The Charter Schools Act of 1992 authorizes the establishment and operation of charter schools. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, law sets out performance standards and procedures for the renewal of these charter schools. Existing law sets out revised standards and procedures that are operative on and after January 1, 2026. The renewal standards and procedures operative until January 1, 2026, among other things, require the demonstration of certain performance measures by verified data, as defined, in specified circumstances, and require the chartering authority to consider verified data in designated circumstances. the charter of an existing charter school based on the charter schools performance level as determined by data reported on the California School Dashboard, with specific requirements for renewal applicable to 3 specified tiers of performance for those charter schools. Existing law, operative on January 1, 2020, requires a chartering authority to, until January 1, 2026, consider verified data, as defined, in order to determine whether a charter school in the 2 lower tiers demonstrates measurable increases in academic achievement or strong postsecondary outcomes, and to include that consideration, in addition to the charter schools performance level, in its decisions as to whether to renew the charter for the 2 renewal terms immediately following the enactment of that measure. Existing law requires a chartering authority to consider verifiable data provided by the charter school for the purposes of charter renewal if the dashboard for the previous year is not yet available at the time of renewal. Existing law will require a chartering authority, after January 1, 2026, to consider the data reported on the dashboard for of all subgroups of pupils served by the charter school in its decision as to whether to renew the charter.

This bill would extend the operation indefinitely of the performance standards and procedures for the renewal of charter schools that would otherwise be inoperative on January 1, 2026. The bill would also revise those standards and procedures to change the circumstances that require the submission and the consideration of verified data for charter renewal. requirement of a chartering authority to consider verified data for the purposes described above until the State Board of Education adopts the performance standards for growth for the state board adopted pupil-level academic growth measure for English language arts and mathematics, instead of until January 1, 2026. The bill would also require a chartering authority to consider the data the State Department of Education uses to produce the dashboard, instead of verifiable data, for the purposes of charter renewal if the dashboard for the previous year is not yet available at the time of renewal. This bill would require a chartering authority, after the adoption of the performance standards for growth for the state board adopted pupil-level academic growth measure for English language arts and mathematics, to consider performance on those standards, in addition to the data reported on the dashboard, in its decision as to whether to renew the charter. By imposing new duties on local educational agencies acting as chartering authorities, this 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.

The Charter Schools Act of 1992 authorizes the establishment and operation of charter schools. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, sets out performance standards and procedures for the renewal of these charter schools. Existing law sets out revised standards and procedures that are operative on and after January 1, 2026. The renewal standards and procedures operative until January 1, 2026, among other things, require the demonstration of certain performance measures by verified data, as defined, in specified circumstances, and require the chartering authority to consider verified data in designated circumstances.

This bill would extend the operation indefinitely of the performance standards and procedures for the renewal of charter schools that would otherwise be inoperative on January 1, 2026. The bill would also revise those standards and procedures to change the circumstances that require the submission and the consideration of verified data for charter renewal. By imposing new duties on local educational agencies acting as chartering authorities, this 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.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2254 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024

Subject: Charter schools: renewal criteria.

SUMMARY

This bill extends the requirement for charter school authorizers to consider alternative student performance data, known as “verified data,” during charter renewal determinations until the State Board of Education (SBE) adopts the student growth performance standards (Growth Standards).

