Existing law requires a local educational agency to implement one of several specified interventions for a school not identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school that, after one full school year, is subject to corrective action, as specified, and fails to meet specified criteria and has a specified percentage of parents and legal guardians of pupils sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement at least one of 5 specified interventions. Existing law requires a local educational agency to implement the intervention option requested by the petition unless the agency makes a specified finding in a regularly scheduled public hearing.

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 these statutory provisions.

Existing law requires a local educational agency to implement one of several specified interventions for a school not identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school that, after one full school year, is subject to corrective action, as specified, and fails to meet specified criteria and has a specified percentage of parents and legal guardians of pupils sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement at least one of 5 specified interventions. Existing law requires a local educational agency to implement the intervention option requested by the petition unless the agency makes a specified finding in a regularly scheduled public hearing.

This bill would apply these petition provisions to schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools, and to schools ranked in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, on the Academic Performance Index. The bill would make nonsubstantive changes by updating cross-references and reorganizing language. By imposing additional duties on school districts, 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 these statutory provisions.

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 734

Author:(Kim) – As Amended Ver:March 23, 2015

SUBJECT: School intervention: parent empowerment: petition appeal

SUMMARY: Authorizes a charter school to appeal to a county board of education if a local educational agency (LEA) does not implement the option specified in a Parent Empowerment Program (PEP) petition. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that if a LEA receives a petition pursuant to PEP and does not implement the option requested in the petition in its final disposition of the petition, the petitioners may appeal the final disposition of the petition to the county board of education.

2. Authorizes the county board of education to approve the appeal if it finds that the LEA acted in violation of any requirement of the PEP or the PEP regulations specified in Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, or did not act in good faith. Requires the LEA to implement the option requested in the petition if the county board of education approves the appeal.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the PEP as follows:

1. Requires a LEA to implement one of the four interventions for turning around persistently lowest-achieving schools as defined in Race to the Top (RTTT) statute or the Alternative Governance reform described in Section 1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that is selected by parents for any school not identified as persistently lowest-achieving, has an Academic Performance Index (API) score of less than 800, but that is subject to corrective action, if at least one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school, or a combination of at least one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into the middle or high school, sign a petition making the request.

2. Specifies that the LEA may choose another RTTT or NCLB intervention only if the LEA makes a written finding at a regularly scheduled public hearing as to why it cannot implement the option requested by parents, and notifies the SPI and the SBE that the option selected by the LEA has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Also restricts this program to the first 75 schools that inform the SPI and SBE of the final disposition of the petition.

3. Specifies that a LEA shall not be required to implement the option requested by the parent petition if the request is for reasons other than improving academic achievement or pupil safety.

2. Defines "persistently lowest-achieving schools", under the RTTT program, as the following:

   1. The lowest 5% of the low-achieving schools (schools in Program Improvement) as measured by the academic achievement of all students in a school in terms of proficiency on the state’s assessment in reading/language arts and mathematics combined;

2. The lowest 5% of secondary schools, as measured by the academic achievement of all students in a school in terms of proficiency on the state’s assessment in reading/language arts and mathematics combined, that are eligible for but do not receive Title 1 funds;

3. Any high school with a graduation rate less than 60% in each of the last three years; and,

4. Excludes, to the extent allowable under federal law, specified special needs or alternative schools and those schools that have experienced academic growth of at least 50 points on the API, unless the SPI and SBE jointly overrule that exclusion. Also authorizes the SPI and SBE to jointly exclude a community day school from this definition.

FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS: Background. In February 2009, the President signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which, among others, established $4 billion for one-time State Incentive Grants known as the RTTT. One of the eligibility requirements for RTTT is identifying, including establishing a definition for, persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state and requiring these schools to implement one of four intervention models, as follows:

1. Turnaround model: Replace the principal and 50% of the existing staff; implement strategies to recruit, place and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of students; use data to improve instructional program; provide high-quality professional development that is aligned with the school's instructional program; among others.

2. Restart model: Convert a school to a charter school, or close and reopen a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management organization.

3. School closure: Close a school and enroll the students in other higher achieving schools in the LEA.

4. Transformation model: Similar to the Turnaround model, replace the principal and develop strategies focusing on principal and teacher effectiveness, instructional reform, increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools, and providing operational flexibility and support.

Parent Empowerment Program. SBX5 4 (Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth Extraordinary Session, established the PEP whereby parents and legal guardians at a school not identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school under the RTTT, has an API score of under 800 and has been in corrective action for at least one academic year, can require a governing board to implement any of the RTTT interventions or an alternative intervention authorized by the NCLB if at least one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school, or a combination of at least one-half of the parents or legal guardians of the pupils attending the school and its elementary or middle feeder schools, sign a petition making the request.

SBX5 4 authorizes a governing board to choose another RTTT or NCLB intervention if it makes written findings in a regularly scheduled public hearing of the reason it cannot implement the intervention requested by parents and guardians, and inform the SPI and the SBE how the alternative intervention it has selected has substantial promise of enabling the school to meet AYP. SBX5 4 limits the number of affected schools to the first 75 statewide; excludes schools with an API of 800 or higher; and specifies that a LEA is not required to comply with the petition request if the reason for the request is not related to academic achievement or pupil safety.

Persistently lowest achieving schools. Because California did not receive a RTTT grant, the state used the "persistently lowest achieving" schools list established for School Improvement Grants as a substitute. Persistently lowest achieving schools are the lowest 5% of low achieving schools. These schools are already required to implement one of the intervention models. The schools subject to PEP are those not considered the lowest achieving schools in the state.

