⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Recommendations 19
-
R1Implications for Going Forward •
-
R2Prior to becoming an authorizer, most districts have not had experience performing the type of review and oversight required of authorizers. California does not currently have a statewide entity to provide training for authorizers that would ensure they have information and resources available from which to provide quality assistance to and oversight of charter schools. Potential training may include 1) a policy handbook, checklist and template for the charter petition review, 2) a handbook, checklist, and template for the annual review of charter schools, 3) a sample MOU that outlines standards for academic, financial, and operational procedures and performance, and 4) guidance on the renewal process that allows authorizers to take proactive steps prior to the revocation of a charter and closure of a charter school. The CTF agrees that in order to reach the standards developed in the Recommendation B(i), authorizers would need to be trained and provided additional resources. During the conversation, interest was expressed in ensuring the statewide entity (similar to other states) also has the ability and sufficient authority to intervene and/or impose accountability measures when disputes or inconsistencies arise related to authorization and renewal. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 C) Include students transferring to charter schools in the Education Code provision for a one- year "hold harmless" to account for net loss of average daily attendance (ADA). Unanimity and consensus reached ٠ Currently in Education Code 42238.5-42238.052, charter ADA is exempt from the declining district enrollment calculation, leaving districts no support when they lose ADA to a charter school. However, districts experience a similar loss of revenue when a student exits a traditional school for a charter school as when a student leaves for any other reason. While the majority of CTF members recognized that this recommendation alone will not address the full fiscal impact on districts, there was consensus that providing a "soft landing" to districts for loss of ADA due to student transfer to charter schools offers one important layer of support. Because loss of charter students to independently-governed and direct-funded charter schools has substantially the same impact on the district as any other ADA loss, the CTF believes it should be recognized in the same manner. Based on self-reported 2018-2019 data submitted to CDE for the largest ten school districts in the state, the estimated amount required to provide the "soft landing" is estimated over $96,000,000. D) Provide additional discretion when considering a new charter school authorization and amend the role of the CDE in oversight per the considerations below.
-
R3Academic outcomes and offerings (offered by traditional schools and charter schools) A statement of need (based on academic outcomes and offerings) ٠ While CTF members did not articulate specific thresholds or levels to trigger these factors, they did feel that the factors aforementioned offered governing boards a more complete community lens and were therefore important for providing additional discretion to authorizers. Together with these considerations, CTF also discussed the role of the SBE in the appeals process and the responsibility of CDE (as staff to SBE) for oversight of SBE-authorized charter schools. It was agreed that CDE should no longer be responsible for oversight of charter schools authorized by the SBE (currently three staff members are responsible for 39 charters schools). The CTF agreed unanimously that the burden of oversight was high for the CDE staff, particularly given geographic constraints. While acknowledging that districts will get broader discretion to deny petitions for new charter schools via the considerations above, CTF members recognized there needed to be a balance with appeal rights; therefore, no changes were recommended to the appeals process. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 Other Proposals Voted On Again, the proposals listed below were either a part of the framework voted on by the CTF or they represent a proposal on which the CTF members focused considerable time and debate. Although full unanimity was not reached on these proposals, they are included in this report to provide transparency and reflect the evolution to the CTF's full body of work. They represent items discussed and the evolution of the discussion and debate that took place between task force members before the task force members reached consensus on the list of recommendations listed in this report. E) Enact a one-year moratorium on the establishment of new virtual charter schools.
