CASI May 2023 Charter Chat Resource PageInformation and resources from the May 2023 Charter Chat, presented by the Charter Authorizer Support Initiative (CASI).
Charter Chat Topics
- Legislative Updates
- Program Hot Topics
- Fiscal Hot Topics
- Annual Survey
- State Board of Education Updates
- Upcoming Events
- May Charter Chat Q&A
- Q&A from Previous Charter Chats and CASI Email
Below are summaries of bills CASI is currently monitoring. All of the following bills were in committee at the time of the May Charter Chat.
- Assembly Bill (AB) 533 (Fong) This bill proposes to change California Education Code (EC) Section 47605 to allow charters to appeal directly to county offices within 30 days if the district fails to take action within statutory timelines. This bill stalled, but it is a two-year bill.
- AB 984 (McCarty) This bill recommends adding the completion of a semester course in personal finance to the graduation requirements for 2028–29 for all schools. It was then re-referred to Appropriations with a recommendation to add to the consent calendar. The bill was amended to add personal finance to current economics course requirements for graduation rather than include another course subject. It passed the Education Committee and is on the Assembly Floor, third reading.
- AB 1054 (Berman) This bill would require the governing boards of districts and charter schools to adopt, based on a particular timeline, a plan to offer a computer science class for grades 9–12, which would teach students how to use a computer and why a computer works, as well as increase the underserved populations in joining the computer science profession. Schools would need to annually submit data to the California Department of Education (CDE) on the computer science class, including the content standards covered, the demographics of the students and the demographics and credentials of the teachers. The bill passed the Education Committee, passed the Assembly, and was ordered to the Senate.
- AB 1299 (Jackson) This bill requires all schools to have police officers which report to the principal, and makes it a reason for denial of a charter school if police officers are not included in the charter safety plan. This bill is in the committee process, and was re-referred to the Education Committee on April 3, 2023. However, it did not meet the deadline to get out of committee and is stalled in committee.
- AB 1555 (Quirk-Silva) This bill extends the credential requirements for transitional kindergarten from August 1, 2023, to August 1, 2028. The bill was amended April 19, 2023, to change the extension to August 1, 2025, instead of 2028. It passed out of committee to the Assembly floor on consent and then passed from the Assembly to the Senate on April 27, 2023. As of May 10, 2023, the bill was in the Senate Education Committee.
- Senate Bill (SB) 10 (Umberg/Cortese) This bill requires that opioid overdose training and prevention be included in the safety plans for all schools. The bill moved out of suspense, passed from Appropriations, passed the Senate, and moved to the Assembly.
- SB 426 (Niello) This bill recommends changing the name of nonclassroom-based (NCB) charters to “flex-based instruction” and defines a “flex-based charter school” as a charter school that receives a determination for funding from the state board. The bill would expand the description of flex-based instruction to include, but not be limited to, part-time classroom instruction, personalized learning, hybrid, career-focused, college-ready, adult reengagement, constructivist, content-focused, and synchronous or asynchronous distance and computer-based education, or any combination of these types of instruction. The bill moved to Appropriations, passed Appropriations and is on the third reading on the Senate Floor.
- SB 739 (Alvarado-Gil) This bill would amend EC Section 47607.2, clarifying that a chartering authority is only required to consider “verified data” if it is provided by the charter school. The bill also amends EC Section 47607.4 to extend the renewal process and criteria effective July 1, 2021, requiring all charter schools whose term expires on or between January 1, 2024, and June 30, 2027, inclusive, to have their term extended by one additional year. This bill was amended to one year and no verified data extension, re-referred to Appropriations, passed Appropriations on Rule 28.8, passed the Senate, and moved to the Assembly.
- SB 810 (Alvarado-Gil) This bill originally proposed to create attendance and credential exceptions for “at-promise” charter schools. The bill was amended on April 17, 2023, to reinstate credential requirements. The bill now simply defines “at-promise” charter schools. The first hearing was to take place on April 26, 2023, but was canceled at the request of the author.