The PEP statutes do not provide many specific parameters about the process, such as who is eligible to sign the petition, the process for collecting signatures, or how signatures are to be verified. In 2011, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted regulations that established the parameters and timelines for submission and verification of signatures.

How many parent triggers? All of the petitions for the PEP have occurred in southern California. They include:

Compton: The first PEP submitted to a school district was in Compton Unified School District in December 2010, which was rejected by the Compton Unified School District governing board in 2011 after much confusion and conflict over what petitioners and LEAs may or may not, or were or were not required, to do. Opponents of the petition complained about paid petitioners, of being harassed and misled about the purpose of the petition. This petition resulted in a lawsuit when the school district required parents to verify their signature by showing some form of identification. Ultimately, a charter school was opened at a nearby church instead of at the schoolsite.

Adelanto: The next petition also resulted in a lawsuit in the Adelanto Elementary School District in San Bernardino. Similar to the Compton Unified experience, parents complained of harassment and of being misled at the Desert Trails Elementary School. The governing board rejected the petition when parents asked to rescind their signatures, which reduced the number of signatures to below 50%. The court ruled that the law did not authorize rescission of signatures and required the governing board to accept the signatures. The school was converted to a charter school.

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD): In 2013, parents at the 24^th Street Elementary School in the LAUSD submitted a petition. Then Superintendent John Deasy worked with the petitioners and agreed to a shared governance plan allowing a charter school to take over fifth through eighth grades. The governing board approved the agreement.

Anaheim: The most recent PEP was submitted in Anaheim this year. The Anaheim City School District governing board rejected a petition to convert Palm Lane Elementary School into a charter school, citing insufficient valid signatures. Petitioners have filed a lawsuit.

What does this bill do? This bill authorizes petitioners to appeal to the county board of education if a LEA fails to implement the option requested in a PEP petition. The county board of education is authorized to approve the appeal if it finds that the LEA violated the requirements specified in the law and in regulations adopted by the SBE, or if the LEA did not act in good faith. If the county board of education approves the appeal, the bill requires the LEA to implement the option requested in the petition.

This bill has two effects. The bill can be interpreted as authorizing an appeal because the school district did not implement the option chosen by the petitioners. For the most part, the PEP has been contentious and has not had the effect of bringing the school community together to improve conditions at a school. If a school district believes that the option chosen by the petitioners do not work for that school community, but another option would, the Committee may wish to consider whether the county board of education should be allowed to interfere in an option a school district deems best for that community.

The bill allows an appeal to the county board of education to determine whether the LEA violated the PEP statutes or regulations established by the SBE, or determine whether the LEA acted in good faith. Asking the county board of education to determine whether the school district acted in good faith is subjective. It is not clear how a county board of education would make that determination, nor should a county board of education be put in the position to do so. Requiring the county board to review the process will include verification of signatures. The county office of education may not have the capacity to re-verify signatures, nor should it be required to do so.

At least one of the lawsuits involves whether parents and guardians have a right to rescind their signatures. For example, parents have reported signing a petition after being told that the petition is about improving the maintenance of the school. Parents or guardians who signed the petition not fully understanding what they were signing should be allowed to withdraw their support. If the Committee chooses to pass this bill, staff recommends an amendment to allow parents and guardians to rescind their signatures within a specified time after the petition was submitted.

Has PEP been effective? In concept, the PEP was designed to empower parents. However, in practice, the PEP has become a lightning rod in dividing the school and parent community. Three out of four of the triggers have resulted in lawsuits. Allowing the petitioners to appeal to the county board of education and allowing the county board of education to mandate a school district to implement a reform will only create more discord at the local level. Schools where the trigger has been pulled only occurred due to assistance from outside organizations with funding. Furthermore, there are reports that the charter school that took over Desert Trails in Adelante, which was chosen by 53 of 600 parents, has had constant staff turnovers and turmoil. The Committee may wish to consider reevaluating the PEP and developing a more collaborative process to involve parents and address student achievement.

Arguments in support. The author states, "AB 734 ensures the integrity of the parent petition verification process by adding a second layer of appeals for parents. In the event that a LEA rejects a final petition, parents have the option of appealing to the County Office of Education to ensure the LEA did everything in good faith and followed the law and regulations. If the County Office of Education (COE) finds that the LEA violated the law, the COE would grant the petition."

Arguments in opposition. The California Teachers Association (CTA) states, "The implementation of the parent trigger law has been disruptive to the education process. Parent trigger laws ignite controversy, not parent-school-community collaboration. Described by advocates as a citizen initiative to balance the power between parents, school administrators, and educators in the school reform process, parent trigger laws are being advocated as a "silver bullet" that cuts through the complexities of the "education establishment" and gives parents new, formal, legal power to "fix" their children's schools. And on face value, it's hard to disagree with these principles and goals. Low-income parents of color taking to the streets to take on entrenched and unaccountable school boards and principals are compelling figures to want to get behind. However, those parents and their kids are not the real faces pushing parent trigger. CTA believes school reform is a shared responsibility and supports policies and practices that link schools, families, and communities to achieve improvement goals."

Prior related legislation. AB 2518 (Dababneh), introduced in 2014, specifies that if the intervention identified in the petition is the restart model and the petitioners opt to solicit charter school or educational management organization proposals for the selection of a specific charter school or educational management organization operator, then all parents and legal guardians of pupils attending the school have the right to participate in the selection of the charter school or educational management organization operator, regardless of whether they signed the petition. The author held the bill in this Committee.

AB 203 (Brownley), vetoed by the Governor in 2011, made a number of changes to the PEP.

SBX5 4 (Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth Extraordinary Session, enacted the PEP.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

EdVoice

Opposition

California Teachers Association

Public Employees Union Local 1

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087