-
R4Supported by the majority There has been growing concern that virtual charter schools are operated without appropriate academic rigor and oversight, providing a sub-par education for their students (for example, see California Virtual Academy – Bureau of State Audits review1). The temporary one-year freeze on new virtual charter schools will give advocates time to study issues related to the establishment of virtual charter schools, such as their operational practices and performance, and to make further recommendations to ensure students are receiving appropriate full-time instruction, supervised by a certified teacher. Virtual charter schools with a history of providing a demonstrated benefit to students will have the ability to continue to operate during the one-year moratorium. F) Remove the California State Board of Education from hearing appeals of charter petition denials. Supported by the majority
-
R5The SBE is an authorizer for applicants whose charter petition was denied by a district or county board of education. Some CTF members expressed growing concern that applicants whose charter petitions were denied by a district and/or County Board of Education appeal to the SBE to grant their charter, thus giving a charter school three chances to be approved. Some believe that for local control and accountability to be preserved, charter schools should only be authorized locally. In addition, authorization at the state level is problematic due to geographic limitations. Almost 65% of the current SBE authorized charter schools are located in Los Angeles or San Diego, which makes it difficult for the Sacramento-based staff to provide the appropriate level of oversight at the local level. As CDE is staff to SBE, the oversight responsibilities fall to CDE; there are currently three staff at the state level to serve the 39 SBE authorized charter schools. G) Limit the authorization of new charter schools to local districts with an appeals process that takes place at the County Board of Education only when there was an error by the district governing board. Supported by the majority
-
R6Current law allows for any County Board of Education, or the State Board of Education to authorize charter petitions when a school district governing board has denied their approval. By California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 only allowing school districts and limited appeals to the county offices to authorize, this proposal allows the local community to make a determination on whether the charter school meets the needs of their students. Applicants would be allowed limited appeals of the local district's denial to the County Board of Education. H) Prohibit districts from authorizing charter schools located outside district boundaries. Supported by the majority Current law allows a charter school to open one site outside of the authorizing district only if the charter school has attempted to locate within the authorizer's boundaries, but an appropriate site was unavailable or the location is temporarily needed during a construction or expansion. A 2017 state audit report found that in fiscal year 2016-2017, 165 charter schools used these exceptions to operate at least 495 locations outside of their authorizers' boundaries2. Further, many of these charter schools had not provided evidence of the need to locate outside of the authorizing district. Prohibiting districts from authorizing charter schools located outside of district boundaries would allow for greater local control and oversight of charter schools. In addition, such a prohibition would limit the potential for the detrimental practice of using oversight fees as a revenue stream, while incurring only limited expenses associated with authorizing the charter school.3 I) Allow authorizers to consider fiscal impact as part of the authorization process. Supported by the majority
-
R7Presentations from Oakland Unified School Districts, Los Angeles Unified School Districts, and San Diego Unified School District to the CTF demonstrated significant fiscal impact to school districts due to the cost of charter schools located within district boundaries. In addition to the oft- cited loss of ADA funding, other costs may include, but are not limited to: inability to reduce expenses proportionally without direct harm to student programs and services (utilities, staff, daily maintenance, etc.); obligations to keep schools open and facilities available; increased liability and litigation; disproportionality of special education costs; competition for state, local, and other funds; thorough oversight; and marketing in a newly competitive environment. Allowing authorizers to consider fiscal impacts of a charter petition enables them to evaluate the impact on the entirety of their local educational system. As such, the majority of the CTF recommended that authorizers should be allowed to take fiscal impact into consideration when deciding whether to authorize a new charter school. J) Establish clear guidelines for use by authorizers and by charter applicants for new charter petitions.
-
R8Supported by the majority Current law requires charter petitions to include a description of 16 elements. Beyond these elements, there are no standards that provide guidance on the level of detail an applicant should include. As such, applicants submit charter petitions of varying quality; some contain little description of the elements while others contain extensive detail. Clear guidelines, such as rubrics or handbooks, for applicants to follow would standardize the quality of new charter schools. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 K) Update Education Code requirements to reflect current state accountability.
-
R9Supported by the majority Current language in the Education Code is outdated as it reflects the use of the Academic Performance Index to determine whether a charter school has met the academic criteria for renewal. To make the renewal process up to date, outdated provisions that no longer apply should be removed from the Education Code. L) Implement a plan for managed growth of charter schools.* *Did not move to a vote Over the past 25 years, public perception suggests that charter schools have grown at an unchecked pace. Through CTF deliberations, there were various presentations providing a picture of fast- paced growth that has more recently leveled off to a more moderate rate. A managed growth proposal was considered that identified two school districts (Oakland Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School District) and suggested limitations related to time period, geography, and who is eligible and was contingent upon local control and a sunset policy. The idea of managing growth in a select few districts and for a limited period was not acceptable to the majority who felt reasonable growth standards should be consistently applied statewide. CTF members were invited to provide an alternative set of caveats for a managed growth plan, however CTF members could not agree on the conditions for limiting growth. Conversation about the managed growth plan being applicable to districts with a specific number or percentage of charter student enrollment was further discussed but no agreement was reached. M) Amend Education Code 475605 (b) from "shall" to "may."