- To follow current legislation at the California Legislative Information
- Under "Quick Bill Search," select either "Bill Number" or "Keyword(s)"
- Enter the bill number or keyword, respectively
- Once the desired bill is located, click "Add to My Favorites." This will prompt the user to create a profile and receive email updates on the status of the desired bill.
- Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) There are no changes to the LCAP review process. By June 30, 2023, the governing boards of charter schools must approve an LCAP for each of its schools at the same meeting at which its budget is adopted. Charter school boards also must have held a public hearing prior to adoption to gather input on the LCAP. For more information on this topic, visit the CDE LCAP web page.
- LCAP Process Charter school LCAPs should be closely connected to the budget, and the LCAP goals should drive the budget, not the other way around. Make sure your program and fiscal teams are communicating with each other when reviewing both documents. Also keep in mind the following: the Budget Overview for Parents (BOP) should match the charter school’s adopted budget, all components of the LCAP (BOP, LCAP Template for 2023–24, Action Tables, and LCAP Instructions) must be submitted and posted, and all required elements must be addressed, including, if applicable, the 15 percent Concentration Grant Add-on used to increase the number of credentialed and/or classified staff who provide direct services to pupils.
- Budget Process Charter schools must complete and approve their annual budget. EC Section 47604.33 requires charter schools to submit their board approved annual budget by July 1 of each year.
- Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) Web System In March 2022, the CDE announced the release of the new SACS Web System. School districts were required to submit the 2022–23 budget using the SACS Web System. For FY 2022–23, all charter schools will report 2022–23 Unadudited Actual (UA) financial data, whether SACS or ALT Form, in the SACS Web System. The ALT Form will be available in SACS Web for UA Reporting in June or the beginning of July 2023.
- For Charter Schools to access the web-based software to report 2022–23 UA, User Accounts and User Roles need to be set up in the system.
- At the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE), we will assign one Administrator and User Management role per LEA for the Santa Clara County Board of Education (SCCBOE) authorized charter schools. The LEA administrator will, in turn, assign additional users and roles to charter school staff that need access to the system.
- We encourage charter schools and authorizers to review the SACS Web System resources available on the CDE Financial Reporting web page to become familiar with the software.
- May Revision to the Governor’s Budget Proposal The May revision to the Governor’s January Budget Proposal for fiscal year 2023–24 proposed the following changes:
- Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) An increase is maintained with a slightly higher COLA from 8.13 percent to 8.22 percent. The 8.22 percent COLA would apply to the local control funding formula (LCFF), State Special Education, Mandate Block Grant, SB 740, and Child Nutrition.
- LCFF Equity Multiplier The LCFF Equity Multiplier is maintained with additional accountability requirements. This is one of the few augmentations that has legislative support.
- Arts, Music, Instructional Block Grant An additional $607 million reduction is proposed, bringing it to an overall 50 percent reduction of the original $3.6 billion entitlement. It is worth noting that 50 percent of the original entitlement was apportioned by the CDE, so it is expected that if the proposed reduction is enacted, the remaining 50 percent of the entitlement will not be apportioned to LEAs.
- Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant This is a newly proposed 32 percent reduction from the original entitlement, bring it to $5.4 billion. It is worth noting that all of Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant funding has been apportioned to LEAs, so if the reduction is enacted, a funding recovery mechanism needs to be established.
- Arts and Music in School Funding (Proposition 28) The estimate for Proposition 28 is reduced slightly from the Governor’s Proposal budget. The funding rates are unclear since it is unclear how many preschool students are eligible.
- If you haven't already, please take a moment to complete the 2023 Annual CASI Authorizer Survey .
- The June Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS) meeting was held on June 13, 2023.
- At its May 18–19, 2023 meeting, the State Board of Education (SBE) reviewed and adopted an Updated List of Valid and Reliable Assessments, which added 10 additional assessments to the Verified Data list, approved nonclassroom-based funding determinations, and voted to issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke to the SBE-approved TIME Community School. The TIME Community School subsequently decided to voluntarily relinquish its charter, effective June 2023.
|Event Date||Event and Registration Information|
June 28, 2023
10 to 11 a.m.
July 14, 2023
9 to 11 a.m.
Charter Chat Q&A
Where can I find the State Board of Education (SBE) agenda item on newly approved assessments for verified data?
