Charter schools center of fresh legislative fight
Democrats seek to overhaul law governing system
SACRAMENTO — Almost 30 years ago, California lawmakers passed a landmark charter-school law that helped give momentum to the national “school choice” movement.
The law has dramatically reshaped education in the state: About 11% of California’s 6 million public-school students are now enrolled, and billions of taxpayer dollars flow to charters every year.
But some Democratic lawmakers say it’s time for a do-over. They’re pushing a package of legislation, with support from the California Teachers Association, to overhaul the law.
The bills aim to slow the growth of charters, whose enrollment totals have increased as those of traditional public schools in some districts have declined. They would give school districts more leverage to deny applications to open new charter schools and cap the number of such schools statewide.
Charter opponents say the schools’ growth has created numerous unintended consequences: draining funding from public school districts, promoting racial resegregation with admissions criteria, and creating millionaire charter operators.
Proponents of the schools counter that the teachers union has made charters a scapegoat for the failures of public schools, in places where families’ abandonment of traditional schools is leading to declining enrollment and shrinking revenue for districts.
The California Charter Schools Association has labeled the package of bills a threat to “the existence of public charter schools.”
Wednesday turned into a day of high drama in the state capital surrounding the issue. As thousands of teachers and their supporters marched through the streets to urge support for the legislation, the author of one of the bills struggled before finding the votes for it in the Assembly to keep it alive and send it to the state Senate.
Tammy Carr, a third-grade teacher in the Pittsburg Unified School District, was among the sea of demonstrators. She said charters have contributed to declining enrollment.
“There needs to be some transparency and accountability for these charter schools, but I’m also here because we need full funding of public education,” Carr said. “It is an immediate need.”
The charter schools association organized a much smaller counterprotest that it dubbed, “Black parents go on strike.” People at that rally said the state legislation would disproportionately harm African American families whose children would have no alternative to troubled public schools.
“We are standing up and telling legislators and the (teachers union) that they cannot take away the rights of our most vulnerable communities well by closing down the charter schools that are helping them learn and thrive,” Myrna Castrejón, president of the charter association, said in a statement.
Neither side has a monopoly on racial arguments: The national NAACP has called for a moratorium on charter-school expansion, though a few local California chapters have rebelled against that stance.
Under California law, charter schools operate separately from the school districts that authorize them. Their teachers do not have to be unionized, and they are not bound by laws about such things as class sizes. They are required to meet certain academic targets.
Proposals to overhaul the Charter Schools Act of 1992 been raised in the Legislature before. Some were blocked by former Gov. Jerry Brown, who founded two charters in Oakland.
Advocates of change think Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose 2018 campaign was strongly backed by the teachers union, could make a difference.
“It should have happened a long time ago, but it’s happening now,” said Eric Heins, president of the California Teachers Association. “I think that Gov. Newsom thinks differently about this than Gov. Brown.”
Charter-affiliated groups spent more than $20 million against Newsom in last year’s election and backed former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in the primary.
The growth of charter schools became a central issue in teachers strikes this year in Oakland and Los Angeles. Newsom has already signed into law a bill that requires charters to adhere to the same transparency and public records laws as district schools. His budget also includes proposals that would prohibit charters from discouraging students from enrolling because they have a disability or haven’t performed well academically.
But the fight to cap charter expansion and give districts more power to reject the schools has become the most divisive education-policy battle in Sacramento this legislative session.
Two bills are at the center of the fight:
AB1505 would allow school districts to consider the potential negative financial impact of a charter school on its budget when evaluating petitions to open new schools or expand existing schools. In other words, districts that conclude a charter would harm their bottom line would have more leverage to reject it.
The Assembly debated the bill Wednesday as teachers marched outside. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, delayed consideration after it appeared he might fall just short of the support needed. In the end, the Assembly voted 42-19, one more than the necessary supermajority, to approve the measure after O’Donnell assured lawmakers it would be amended to ensure “due process” for charters to appeal authorization denials.
AB1505 would also prohibit charters from appealing to the state Board of Education if their petitions are denied by their local school district or county office of education.
AB1506 would create a statewide cap on the number of charter schools. It would prohibit districts, counties or the state from authorizing any additional charters beyond the number in operation as of Jan. 1, 2020.
New charters could open only if an existing charter closes within the same school district. O’Donnell and Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, DSacramento, introduced the bill.
Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, a co-sponsor of AB1505, said opposition to the package of bills is driven by a false impression that they target existing charter schools, which would be grandfathered in.
He said it’s “past time” for lawmakers to look at the impact of the 1992 law, adding that the Legislature back then didn’t foresee how the law could hurt public districts.
“I think kids deserve a healthy school district, financially healthy,” Bonta said. “I’m pretty sure when we passed the charter law 30 years ago, we didn’t get it exactly right.”
The debate has left many parents with students in charters on edge. They said the Legislature should be focused on quality funding for all, not fighting over the type of schools they offer.
Lakisha Young, executive director of Oakland REACH, a parents organization that pushes for better funding for all schools, said her group opposes the bills because they could remove quality choices.
“We’ve got a bigger problem than just district versus charter,” she said. “And that bigger problem isn’t even at the table.”