-
R10Opposed by the majority The CTF members dedicated significant time to discussing a reform proposal to provide more discretion to authorizers that would amend Education Code 47605 (b) which states, "the governing board of the school district shall grant a charter for the operation of a school if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice." In practice, this clause in the current state law indicates that an authorizer must approve a charter applicant unless it makes specific findings to deny. The proposal would have provided authorizers more discretion to approve or deny a charter school by introducing a change in the language of this section of the Education Code from "shall" to "may." This was a significant topic of discussion for all CTF members and many differing perspectives were shared. Ultimately, the CTF expressed concerned about the potential legal implications of a recommendation that changed the core language of the Education Code. When CTF members voted on the proposal to recommend the change, there was neither consensus nor unanimity. The proposal to change from "shall" to "may" failed by the narrowest of votes, with the majority position opposing the change. In subsequent conversations, the CTF worked to identify a balance that addressed both growth concerns and the need for some form of an appeals process. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 Implications for Going Forward The recommendations for charter reform presented in this report represent important conversations currently taking place throughout California. With more than 1,300 charter schools in our state, the issues surrounding charter schools are complex and require further review, discussion, and debate. While the CTF had robust discussions with significant differences on policy, the recommendations contained in this report offer strategies to address some of these complexities. The CTF was limited in overall scope and duration, and so the conversations started here point to additional questions yet to be answered. In particular the CTF encourages future work detailing articulate and fair standards for authorization and renewal and the development of the statewide entity referenced in Recommendation B. Moreover, the CTF sees an opportunity for charter schools and traditional public schools to achieve a goal that has never been fully maximized since the passage of the Charter Schools Act of 1992: that charter schools and traditional public schools share innovations that have the potential for helping all students in the state. In conclusion, the State Superintendent's office on behalf of the CTF respectfully submits this report and its recommendations as strategies to advance the needs of California's six million students. Per state audit report findings, CAVA: inaccurately calculated supervisory oversight fees paid to authorizing entities; lacked sufficient documentation to support its claimed ADA; lacked sufficient documentation to support satisfactory progress of students between 19 and 22 years old; may have miscalculated its pupil-teacher ratio; schools contracted to pay their authorizing entities oversight fees in excess of legal limits. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr17/yr17rel72.asp 2 Per CCSESA Report, Pg 13: State Audit Report 2016-141. https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-141.pdf 3 For example, per State audit https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-141.pdf, "Through the authorization of out-of-district schools, both Acton-Agua Dulce Unified and New Jerusalem were able to increase their enrollments and revenue significantly... (the school district of Acton-Agua Dulce) received $1.9 million total in fees from charter schools in fiscal year 2015–16...while some of Acton-Agua Dulce Unified's charter schools appear to have made only sporadic use of the services for which the district charged them." California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 10
-
R11Prior to becoming an authorizer, most districts have not had experience performing the type of review and oversight required of authorizers. California does not currently have a statewide entity to provide training for authorizers that would ensure they have information and resources available from which to provide quality assistance to and oversight of charter schools. Potential training may include 1) a policy handbook, checklist and template for the charter petition review, 2) a handbook, checklist, and template for the annual review of charter schools, 3) a sample MOU that outlines standards for academic, financial, and operational procedures and performance, and 4) guidance on the renewal process that allows authorizers to take proactive steps prior to the revocation of a charter and closure of a charter school. The CTF agrees that in order to reach the standards developed in the Recommendation B(i), authorizers would need to be trained and provided additional resources. During the conversation, interest was expressed in ensuring the statewide entity (similar to other states) also has the ability and sufficient authority to intervene and/or impose accountability measures when disputes or inconsistencies arise related to authorization and renewal. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 C) Include students transferring to charter schools in the Education Code provision for a one- year "hold harmless" to account for net loss of average daily attendance (ADA). Unanimity and consensus reached ٠ Currently in Education Code 42238.5-42238.052, charter ADA is exempt from the declining district enrollment calculation, leaving districts no support when they lose ADA to a charter school. However, districts experience a similar loss of revenue when a student exits a traditional school for a charter school as when a student leaves for any other reason. While the majority of CTF members recognized that this recommendation alone will not address the full fiscal impact on districts, there was consensus that providing a "soft landing" to districts for loss of ADA due to student transfer to charter schools offers one important layer of support. Because loss of charter students to independently-governed and direct-funded charter schools has substantially the same impact on the district as any other ADA loss, the CTF believes it should be recognized in the same manner. Based on self-reported 2018-2019 data submitted to CDE for the largest ten school districts in the state, the estimated amount required to provide the "soft landing" is estimated over $96,000,000. D) Provide additional discretion when considering a new charter school authorization and amend the role of the CDE in oversight per the considerations below.