Information on the newly approved assessments for verified data are available at:
- May 2023 SBE Agenda Item #02—Adoption of the Updated List of Valid and Reliable Assessments Required by EC Section 47607.2 (DOCX)
- SBE meeting minutes will be posted when available
Are Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP) Addendums required for those schools receiving Title I funding?
The LCAP, with the federal addendum, can serve as the School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for schools receiving federal funds. Visit the LCAP Federal Addendum for additional information.
Can charter schools choose to apply for renewal early and forgo the extension? (Update to Senate Bill 739)
No. While a charter school can submit its renewal petition at any time that it also submits a signed certification of completion, should a charter school submit early it will still need to provide sufficient evidence to show academic growth, and no “stacking of terms” will be allowed (i.e., the new term would begin).
When will Senate Bill (SB) 739 become active? (Update to SB 739)
SB 739 passed the Senate and is now under review in the Assembly. If it passes the Assembly, it will go to the Governor for signature. It will not take effect until January 1, 2024.
When will we know if the renewal extension will be included in the trailer bill? (Update to Senate Bill 739)
We will not know until the Budget Trailer Bill is completed at the end of June.
Does the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) need to have live or remote public comment? Does it need to be posted based on the Brown Act?
For additional information on Brown Act Teleconferencing Requirements Under Assembly Bill (AB) 361 and AB 2449, please visit the California School Boards Association Legal Services Guidance .
What is the definition of an “at-promise” charter school? What are the criteria for waivers for credentialing, etc.? Who makes that determination?
See information on Senate Bill 810 (Alvarado-Gil) for the proposed definition of an “at-promise” charter school.
Any comment on the Levine Conflict of Interest Act?
The Levine Conflict of Interest Act expands the Levine Act, which is part of Political Reform Act and requires board members to “conflict out” to apply to elected officials.
The Levine Act will now impose two key duties on city council and district board members. First, it will prohibit accepting, soliciting, or directing a campaign contribution of $250 if the donor is involved in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, including a contract award, that is pending before the agency. Under Senate Bill 1439 , this prohibition continues for 12 months following the proceeding. (It was previously three months.) Second, the Levine Act will now require city council and district board members to recuse from any proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, including a contract award, if the member has received a campaign contribution from a person involved in the proceeding within the previous 12 months.
For additional information, visit the Fair Political Practices Commission 2023 Changes to Section 84308
Will the California Charter Authorizing Professionals (CCAP) Conference always be in mid-June?
Next year’s CCAP Conference may be in Sacramento in early April 2024.
What is the California Education Code for developing and executing a memorandum of understanding?
California Education Code (EC) does not require an authorizer and charter school to develop and execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Negotiating an MOU is a recommended best practice authorizers utilize to articulate and augment expectations not described in a charter school’s petition. However, EC sections 47604.3 and 47604.33 allow authorizers to obtain required documentation from a charter school and EC sections 47604.32 , 47604.4 , 47605 , 47607 , and 47607.2 provide requirements that allow authorizers to conduct oversight. Additionally, the California Charter Authorizing Professionals (CCAP) has created an MOU Resource (PDF) that includes sample MOUs.
What is the appeal process and timeline for appealing to the State Board of Education (SBE)?
- Initial Petition Review
- The petitioner submits a petition, including a signed certification of completion to the chartering authority.
- Sixty (60) days from submission, the chartering authority must hold a public hearing.
- Ninety (90) days from submission, the chartering authority must hold a decision hearing (date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree to the extension).
- Fifteen (15) days prior to the decision hearing, the chartering authority must post findings and recommendations.
- County Board of Education Appeals
- Within thirty (30) days of a denial by a district, the charter petitioner may appeal the denial to the county board of education. The petitioner must submit the petition to both the district and county board of education at the same time. The county board of education must immediately remand the petition to the district if the petition is materially changed and the district must reconsider the charter petition within 30 days. If the governing board of the school district denies a petition after reconsideration, the petitioner may elect to resubmit the petition for the establishment of a charter school to the county board of education.
- Sixty (60) days from submission of the appeal, the county must hold a public hearing.