Further, the bill requires: (1) charter school authorizers to consider performance on the Growth Standards, once adopted by the SBE, in addition to the California School Dashboard (Dashboard) results during charter renewal determinations; (2) charter school authorizers to consider alternative state data if recent Dashboard results are not available during renewal determinations; (3) the California Department of Education (CDE) to provide online resources and publish charter school performance levels within 60 days of the annual Dashboard release; (4) charter schools to permit authorizers to receive verified data directly from assessment publishers; and (5) the SBE to regularly review the assessments identified on the approved list of verified data for consideration of continued inclusion or removal from the list.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992, which authorizes a school district governing board or county board of education to approve or deny a petition for a charter school to operate independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing, among other things, improved pupil learning, increased learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving, holding charter schools accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and providing the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems.
2. Establishes a process for the submission of a petition for the establishment of a charter school. Authorizes a petition, identifying a single charter school to operate within the geographical boundaries of the school district, to be submitted to the school district. Authorizes, if the governing board of a school district denies a petition for the establishment of a charter school, the petitioner to elect to submit the petition to the county board of education. Authorizes, if the county board of education denies the charter, the petitioner to submit the petition to the state board of education (SBE) only if the petitioner demonstrates that the school district governing board or county board of education abused its discretion in denying the charter school. Authorizes a school that serves a countywide purpose to submit the charter petition directly to the county office of education.
3. Requires, upon renewal, a charter school to be identified as either low performing, middle performing or high performing based on Dashboard accountability data. Requires that low performing charter schools be denied, however the school may be renewed for a two year period if the authorizer is presented with verified data that meets specified criteria and the authorizer finds it compelling. Authorizes middle performing charter schools to be renewed for 5 years. Authorizes high performing charter schools to be renewed for 5-7 years.
4. Defines verified data to mean data derived from nationally recognized, valid, peer-reviewed, and reliable sources that are externally produced. Requires verified data to include measures of postsecondary outcomes. Requires, by January 1, 2021, the SBE to establish criteria to define verified data and identify an approved list of valid and reliable assessments. Prohibits data sources other than those adopted by the SBE pursuant to be used as verified data. States that verified data is in effect until June 30, 2025 for low-performing schools and January 1, 2026 for middle performing schools.
5. Requires each chartering authority to do all of the following with respect to each charter school under its authority:
   1. Identify at least one staff member as a contact person for the charter school;
   2. Visit each charter school at least annually;
   3. Ensure that each charter school under its authority complies with all reports required of charter schools by law, including the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) and annual update to the LCAP;
   4. Monitor the fiscal condition of each charter school under its authority and provide timely notification to CDE if renewal of the charter is granted or denied, a charter is revoked, or a charter school will cease operation for any reason.

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Extends the requirement for charter school authorizers to consider verified data during charter renewal determinations until the SBE adopts the student Growth Standards.
2. Requires charter school authorizers to consider performance on the Growth Standards, once adopted by the SBE, in addition to the Dashboard results, during charter renewal determinations.
3. Requires charter school authorizers to consider data used by CDE to produce the Dashboard if the Dashboard results from the most recent academic year are not available during renewal determinations.
4. Requires the CDE to provide online resources and publish charter school performance levels within 60 days of the annual Dashboard release.
5. Requires charter schools to permit authorizers to receive verified data directly from assessment publishers.
6. Requires the SBE to regularly review the assessments identified on the approved list of verified data for consideration of continued inclusion or removal from the list.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 2254 will ensure that the best available data will be used to evaluate charter schools when they are up for renewal. We all know that more and better nuanced data is essential to good decision making, and that one data set alone may not always be sufficient to evaluate a complex issue. This is particularly true when it comes to assessing our schools.

“California has done a great job in creating the Dashboard as the primary tool for evaluating its schools and identifying schools and districts for intervention and assistance. But no school or district uses it as the only tool to inform their practice or assess student achievement. While the Dashboard may be great for a first step toward improving practice, it alone will not always be a sufficient tool for high stakes decisions such as charter renewal.

“When charter renewal standards were updated to align to the Dashboard the law also created a much more rigorous process and a much higher bar for schools to be renewed. It also created a specific and rigorous review process to allow charter schools to include other supplemental assessment data in their renewal evaluations. These additional assessments may only be used if they meet specific requirements of the law and are approved by the State Board of Education for this purpose.

“Before high stakes closure determinations are made based primarily on Dashboard data, these charter schools (and the students they serve) deserve the opportunity to supplement the analysis of their performance by providing additional data that conveys a deeper, fuller picture of the work they are doing to support student growth and outcomes. Otherwise, schools doing some of the best work with our high need pupils could be closed. AB 2254 provides an opportunity for a nuanced evaluation of charter schools so that authorizers can make fully informed decisions about the charter schools in their communities.”