-
R12Academic outcomes and offerings (offered by traditional schools and charter schools) A statement of need (based on academic outcomes and offerings) ٠ While CTF members did not articulate specific thresholds or levels to trigger these factors, they did feel that the factors aforementioned offered governing boards a more complete community lens and were therefore important for providing additional discretion to authorizers. Together with these considerations, CTF also discussed the role of the SBE in the appeals process and the responsibility of CDE (as staff to SBE) for oversight of SBE-authorized charter schools. It was agreed that CDE should no longer be responsible for oversight of charter schools authorized by the SBE (currently three staff members are responsible for 39 charters schools). The CTF agreed unanimously that the burden of oversight was high for the CDE staff, particularly given geographic constraints. While acknowledging that districts will get broader discretion to deny petitions for new charter schools via the considerations above, CTF members recognized there needed to be a balance with appeal rights; therefore, no changes were recommended to the appeals process. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 Other Proposals Voted On Again, the proposals listed below were either a part of the framework voted on by the CTF or they represent a proposal on which the CTF members focused considerable time and debate. Although full unanimity was not reached on these proposals, they are included in this report to provide transparency and reflect the evolution to the CTF's full body of work. They represent items discussed and the evolution of the discussion and debate that took place between task force members before the task force members reached consensus on the list of recommendations listed in this report. E) Enact a one-year moratorium on the establishment of new virtual charter schools.
-
R13Supported by the majority There has been growing concern that virtual charter schools are operated without appropriate academic rigor and oversight, providing a sub-par education for their students (for example, see California Virtual Academy – Bureau of State Audits review1). The temporary one-year freeze on new virtual charter schools will give advocates time to study issues related to the establishment of virtual charter schools, such as their operational practices and performance, and to make further recommendations to ensure students are receiving appropriate full-time instruction, supervised by a certified teacher. Virtual charter schools with a history of providing a demonstrated benefit to students will have the ability to continue to operate during the one-year moratorium. F) Remove the California State Board of Education from hearing appeals of charter petition denials. Supported by the majority
-
R14The SBE is an authorizer for applicants whose charter petition was denied by a district or county board of education. Some CTF members expressed growing concern that applicants whose charter petitions were denied by a district and/or County Board of Education appeal to the SBE to grant their charter, thus giving a charter school three chances to be approved. Some believe that for local control and accountability to be preserved, charter schools should only be authorized locally. In addition, authorization at the state level is problematic due to geographic limitations. Almost 65% of the current SBE authorized charter schools are located in Los Angeles or San Diego, which makes it difficult for the Sacramento-based staff to provide the appropriate level of oversight at the local level. As CDE is staff to SBE, the oversight responsibilities fall to CDE; there are currently three staff at the state level to serve the 39 SBE authorized charter schools. G) Limit the authorization of new charter schools to local districts with an appeals process that takes place at the County Board of Education only when there was an error by the district governing board. Supported by the majority
-
R15Current law allows for any County Board of Education, or the State Board of Education to authorize charter petitions when a school district governing board has denied their approval. By California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 only allowing school districts and limited appeals to the county offices to authorize, this proposal allows the local community to make a determination on whether the charter school meets the needs of their students. Applicants would be allowed limited appeals of the local district's denial to the County Board of Education. H) Prohibit districts from authorizing charter schools located outside district boundaries. Supported by the majority Current law allows a charter school to open one site outside of the authorizing district only if the charter school has attempted to locate within the authorizer's boundaries, but an appropriate site was unavailable or the location is temporarily needed during a construction or expansion. A 2017 state audit report found that in fiscal year 2016-2017, 165 charter schools used these exceptions to operate at least 495 locations outside of their authorizers' boundaries2. Further, many of these charter schools had not provided evidence of the need to locate outside of the authorizing district. Prohibiting districts from authorizing charter schools located outside of district boundaries would allow for greater local control and oversight of charter schools. In addition, such a prohibition would limit the potential for the detrimental practice of using oversight fees as a revenue stream, while incurring only limited expenses associated with authorizing the charter school.3 I) Allow authorizers to consider fiscal impact as part of the authorization process. Supported by the majority
-
R16Presentations from Oakland Unified School Districts, Los Angeles Unified School Districts, and San Diego Unified School District to the CTF demonstrated significant fiscal impact to school districts due to the cost of charter schools located within district boundaries. In addition to the oft- cited loss of ADA funding, other costs may include, but are not limited to: inability to reduce expenses proportionally without direct harm to student programs and services (utilities, staff, daily maintenance, etc.); obligations to keep schools open and facilities available; increased liability and litigation; disproportionality of special education costs; competition for state, local, and other funds; thorough oversight; and marketing in a newly competitive environment. Allowing authorizers to consider fiscal impacts of a charter petition enables them to evaluate the impact on the entirety of their local educational system. As such, the majority of the CTF recommended that authorizers should be allowed to take fiscal impact into consideration when deciding whether to authorize a new charter school. J) Establish clear guidelines for use by authorizers and by charter applicants for new charter petitions.
