SB 494: Charter schools: establishment prohibition and renewal procedures.

Session Year: 2025-2026
House: Senate

Current Status:

In Progress

(2025-09-13: Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.)

Introduced

First Committee Review

First Chamber

Second Committee Review

Second Chamber

Enacted

Version:

(1)Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, authorizes the establishment, operation, and governance of charter schools. Existing law authorizes a charter school that has an approved charter to receive funding for nonclassroom-based instruction only if a determination for funding is made by the State Board of Education, as specified. The act prohibits, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2026, inclusive, the approval of a petition for the establishment of a new charter school offering nonclassroom-based instruction, as specified.

This bill would extend that prohibition to continue through January 1, 2027.

(2)Existing law, until January 1, 2026, sets out performance standards and procedures for the renewal of the charter of an existing charter school, including, among other things, the use of verified data, as provided. Existing law sets out revised standards and procedures that are operative on and after January 1, 2026, that, among other things, no longer requires a chartering authority to use verified data and instead requires a chartering authority to use only the data reported on the California School Dashboard in making a renewal decision, as provided.

This bill would extend, until January 1, 2027, the operation of the performance standards and procedures for the renewal of charter schools that would otherwise be inoperative on January 1, 2026, and would delay the operation of the revised standards and procedures until January 1, 2027. To the extent the bill imposes new duties on local educational agencies acting as chartering authorities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall not be less than 5 days after service of notice to the employee, as provided.This bill would instead require the governing board of a school district or community college district to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings authorizing the employee to request a hearing within a minimum of 30 days after service of notice of the specific charges to the employee, as provided.(2)If a classified employee is notified by the governing board of a school district or community college district that the employees service will not be required for the ensuing year due to lack of work or lack of funds, existing law authorizes the employee to request a hearing to determine if there is cause for not reemploying the employee for those reasons, as provided. Existing law requires an administrative law judge to conduct that hearing and to prepare a proposed decision, as specified.Existing law authorizes any county or other local public entity to contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings, and authorizes the office to contract for services for an administrative law judge or a hearing officer to conduct proceedings, as provided.This bill would authorize a permanent classified employee of a school district, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to a contracted administrative law judge, paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization unless the employee organization and the school district have agreed to an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. The bill would require this alternative method of appealing a disciplinary action to be subject to judicial review pursuant to specified standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. If a permanent classified employee of a community college district, excluding a peace officer, requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the bill would require a contracted administrative law judge, paid for by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, to preside over the hearing and determine the outcome of the disciplinary action, as provided, unless the employee organization and the community college district have agreed to an alternative method of resolving the disciplinary action. The bill would require this alternative method of resolving disciplinary action to be subject to judicial review pursuant to specified standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided.(3)The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law extends certain employment rules applicable to classified employees of school districts to classified employees of joint powers authorities consisting of 2 or more school districts, as provided, including the rule that a permanent classified employee may be subject to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board. Existing law also extends certain employment rules, including the rule related to disciplinary action, to classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools.This bill would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a school district the above-described authorization for a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to a contracted administrative law judge, except as specified. The bill also would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a community college district the above-described requirement that a contracted administrative law judge preside over a hearing and determine the outcome of the disciplinary action for a permanent classified employee that requests a hearing on the charges, as provided.(4)If a hearing on the charges will be conducted by an impartial third-party hearing officer pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or the governing board is reviewing the impartial third-party hearing officers determination, existing law authorizes a school district or a community college district to stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.This bill would instead authorize a school district or community college district to stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested, as provided, regardless of who conducts the hearing on the charges.(5)Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, or a delegated impartial third-party hearing officer, to delegate their authority to an administrative law judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.This bill would additionally require a contracted administrative law judge to delegate their authority to an administrative law judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.(6)To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Discussed in Hearing