The bill to revise the California charter law has not yet been finalized, but the agreement between the charter lobby and the public school allies will allow districts to take into account the fiscal impact of adding new charters. The financial stability and survival of public schools can be grounds for denying a charter application. At present, charters can expand at will, with no oversight or accountability.
Governor, lawmakers agree on new controls on California charter schools
This revision is the first effort to rein in wildfire charters since the law was passed in 1992. Since then, the charter lobby has grown very rich and powerful (income over $20 million a year) and has blocked all efforts to curb their growth or their frauds.
John Fensterwald writes in EdSource:
School districts for the first time would be able to consider the financial and academic impact on the district or neighborhood of a new charter school or a charter school that wants to expand. Districts like Oakland Unified that could show they are under fiscal distress will be able to deny any proposed charter from opening. “The presumption in those districts will be that new charters will not open,” said a statement from the governor’s office.
The changes mark a victory for school districts and the teachers unions that have been clamoring for tighter restrictions and more local control. They argued that legislators who approved the 1992 charter school envisioned a small number of taxpayer-funded charter schools created by teachers and parents, not a sector that has grown to more than 1,300 schools – the most in the nation – often run by nonprofit management organizations with additional funding from wealthy donors. Charter schools serve more than 10 percent of California’s 6.2 million public school students.
Leading charter school advocates have expressed fears that allowing school districts to take financial impact into account would give districts an excuse to reject a charter petition – and bring charter school growth to a halt.
The new version of Assembly Bill 1505 builds on an initial compromise that Newsom’s aides presented in July. It includes revisions to all key aspects of the charter law: the approval and renewal of charter schools; the appeals process for charter denials; and the credentialing requirements for charter school teachers.
The language of the final version may not be in print until after the Senate Appropriations Committee votes on Friday to forward the bill to the Senate for approval. It will then be sent back to the Assembly with the final amendments. The Legislature must pass all bills before Sept. 13.
Please take note of this crucial sentence:
They argued that legislators who approved the 1992 charter school envisioned a small number of taxpayer-funded charter schools created by teachers and parents, not a sector that has grown to more than 1,300 schools – the most in the nation
Charters in California have turned into a parasite that wants to utterly consume its host.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I encourage all to spend just 5 minutes to make 2 phone calls to request roll back to the un-amended version of AB1505 / 1507. The current bill contains amendments that Gov. Newsom inserted at the behest of the CCSA and Charter industry. The vote is tomorrow and the CCSA is smiling over the current version which (if you read Diane’s other post from Michael Kohlhaas, there is a reason they are “okay” with the amended bill).
From the Equators for Democratic Schools and Wellstone Democratic Club Education Committee:
Thank you for championing local democratic control of our public schools with your support of AB 1505, which passed the Assembly in May.Right now the charter industry is pushing hard to try to gut this critically important bill. It is currently being amended by the Governor and the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee in response to this pressure so we have to tell them to pass this bill WITHOUT AMENDMENT.
Call Governor Newsom at (916) 445-2841
Call Senator Anthony J. Portantino at (916) 651-4025
We recommend you say something like:I urge you to support local control and accountability of our public schools. Please help democratically controlled public schools survive. Vote YES on AB 1505–WITHOUT AMENDMENT.Please make this call immediately as Friday is the deadline for whether this bill will survive or be killed.Thank you!
In the case of smaller school districts that may not yet have had to deal with a charter coming in, it is extremely difficult to project the fiscal impact of a charter locating in their district (added time and expense and staff time, even if the local district is not tasked with oversight… in our case, our district has paid close to a million dollars taken from our kids to prepare facilities, deal with Prop 39, defend against multiple lawsuits from the charter that was state authorized just 2 years ago). If a charter locates in their own facilities, then can’t afford them, they can demand district facilities under Prop 39 and it gets ugly quickly.
Please help defend our California schools and make the calls above. There is still time.
LikeLike
Once again, new posts are being sent to my e-mail but now I discover I cannot Reblog posts I want to share from one of my blogs. I click the reblog button and nothing happens.
On a good note, I think Randy Rainbow published (dates August 29th) his best Trumped-Musical Interviewer, EVER! I think this one could be expanded to a Broadway stage production.
LikeLike
The EdSource article calls this compromise a ‘truce’. Whoa there, whoa, Silver! This is merely the end of the beginning. We have not yet begun to fight. Newsom better not start counting union support chickens before they hatch.
LikeLike
I found the comments at the end of this article of interest. Many of the commentary decried the top heavy administration of public schools as why they felt that public schools were failing in their mission.
While I do not accept this a sufficient reason for destroying public education, I do agree that administrative costs of public schools are prohibitive, ineffective, and mostly the result of being burdened by federal and state regulations. It was the state that instituted the RTI requirement in our state, a massive scheduling problem, an unfunded mandate, and arguably a significant failure. Similar unfunded mandates serve to bloat administration with wonky people who can talk about what to do in the classroom but whose salary is paid locally, stealing resources from the need for small classes and extra personnel who interact with students rather than regulations.
I sense that we are slowing moving away from the damaging privitazation of education. As we move, we should also move toward some other ideas. No federal law should guide the relationship between school and community without funding that law. One real measure of school excellence is the ratio of administration to staff. The smaller that quotient, the better the school will be attending to the needs of the students.
Another area we should consider is the disciplinary aspect of teaching. Far too many students who are really not ready to learn roam the halls, creating social problems that prevent real education from having a chance. This problem is deeper than whether charter schools throw out students they do not want. It goes to whether it is the righ of the student to a free and appropriate education. Students rob that right from their peers with inappropriate behavior, and parents often support that behavior. Funding schools at a level that would allow for the creation of alternative classes designed for problematic students in house would go a considerable distance toward solving this problem.
Laws like the one in California described here suggest a turnaround in American education. Carpe deim.
LikeLike
Roy,
You are right. Public schools are top-heavy with administration. Numerous studies have reported that charter schools spend even more on administration than public schools.
LikeLike
That is understandable given the astronomical salaries reported by CEOs of these places.
LikeLike
Roy, could you expand upon your comment regarding RTI…and other mandated programs? I’m not quite getting the gist of your argument, other than a general complaint that California districts/schools have onerous mandates they must follow.
LikeLike