- Ninety (90) days from submission of the appeal, the county must hold a decision hearing (date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree to the extension).
- Fifteen (15) days prior to the decision hearing, the county must post findings and recommendations.
- State Board of Education Appeals
- Within thirty (30) days of a denial by the county board of education, the petitioner shall submit the petition to the SBE including a written submission detailing, with specific citations to the documentary record, how the governing board of the school district or the county board of education, or both, abused their discretion.
- At the request of the petitioner and no later than ten (10) business days after the request is made, the governing board of the school district and county board of education shall prepare the documentary record, including transcripts of the public hearing at which the governing boards denied the charter.
- Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal submitted to the state board, the school district or county board of education may submit written opposition to the state board detailing, with specific citations to the documentary record, how the school district or the county board did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition.
- The SBE’s Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS) shall hold a public hearing to review the appeal and documentary record. Based on its review, the ACCS shall submit a recommendation to the state board whether there is sufficient evidence to hear the appeal or summarily deny review of the appeal based on the documentary record. The ACCS Meeting Schedule is available at ACCS Meetings.
- The SBE shall either hear the appeal or summarily deny review of the appeal based on the documentary record. The SBE Meeting Schedule is available at Meeting Schedule - State Board of Education.
- Additional information regarding the appeal process can be found on the State Board of Education Appeals Process FAQs web page.
Can you provide a timeline of major charter legislation?
The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) Overview of Charter Schools in California (PDF) provides a synopsis of legislation from the start of charter schools to March 2019.
Procopio also published a March 2023 update to the California Charter School Laws and Regulations
(PDF). While this source does not provide an overview of major statutory changes, it does include updates from 2019 to 2023.
Is there a 2023–24 Adopted Budget Alternative (ALT) Form for charters? Or should I use the ALT form from the 2022–23 Adopted Budget? I know that during the Unaudited Actuals (UA) period, there is a new form that charters need to download from the California Department of Education (CDE) website.
The CDE does not provide a version of the Alternative Form or Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) Form for budgets or Interim Reporting periods, as law does not require the State Superintendent of Instruction to prescribe the format in which charter schools must submit their budgets and interim reports to their authorizing agencies. However, charter schools are welcome to use SACS software or the Charter School Alternative Form. Additionally, charter schools must use the new SACS web-based system for the fiscal year 2022–23 UA financial data reporting to California Department of Education (CDE). You can find additional information on this topic at Standardized Account Code Web-based Structure Financial Reporting System (SACS Web System).
What are the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) requirements for a “dependent” charter? Can they be included in the district LCAP?
”Dependent" charter is not a term that exits in California Education Code. The term “dependent charter school” is commonly used to refer to a charter school authorized and governed by either a school district board or a county board of education. A charter school, whether dependent or independent, is a local education agency (LEA), and is required to complete its own LCAP. Thus, a dependent charter school’s LCAP may not be included in the LCAP of a district. Additionally, the charter school must complete its own budget and Budget Overview for Parents. While the charter school budget may be included in the district’s budget, it should still be treated as a separate fund to ensure the funding is not co-mingled.
A best practice for governing boards authorizing “dependent” charters is to hold separate board meetings (which may occur on the same day) for the charter school and district or county office of education. For example, a governing board that authorizes a charter school could open the charter school’s board meeting, complete any actions related to the business and operations of the charter school, and close the charter board meeting. The Board could then open its own board meeting to take actions related to the district or county office of education, including any actions required as the authorizer of a charter school.
What rights does a dependent charter have in relation to decisions made by their oversight board without input or guidance from legal counsel?.
As stated in the previous question, “dependent” charter is not a legal term in California statute. As the term is commonly used, “dependent” charter school boards are the same as the authorizing board. While the oversight of a district school and a dependent charter may seem the same, there are different legal requirements. However, since both entities have the same board, it is sometimes difficult to navigate making sure that decisions which are made for the district schools also follow legal requirements that apply to charter schools. Communication and education are key components to ensure that both entities understand the ramifications of their decisions. The recommendation is to consult legal counsel on the current issues and to start building relationships with the board to ensure they understand the nuances of charter law.