-
R17Supported by the majority Current law requires charter petitions to include a description of 16 elements. Beyond these elements, there are no standards that provide guidance on the level of detail an applicant should include. As such, applicants submit charter petitions of varying quality; some contain little description of the elements while others contain extensive detail. Clear guidelines, such as rubrics or handbooks, for applicants to follow would standardize the quality of new charter schools. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 K) Update Education Code requirements to reflect current state accountability.
-
R18Supported by the majority Current language in the Education Code is outdated as it reflects the use of the Academic Performance Index to determine whether a charter school has met the academic criteria for renewal. To make the renewal process up to date, outdated provisions that no longer apply should be removed from the Education Code. L) Implement a plan for managed growth of charter schools.* *Did not move to a vote Over the past 25 years, public perception suggests that charter schools have grown at an unchecked pace. Through CTF deliberations, there were various presentations providing a picture of fast- paced growth that has more recently leveled off to a more moderate rate. A managed growth proposal was considered that identified two school districts (Oakland Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School District) and suggested limitations related to time period, geography, and who is eligible and was contingent upon local control and a sunset policy. The idea of managing growth in a select few districts and for a limited period was not acceptable to the majority who felt reasonable growth standards should be consistently applied statewide. CTF members were invited to provide an alternative set of caveats for a managed growth plan, however CTF members could not agree on the conditions for limiting growth. Conversation about the managed growth plan being applicable to districts with a specific number or percentage of charter student enrollment was further discussed but no agreement was reached. M) Amend Education Code 475605 (b) from "shall" to "may."
-
R19Opposed by the majority The CTF members dedicated significant time to discussing a reform proposal to provide more discretion to authorizers that would amend Education Code 47605 (b) which states, "the governing board of the school district shall grant a charter for the operation of a school if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice." In practice, this clause in the current state law indicates that an authorizer must approve a charter applicant unless it makes specific findings to deny. The proposal would have provided authorizers more discretion to approve or deny a charter school by introducing a change in the language of this section of the Education Code from "shall" to "may." This was a significant topic of discussion for all CTF members and many differing perspectives were shared. Ultimately, the CTF expressed concerned about the potential legal implications of a recommendation that changed the core language of the Education Code. When CTF members voted on the proposal to recommend the change, there was neither consensus nor unanimity. The proposal to change from "shall" to "may" failed by the narrowest of votes, with the majority position opposing the change. In subsequent conversations, the CTF worked to identify a balance that addressed both growth concerns and the need for some form of an appeals process. California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 Implications for Going Forward The recommendations for charter reform presented in this report represent important conversations currently taking place throughout California. With more than 1,300 charter schools in our state, the issues surrounding charter schools are complex and require further review, discussion, and debate. While the CTF had robust discussions with significant differences on policy, the recommendations contained in this report offer strategies to address some of these complexities. The CTF was limited in overall scope and duration, and so the conversations started here point to additional questions yet to be answered. In particular the CTF encourages future work detailing articulate and fair standards for authorization and renewal and the development of the statewide entity referenced in Recommendation B. Moreover, the CTF sees an opportunity for charter schools and traditional public schools to achieve a goal that has never been fully maximized since the passage of the Charter Schools Act of 1992: that charter schools and traditional public schools share innovations that have the potential for helping all students in the state. In conclusion, the State Superintendent's office on behalf of the CTF respectfully submits this report and its recommendations as strategies to advance the needs of California's six million students. Per state audit report findings, CAVA: inaccurately calculated supervisory oversight fees paid to authorizing entities; lacked sufficient documentation to support its claimed ADA; lacked sufficient documentation to support satisfactory progress of students between 19 and 22 years old; may have miscalculated its pupil-teacher ratio; schools contracted to pay their authorizing entities oversight fees in excess of legal limits. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr17/yr17rel72.asp 2 Per CCSESA Report, Pg 13: State Audit Report 2016-141. https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-141.pdf 3 For example, per State audit https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-141.pdf, "Through the authorization of out-of-district schools, both Acton-Agua Dulce Unified and New Jerusalem were able to increase their enrollments and revenue significantly... (the school district of Acton-Agua Dulce) received $1.9 million total in fees from charter schools in fiscal year 2015–16...while some of Acton-Agua Dulce Unified's charter schools appear to have made only sporadic use of the services for which the district charged them." California Charter School Policy Task Force Report, June 2019 10
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.