Credit: Brenda Iasevoli for EdSource
A classroom at Oscar Romeo Charter School in Los Angeles

A bill that would have allowed only school districts to approve new charter petitions is very much alive despite being shelved Monday by its sponsor.

The bill known as Senate Bill 808 got a burst of support Tuesday from the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, which voted 4-3 in favor of a resolution supporting the bill plus two others that charter advocates consider anti-charter.

The vote came after vigorous appeals from charter supporters to defeat the resolution.

SB 808 is one of three pieces of anti-charter legislation championed by the state’s largest teacher’s union, the California Teachers Association. The bill limits the ability of charter schools to open new campuses or renew existing agreements by requiring them to seek approvals to operate from local school districts only. The bill would also greatly limit the appeals process if a district turns down a charter.

Currently, to open a charter school, organizers can submit petitions to school districts for authorization, and in some cases to county offices of education or the State Board of Education. If their application is denied by the district, they can appeal to their county office of education and the State Board of Education.

Charter supporters argue that the bill will lead to the shut down of many charters since they must get renewals every five years.

Union spokeswoman Claudia Briggs reiterated that SB 808 is not dead and instead will follow a two-year timeline in the current legislative cycle.

The bill’s author, Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, tabled the bill rather than call for a vote on Wednesday when it was due to come before the Senate Education Committee. Mendoza is expected to appear Monday at the Capitol with the California Teachers Association leadership to reiterate his support for the bill. Authors of the two other bills the union is supporting will also speak.

Charter schools are public schools that are run independently. Their growth has fueled opposition from school districts and teachers unions. Many districts fault charter schools for pulling away students and hurting district finances. The relationship with districts is further complicated because most charter schools in the state receive their approval to exist from school districts. One of the reasons teachers unions oppose charter schools is because few are unionized.

The sector now enrolls about a 10th of the state’s 6.2 million public school students.

California Teachers Association spokesman Frank Wells said Los Angeles Unified board’s vote of support for the bills matters because the district has the most students in the state and second-most in the country. “Their support is important because it is based on an extensive history with charter schools and their ramifications,” he said. “As a board authorizing more charter schools than any district in the country, they have a tremendous amount of firsthand experience and expertise related to the transparency and access issues that these laws would address.”

District lobbyists will advocate for the three bills as they go through the legislative committees in the Capitol, said Shannon Haber, spokeswoman for L.A. Unified.

However, the main opponent of the bills, the California Charter Schools Association, dismissed the Los Angeles Unified board’s resolution as political theater that won’t have an impact on the legislation.

“There is spectacle and then there’s the legislative process,” said Carlos Marquez, senior vice president of government affairs for the association. “The L.A. Unified resolution doesn’t change the progress that we’ve made with the three authors,” including Mendoza.

Mendoza tabled the bill following a rally and meeting last week with the charter group.

Marquez said the California Teachers Association is pushing this bill as part of its strategy to galvanize its roughly 300,000 members. That, in turn, “force[s] us to expend political capital in killing their frivolous legislative solutions,” he said.

The bill is putting a spotlight on the split over charter schools in L.A. Unified, which has 279 charters and enrolls more charter school students than any other district in the country, according to a fall 2016 report.

The charter issue dominated the board’s March primaries, which saw political spending by outside groups jump to $5.37 million on behalf of the candidates – roughly $3.34 million from charter-backed organizations and $2 million from unions.

The general election vote this May – with two seats up for grabs – could tilt the board to pro-charter.

Steve Zimmer, the board’s chairman, voted for the resolution on the three bills. He has the financial support of labor unions and is in a tough reelection fight against Nick Melvoin, who had attracted just over half a million dollars in donations from charter groups ahead of the March primaries. Melvoin told EdSource he would have voted against the resolution were he on the board. The other seat in May’s race has no incumbent.

As of Thursday, the two run-off races have already attracted more than $2.2 million in outside campaign spending, according to the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission campaign finance data. Much of that money has come from either charter groups or teachers unions, though pro-charter philanthropist Eli Broad and the local Service Employees International Union have also contributed.

While political spectators focused most of their energies on SB 808, the two other bills – Assembly Bill 1360 and Assembly Bill 1478 – also have the charter association on edge.

Assembly Bill 1360, introduced by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, would create new regulations charter schools would have to follow when attempting to expel or suspend students. It also states that charter school parents cannot be required to volunteer for school activities. The California Charter Schools Association last year successfully swatted down a similar bill, Senate Bill 322, which passed in the Senate but lost in the Assembly. Charter backers contend the bill infringes on their state-mandated freedoms; teachers unions and their allies say some charters get away with discriminatory enrollment and disciplinary practices.

Assembly Bill 1478, introduced by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-South Los Angeles, is part of an ongoing disagreement between charter advocates and their opponents over whether conflict-of-interest laws apply to charter schools. The bill would ban board members from having any financial dealings with the schools on whose boards they sit. The charter association argues this would harm the financial health of charter schools that sometimes rely on generous loans or property leases from their board members. The bill passed its first test in the Senate Education Committee this month.

Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill similar to AB 1478 by saying the proposed law went “too far in prescribing how these boards must operate.”