1. Background on charter schools. Charter schools are public schools that provide instruction in any combination of grades kindergarten through 12. In 1992, the state enacted legislation allowing charter schools in California to offer parents an alternative to traditional public schools and encourage local leaders to experiment with new educational programs. Except where specifically noted otherwise, California law exempts charter schools from many of the statutes and regulations that apply to school districts. Generally, all charter schools must (1) provide nonsectarian instruction, (2) charge no tuition, and (3) admit all interested students up to school capacity. To both open and continue operating, a charter school must have an approved charter setting forth a comprehensive vision for the school.

There are over 1,000 charter schools in California with an enrollment of around 700,000 pupils. Most charter schools are small, compared to traditional public schools, and located in urban areas. The median charter school enrolls about 250 students, whereas the median traditional public school enrolls about 525 students. Together, nine Bay Area counties, Los Angeles County, and San Diego County account for more than 60 percent of all charter schools and charter school enrollment in the state.

Charter schools can be conversions of existing public schools or new startup schools. About 15 percent of charter schools are conversions, with the remaining 85 percent being startups. Of these, about 80 percent offer traditional, classroom-based instruction and 20 percent offer some form of independent study, such as distance learning or home study.

1. Recent changes to the charter renewal process. Since inception of the California Charter Schools Act of 1992, charter schools have been required by law to renew their charter term by seeking approval from the entity that originally approved the charter petition for a period not to exceed five years. As part of the state’s transition to a new standards-based assessment, the SBE suspended the calculation of the Academic Performance Index (API) in March 2014, and the Legislature later repealed the requirement for the API to be calculated.

In determining whether or not to grant a charter renewal, a charter authorizer must consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most important factor. Several factors for determining pupil academic achievement were based on the old API, rendering them inoperative for charter renewals for several years.

In 2019, AB 1505, (O’Donnell) Chapter 486, Statutes of 2019 established charter school renewal criteria based on state and local indicators under the state’s K-12 accountability system—specifically the evaluation rubric as displayed by the Dashboard.

While updating the charter renewal criteria was long overdue, using the state’s accountability system as the basis for determining whether a charter school will be renewed or forced to close down was a significant departure from how the school accountability system had been characterized previously. Since its inception, the stated goal of the school accountability system had been to use a more comprehensive set of student performance measures in a way that is focused on innovation, continuous improvement, and support.

1. The California School Dashboard. California’s accountability and continuous improvement system is called the Dashboard. It provides information about how districts and schools are meeting the needs of California’s diverse student population based on multiple measures. The Dashboard shows performance of districts, schools, and student groups on a set of state and local measures that assist in identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas in need of improvement.

Performance data for each measure on the Dashboard is based on two factors: (1) current data on the measure, and (2) improvement or lack of improvement from prior year results. The calculations are done for each measure and intersect on a five-by-five grid, with current year data levels displayed in the left column, while the difference between current year and prior year data levels are displayed in the top row. The performance level, or color, is determined by the point at which these two levels intersect.

In the example above, the district’s current year data is at the “high” level and it maintained, meaning there was no significant increase or decrease in results from the prior year. “High” and “Maintained” meet for an overall performance level of green. As shown below, red is the lowest performance level, then orange, then yellow, then green, and blue is the highest.

1. Data from the Dashboard is used to place charter schools into one of three student performance categories. Charter schools that are up for renewal are evaluated on student outcomes over the prior two years. To evaluate their performance, overall schoolwide performance, academic achievement of student groups, and state and local indicators are used, along with other data.

Based on the data, charter schools are placed into one of three categories. The three performance categories are as follows:

• • • 1. High Performing – Presumptive renewal if the charter school meets the established renewal criteria.
      2. Middle Performing – These schools will be evaluated using additional data.
      3. Low Performing – Presumptive non-renewal if the charter school meets the non-renewal criteria. However, the law allows for a second review opportunity.

