The Charter School Policy Task Force Report was just released.
The Task Force was charged with making recommendations to reform the state’s 1992 charter law. A large proportion of the 11 members of the Task Force (either 6 or 7) were connected to the charter industry, including two members who work directly for the California Charter School Association, the industry’s lobbying group.
Two issues were paramount:
Recognizing that the lack of funding in general for public schools in California is exacerbated by the competition for resources between traditional public schools and charter schools, Governor Gavin Newsom in early 2019 appointed the CTF and asked SSPI Tony Thurmond to convene the group to analyze two matters:
(1) the fiscal impact that charter schools have on traditional public schools;
and (2) inconsistencies in how charter schools are authorized throughout the state.
Some recommendations were unanimously approved.
Some were approved by a majority.
Some were defeated.
Please read the 10-page report carefully. Let me know what you think.
These are the recommendations that impress me because they would allow districts to have a greater say over whether charters open in their district; they would eliminate the State Board of Education from the charter authorization process; they would prevent small districts from authorizing charters in distant urban districts, for the sake of making money; they would permit consideration of fiscal impact on existing schools before granting a new charter; and they establish a one-year moratorium on new cyber charters.
E) Enact a one-year moratorium on the establishment of new virtual charter schools
• Supported 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
The 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
Current 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 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
Presentations 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.
• Supported 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.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Resistance: 100
Deformers: 0
👍🏽
I think Recommendation I is an especially tremendous gain, but Recommendation M is an especially devastating loss. Overall, I am surprised by the number of recommendations that were positive. The main purpose of the task force as I saw it was to address the issues we fought for on strike, and Recommendation I was a big part of what we sacrificed for. On the other hand, allowing districts to consider fiscal impacts when approving charters was supposed to encourage a real moratorium while those fiscal impacts were studied, and when it comes to a moratorium, Recommendation E is far too limited. Just virtual charters? Come on. … I can’t give my thumbs up or down at this point. Thumbs sideways. More discussion needed.
When this committee convened, like many commenters on this blog I was deeply skeptical and will remain so until concrete reforms are made. That being said, when Myrna Castrejon is quoted in reference to the report that “there are elements that are deeply concerning,” I feel optimistic that it’s a step in the right direction.
the truest barometer: pissed-off deformers
Do they think that the state of Prop 13 will cough up $96,000,000 to public schools to compensate them for their loss of funds in the first year that students attend charters? This “soft landing” will likely take a hard hit in the legislature. This is going to be the first red lined item in the proposal. What it proves is that privatization is inefficient for very little value add. It is imposed inefficiency that will cost taxpayers more, or it will continue to strip their public schools of capacity to serve students adequately. A parallel duplicate set of schools is more costly especially if charters continue to make outrageous building leasing deals, CEOs are paid six figure salaries and the corporation must extract profit from the arrangement. That is why public education is a better, wiser deal as a public service
The thing is that these charters are not accountable financially. They get a per-pupil allotment from the state, and everything that they don’t spend on libraries, gymnasiums, theatres, science labs, art supplies, and so on, they can spend on inflated leases and management fees and salaries for managers. It’s the freaking Wild West. This report is a great step in the right direction. Kudos to its authors.
Some of my thoughts:
First, Newsom limited the scope of the commission, directing Thurmond to have it only look at: 1) fiscal impacts, 2) inconsistencies in authorization. As such, the commission was hamstringed from the get-go. The commission was never authorized to investigate segregation issues, admissions/selection processes or other important topics.
With its current Board and Deputy/Assistant Superintendent make-up, LAUSD’s representatives would never utter a word against charters [its administrator in charge of charters is a former charter operative!] I’m sure that they reported everything is peachy-keen in our neck of the woods. Alameda and San Diego would generally present counter-charter arguments, but Oakland is a hot mess (who knows what they said?)
Regarding fiscal impacts: Professor Lafer’s comments would be overridden by Professor Hill’s comments, with Stephanie Farland’s pro-charter comments deciding the issue. No one was there to counter Farland’s “expert” testimony.
I’ll bet $100 that segregation issues never came up during the charter “data overview.” Same for ELL and Special Ed. Will any of the commissioners speak to that? Have they been pinky-sworn to secrecy?
The GOP has basically gone to ground in California, and charter operators are now hesitant [Brown’s gone] to allow State level politicians to take up authorization issues [light has been cast and the roaches have taken cover…we saw that with their response to the recent charter bills.] It follows that charter organizations will ramp up their efforts to take over local school boards…a continuation of what they have been doing for the last 10+ years. Their grassroots support comes from white, neo-con soccer moms and neo-liberal, church-focused, lawyered-up Latinas and African American women who wish to both preserve the bailiwicks they have carved out and grab control of new territory. It’s a sick, racist/segregationist/elitist dynamic where white and Asian operatives are actively excluding Latino, African American and Special Ed kids and Latino and African American operatives are excluding problematic students found in their communities [by problematic I mean not part of their particular religious organizations, or are Special Ed or gang-related.] What other organization cuts across racial, political and religious lines? It’s a strong, nefarious force that we’re up against.
Most telling is that items L (Implement a plan for managed growth of charter schools) and M (amend education code by changing “shall” to “may”) were shot down by the charterist majority. A few gains were made, but charterist won a strategic victory that pushes TRUE CHARTER REFORM off the table during the entirety of Newsom’s tenure as Governor.
Newsom’s deputy accomplished exactly what she wanted to.
Charter lobbyists are celebrating. That should tell us everything.
This was such a set-up from the get-go. Parents were not invited to the table. Parents of disabled students were certainly not invited to the table. It was admins all the way with no real community input from stakeholders. Discrimination of disabled students will continue because it’s being ignored by the state.