A separate bill championed by the charter schools association, SB 806, introduced by Sen. Steven Glazer, D-Orinda, would apply a different governance code to charters, one that the charter group says would allow board members to help their schools financially. It passed out of the Senate Education Committee Wednesday.

SHARE ARTICLE

Thanks for reading.

Can you help sustain our reporting?

Our team of journalists, editors, and fact-checkers do an estimated 440 hours of research every week to bring you the news on California education. That's a lot of work.

For a limited time, your contributions will be doubled through the NewsMatch matching gifts program.

Comments (6)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Don 8 months ago8 months ago

    Board of Ed members are largely bought and paid for by unions which control traditional public schools. Therefore, as the syllogism goes, since charters are the competition, unions oppose charter schools. Charters were created as an alternative to the status quo, so why allow charters to live or die based upon what the local boards decide?

  2. Floyd Thursby 8 months ago8 months ago

    It's this kind of robotic, automaton thinking which got Trump elected. The Democrats should be an honest, dynamic party doing everything in their power to help the low income whites, Latinos and African Americans have a realistic expectation of how they can get out of poverty and into a middle class life. We need to shake up the system, the caste system we have, as fewer Americans move quintiles from birth to age … Read More

    It’s this kind of robotic, automaton thinking which got Trump elected. The Democrats should be an honest, dynamic party doing everything in their power to help the low income whites, Latinos and African Americans have a realistic expectation of how they can get out of poverty and into a middle class life. We need to shake up the system, the caste system we have, as fewer Americans move quintiles from birth to age 40 than Europeans or Japanese or Australians. We prioritize the interests of an adult interest group over children. It’s been obvious for over a decade we need to make it easier to fire bad teachers and pay teachers based on a dynamic value add method, which charters do. We need to teach the poor that hours studied is they key factor to getting out of poverty, that if you analyze childhoods the so-called ‘Triple-Package’ minorities in poverty (Asian, Nigerian, Kenyan, Cuban, Persian, Indian, others) spend thousands more hours reading, studying and memorizing math tables over a childhood, including summers, evenings, weekends. Instead of welfare, we should be paying for 1-on-1 tutors for every poor child behind on grade level, we should be encouraging charter schools and reforming hiring statutes, and doing everything we can to get the poor into middle and upper middle class jobs. Instead we’re fighting to protect the failed status quo.

    That there are Democrats even seriously considering this bill proves to me Trump could win again in 2020. We need to become a more dynamic party to have a chance going forward. Everyone needs to read ‘Triple Package’ by Amy Chua and Jed Rubendfeld and see ‘Waiting for Superman’ and come to the table with a dynamic War on Educational Failure/Stagnation and not accept the status quo. This bill is breathtaking in its stupidity. The Democratic Party must evolve to help the poor improve skills and it takes a sea change. Most poor kids are wasting their childhoods in mediocre schools with mediocre effort while many poor immigrants pass them. This is a crime and a tragedy.

  3. Tom Cassida 8 months ago8 months ago

    Requiring volunteer hours is not allowed already. It creates an illegal fee per EC 49011(b).

  4. Roger Grotewold 8 months ago8 months ago

    In a previous EdSource story about this bill being stalled I said the following, "It would seem logical to have local school districts retain the authority to approve or disapprove a charter. It would be unfortunate to have increased intrusion into the approval process by county, state or federal agencies. This would make the process a political football that would ultimately be taken over by the big-money groups. "The California Charter Schools Association is the ultimate … Read More

    In a previous EdSource story about this bill being stalled I said the following, “It would seem logical to have local school districts retain the authority to approve or disapprove a charter. It would be unfortunate to have increased intrusion into the approval process by county, state or federal agencies. This would make the process a political football that would ultimately be taken over by the big-money groups.

    “The California Charter Schools Association is the ultimate example of a big money group. They would play havoc with our public school system and relegate it to nothing more than an after thought. They would bulldoze the wishes of the majority of our citizens who need the public schools for their children. This would be a sad day for our public education systems throughout our nation.” I hope this article indicates that the future of charter schools is being more carefully monitored and hopefully controlled…

  5. CarolineSF 8 months ago8 months ago

    It’s insane that local school boards barely have any control over what charters are opened in their own districts, and that laws attempting to rein in the rampant corruption in the Wild West charter sector are even controversial. It’s a delightful situation to the Trump administration, Betsy DeVos and the right-wing-billionaire class, though.

    Replies

    • Floyd Thursby 8 months ago8 months ago

      Caroline, you've been defending the status quo for 10+ years and the achievement gap has gotten worse. What is your proposal to raise African American and Latino test scores to even the level of low income Asians, which would be a huge improvement statistically? This is needed to reduce the income gap as well. The status quo has failed and we know money poured into the status quo has failed as Baltimore and NYC … Read More

      Caroline, you’ve been defending the status quo for 10+ years and the achievement gap has gotten worse. What is your proposal to raise African American and Latino test scores to even the level of low income Asians, which would be a huge improvement statistically? This is needed to reduce the income gap as well.
      The status quo has failed and we know money poured into the status quo has failed as Baltimore and NYC spend double what we do and DC spends triple, with no closing of the achievement gap. So what is your proposal? California and San Francisco have basically done everything you argue for for the last decade with zero progress on African American and Latino test scores as a result.