1. Alternative “verified data” is used to evaluate charter school effectiveness in the absence of student Growth Standards. In the absence of statewide data, charter authorizers are required to consider clear and convincing evidence of measurable increases in academic achievement and strong post-secondary outcomes, demonstrated through “verified data,” when evaluating a petition for renewal. For all renewals under these criteria:
   1. Greater weight is on academic performance.
   2. The charter renewal shall be for a five-year term, if renewed.
   3. Use of verified data and postsecondary outcomes sunsets on January 1, 2026.

Statute defines “verified data” as data derived from nationally recognized, valid, peer-reviewed, and reliable sources that are externally produced, including measures of postsecondary outcomes. By January 1, 2021, the SBE was required to establish criteria to define verified data and identify an approved list of valid and reliable assessments. The SBE has adopted 14 academic progress indicators and 6 postsecondary indicators—including Measures of Academic Progress by Northwest Evaluation Association, the SAT suite, iReady by Curriculum Associates, and Star Assessments by Renaissance.

Staff notes that the use of verified data was originally intended to serve as an intermediary step until sufficient statewide data became available to evaluate charterer school performance measured against a student Growth Standard. The Growth Standard will be used to measure the growth of students’ assessment scores year to year based on their statewide assessment scores in English language arts and mathematics. Growth is different from achievement. Achievement—such as a single assessment score—shows how much students know at the time of the assessment. Growth shows how much students' scores grew from one grade level to the next. In an accountability system, aggregate student growth can provide a picture of average growth for students within a school, LEA, or student group.

Since 2015, California has invested significant time and effort in developing a student growth model that is valid, reliable, and fair. After conducting a model selection process, the SBE approved a student-level growth model in May 2021.

1. Implications of tying the verified data usage deadline to a future action by the SBE. This bill introduces ambiguity regarding the timeline for when verified data would no longer be required to be considered by charter school authorizers, adding uncertainty to the renewal process for charter schools and their authorizers. Existing law mandates the use of verified data until January 1, 2026. This bill proposes to end the requirement for verified data once the SBE adopts Growth Standards, a date outside of the Legislature's control. If the SBE follows its publicly available timeline and adopts the Growth Standard in July 2025, it would precede the renewal evaluations for a significant number of charter schools in Fall 2025. Consequently, this timing gap means that charter schools up for renewal during Fall 2025 would lack both verified data and the newly adopted Student Growth data, creating a disadvantageous situation for these schools compared to existing law, which ends the use of verified data after the Fall 2025 renewal cohort determinations. Moreover, any unforeseen delay by the SBE in adopting the Growth Standard would create further ambiguity, disrupting the charter renewal system and compounding the uncertainty for charter schools and their authorizers.
2. Committee Amendment. Eliminate changes to the date by which charter school authorizers are no longer required to consider verified data.

