacher program and establishes the California Mentor Peer Review and Assistance Program for Teachers effective July 1, 2001. Review and assistance shall include multiple observations of a teacher during periods of classroom instruction and a monitoring component with a written record. Districts with fewer than 250 ADA will be allowed to implement the program for both permanent and probationary employees. Non-participating school districts will be ineligible to receive any appropriation for the Administrator Training and Evaluation Program, the Staff Development Buy Back Program and funds formerly awarded as Mentor Teacher funds.

Status: Chapter 4, Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session.

This bill establishes and funds a number of reform programs intended to improve the quality of both reading and reading instruction in California schools, including:

• Professional Development Summer Institutes ($12 million)
• Pro-Reading Public Relations Campaign ($4 million)
• Reading Awards Program for Schools ($2 million)
• "Principals Leadership Institute" and "Governor’s Teachers Scholars" ($1 million for the two programs).

Status: Chapter 2, Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session.

This bill establishes the Public School Performance Accountability Program that will consist of a state Academic Performance Index (API), an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and a Governor’s High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. The initial API ranking includes only those schools with populations of 100 or more pupils. By July 1, 2000 the Superintendent of Public Instruction and State Board of Education must develop an alternate accountability system for schools with fewer than 100 pupils, as well as for county schools, community schools, and alternative schools.

The Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools program includes 430 schools: 301 elementary, 78 middle schools and 52 high schools. The awards program consists of $96.1 million for planning and implementation grants and $96.1 million to reward school districts that meet or exceed their performance growth targets.

Status: Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session.

This bill establishes a high-school exit exam as a prerequisite to graduation beginning with the class of 2004. Special education students can be excused by their IEP, and English Language Learners are excused during their first 24 months of instruction in English. Schools are required to offer remedial instruction resources in grades 7-12 for students who are not making sufficient progress toward passing the exam. The bill calls for the State Board of Education to study "the appropriateness of other criteria by which high school pupils who are regarded as highly proficient but unable to pass the high school exit examination may demonstrate their competency and receive a high school diploma. This criteria may include, but is not limited to, an exemplary academic record as evidenced by transcripts and alternative tests of equal rigor in the academic areas covered by the high school exit examination."

Status: Chapter 1, Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session.

Charter schools are included in two ways. First they are included in SBX1 1, the accountability bill. This means that charter schools’ performance will be ranked in the same manner as other schools, and the sanctions for failing to improve academic performance of students also apply.

A significant number of charter schools serve very specific, at-risk populations and these schools need to be included in the alternative assessment process that is being developed for other schools serving similar populations.

SBX1 2, the high school exit examination, will also apply to charter school students. All California public school students will need to pass this exam in order to graduate from high school, beginning with the class of 2004.

The Assembly Education Committee identified 17 major education bills that became law in this legislative session. Depending on the grade levels in a specific charter school, or a special focus, interest or population which is served, any one of these bills may be of interest to some charter schools. What follows is a listing and description of education bills signed by the Governor that was developed by the Assembly Education Committee.

This bill expands the Assumption Program of Loans for Education (APLE) beginning in 2000-01 to provide loan assumptions to students who agree to teach in rural areas. The current APLE program assumes student loans for students who agree to teach in urban areas.

This bill enacts the Nell Soto Parent/Teacher Involvement Grant Program, the Theresa P. Hughes Family-School Partnership Award and Grant Program, and the Tom Hayden Community Based Parent Involvement Grant Program. These grant programs provide teacher stipends and home visits or community meetings, family outreach activities, and offer parent training courses to further involve parents in their children’s education.

This bill requires a long-term evaluation of programs for English learners enacted subsequent to passage of Proposition 227. The evaluation will provide the state and local education agencies with information on programs that are successful in teaching English learners English and the curriculum.

This bill prohibits the State Board of Education and local school district governing boards from adopting basic instructional materials, including illustrations, which contain unnecessary and inappropriate exposure to commercial brand names, products or company logos. This is the first law of its kind in the nation. Under AB 116, commercial brand names, products, or corporate and company logos may not be used unless the State Board of Education determines that such use in school texts is either necessary for an educational purpose or that the appearance of products, logos or brand names is incidental to the illustrations or pictures in the student materials. This bill would also require all instructional materials adopted by any governing board for use in schools to utilize proper grammar and spelling, except for literature and tradebooks. All instructional materials submitted to the State Board of Education after January 1, 2000 must meet these new requirements.

Status: Chapter 276 Statutes of 1999.

This bill requires a public hearing, competitive bidding, and a district policy before school districts can enter into exclusive contracts for carbonated beverages.

This bill promotes retired teachers returning to teach in order to provide more teachers for California’s program to reduce class sizes. It further allows retired teachers who return to active teaching to keep earning retirement benefits if they are employed to reduce class sizes in grades K-3.

Status: Chapter 40 Statutes of 1999.

This bill allows After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Programs to operate off-campus. It further allows programs to be conducted at a community park or recreation area, if the area is adjacent to the school site.

Status: Chapter 108 Statutes of 1999.

This bill makes clarifying amendments to the new State School Facilities Bond Act.

This bill creates the "School Safety and Violence Prevention Act" Which provides $100 million for flexible school safety block grants. These grants are available for grades 8 through12 and are to be used for school safety equipment, trained school counselors, cooperative agreements with law enforcement, or other school safety needs.

Status: Chapter 51, Statutes of 1999.

This bill provides $50 million for one-time bonuses for teachers in low-performing schools where student achievement increases substantially over the prior school year.

This bill provides $50 million for supplemental instruction to English learners in grades 4 through 8, as long as it meets specified criteria. Districts receive $100 per year for each student attending the program. This bill also provides $10 million for new professional development programs for teachers that serve English learners.

Status: Chapter 4, Statutes of 1999.

This bill provides $50 million as incentive funding for school districts to increase the starting salaries of fully credentialed teachers up to $32,000 per year.

This bill deserves some special note as it creates an accelerated alternative teacher certification route for working professionals with a master degree and five years of related experience. This bill may assist charter schools in employing highly qualified individuals that otherwise are precluded from teaching in college preparation and core subjects because of the onerous requirements of the traditional teacher education and credential process.

This bill requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to make improvements to increase access to the state basic skills proficiency tests and to improve exam-related services provided to candidates for teaching credentials.

This bill adds goals for residential outdoor science programs or classes, commonly referred to as "science camps," and provides funding for disadvantaged public school students to attend the program.

This bill reforms various aspects of the STAR testing program. Specific provisions include requiring the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a K-12 core curriculum performance standards system by November 15, 2001. It provides for the STAR test to be acquired and administered through a single contract between the State, rather than through multiple contracts with individual school districts, specifies that the publisher must provide STAR results to CDE by July 8 and that CDE publish the data on the Internet by July 15 and provides that school districts may negotiate a separate agreement h the publisher for any additional materials or services not within the state agreement.

This bill requires some accountability for charter schools. It requires that charter schools:

• Offer the same number of required annual instructional minutes as those required of public schools;
• Maintain written, contemporaneous records of pupil attendance;
• Certify that all students participate in the state testing programs; and comply with independent study law in order to claim funds for independent study students.

Status: Chapter 162, Statutes of 1999.

This bill requires the State Department of Education to develop procedures for school districts to assess the English language fluency of English learner students upon enrollment and annually thereafter, until they are reclassified as fluent in English. This bill also requires the State Department of Education to develop a procedure and criteria for reclassification to fluent in English.

Return to Articles & Legislation