Here is an interesting list of the bills supported and opposed by the California Charter Schools Association, the most powerful lobby in the state.
It supports a bill to improve facilities financing for charter schools.
It supports a bill that would lower the requirement of school-based instruction from 80% to 60% to benefit blended learning schools.
It opposes a bill that would subject charters to open meeting requirements.
It opposes a bill that would prohibit charter schools from operating in a manner that conflicts with state accountability requirements for special education. The same bill prohibits charter schools that operate for profit. (This bill was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown.)
It opposes a bill that “Requires charter schools to comply with due process requirements related to suspension and expulsion. Adds “the reason for a pupil’s departure” to the list of information that must be provided.” Such requirements, CCSA believes, would impose a burden on charter schools.
It also opposes a bill that “Prohibits authorizers in negative certification from approving charter schools to locate outside of district boundaries.” Thus, the CCSA wants charters that are in “negative certification” to continue to have the power to open charters in multiple districts.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is a wish list that is way, way more racket-oriented than even the charter authorizer lobby has recommended . If passed, the law should be the proof point that these are not public schools except for the tax funds poured into them. I think there is no reason to call charter schools public schools. I am even more convinced of this because I have been doing a deep dive into the USDE applications for facilities grants a well as a 2012 KIPP expansion grant with redacted information and absolutely no response from USDE on who did that and why. I guess I do not have standing to inquire. One of the Inspector General reports on oversight of the Charter Grants Program should have been enough to close it down. The charter industry frauds are well documented but with not much more than a big yawn in the media.
LikeLike
It’s standard operating procedure for neoliberal policies: privatize the profits/revenue (meaning state and local per pupil expenditures), and socialize the risks (special needs and “difficult” students, along with union wages, working conditions and benefits).
These edu-profiteers, according to the worldview that follows from their insatiable appetites, see nothing but “risks” in tenured, fairly-paid teachers serving all students, and seek to gorge on public dollars siphoned off to their private social engineering experiments, aka charter schools.
LikeLike
One problem we have in California is that our governor, Jerry Brown, is associated with some charter schools in the Bay Area. As a result, he vetoes any bills that would require more regulations and restrictions on charter schools.
LikeLike
The American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) writes model legislation for their corporate members. You should have one of your researchers check if any (probably all) are corporate written.
LikeLike
Help, Rocketship Charter is about to land at our local school here in Concord, CA, due to Prop 396 requirements. Any advice on slowing it down, or even grinding it to a halt?
LikeLike
Kristi,
Contact Brett Bymaster at StopRocketship
LikeLike