SUPPORT

California Charter Schools Association (Sponsor)
A Plus Charter Consulting
Academia Avance
Achieve Charter Schools
Albert Einstein Academies Charter Schools
Alder Grove Charter School
Allegiance Steam Academy Thrive
Alliance College-ready Public Schools
Alma Fuerte Public School
Alpha Public Schools
Alta Public Schools
Altus Schools
Ararat Charter School
Arts in Action Community Charter Schools
Association of Personalized Learning Schools & Services 
Aveson Schools
Bella Mente Montessori Academy
Big Picture Educational Academy - Adult High School
Big Sur Charter School
Birmingham Community Charter High School
Bridges Preparatory Academy
Bright STAR Schools
Bullis Charter School
Caliber Public Schools
California Creative Learning Academy
California Pacific Charter Schools
California Teachers Association
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy
Center for Advanced Learning
Charter Schools Development Center
Chime Institute
Clovis Global Academy
Collegiate Charter High School of Los Angeles
Compass Charter Schools
Connect Community Charter School
Core Butte Charter School
Crete Academy
Davinci Schools
Discovery Charter Preparatory School
Ednovate
Education for Change Public Schools
Eel River Charter School
El Rio Community School
El Sol Science and Arts Academy
Empower Language Academy
Environmental Charter Schools
Epic Charter School
Equitas Academy Charter Schools
Escuela Popular
Excel Academy Charter School
Extera Public Schools
Fenton Charter Public Schools
Forest Charter School
Gateway Community Charters
Girls Athletic Leadership Schools Los Angeles
Golden Eagle Charter School
Gorman Learning Charter Network
Greater San Diego Academy Charter School
Green DOT Public Schools California
Griffin Technology Academies
Guajome Schools
Harriet Tubman Village Charter School
High Tech Los Angeles
Hometech Charter School
ICEF Public Schools
Ingenium Schools
Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach
Isana Academies
Ivy Academia Entrepreneurial Charter School
Ivy Bound Academy Charter Middle School
James Jordan Middle School
JCS Family Charter Schools
Julia Lee Performing Arts Academy
Kairos Public Schools
KIPP NorCal
Larchmont Charter School
Lashon Academy
Learning Choice Academy
Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise
Los Angeles Leadership Academy
Meadows Arts and Technology Elementary School
Method Schools
Mueller and Bayfront Charter Schools
Multicultural Learning Center
Navigator Schools
New Heights Charter School
New West Charter
Ocean Charter School
Ocean Grove Charter School
Olive Grove Charter School
Orange County Academy of Sciences and Arts
Pacoima Charter School
Para Los Ninos
Pasadena Rosebud Academy Charter School
Pazlo Education Foundation
PERK Advocacy
Phoenix Charter Academy College View
Puente Charter School
Redwood Academy of Ukiah
Renaissance Arts Academy
River Oaks Academy
River Springs Charter School
San Diego Cooperative Charter Schools
San Juan Choices Charter School
Santa Rosa Academy
Scholarship Prep Charter School
Sequoia Career Academy
Sequoia Grove Charter Alliance
Shasta Charter Academy
Sherman Thomas Charter School
Sierra Foothill Charter
Soar Charter Academy
Soleil Academy
Sparrow Academy
Springs Charter Schools
Stem Prep Schools
Summit Public Schools
Sycamore Creek Community Charter School
Synergy Academies
The Classical Academies
The Foundation for Hispanic Education
The Language Academy of Sacramento
Union Street Charter
Urban Discovery Academy
Valley Charter School
Value Schools
Vaughn Next Century Learning Center
Vibrant Minds Charter School
Vista Charter Public Schools
Watts Learning Center Schools
Wish Charter Schools
YPI Charter Schools

OPPOSITION

Alameda County Office of Education
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association

California Teachers Association

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2254

Author:(Blanca Rubio)

As Amended Ver:May 1, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires verified data to be considered by a chartering authority for charter schools identified as low performing and middle performing until the State Board of Education (SBE) adopts performance standards for growth for the student level growth measure; and, states that it is declaratory of existing law that middle performing charter schools are authorized, instead of required, to provide verified data to the chartering authority.

Major Provisions

1. Requires charter authorizers to consider the performance standards for growth of the SBE's adopted pupil-level academic growth measure during charter school renewal, once they are adopted.
2. Requires the SBE to regularly review the list of verified data for continued inclusion and removal of sources.
3. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to provide resources to charter authorizers on how to use data published by the CDE that is used to develop the Dashboard during renewal.
4. Requires charter schools to allow the charter authorizer to receive verified data directly from the publisher in accordance with SBE adopted data use procedures, in order to provide transparency.
5. Requires the CDE to release the charter school performance data within 60 days of the release of the Dashboard.
6. Defines "verifiable data" to mean data that is used by the department to produce the Dashboard.

COMMENTS

What is verified data? AB 1505 (O'Donnell) Chapter 486,Statutes of 2019, established verified data and requires charter authorizers to consider verified data for middle and low performing charters for renewal during a transition period before the SBE's student growth measure is adopted. Verified data was intended to be used only until the SBE adopted a student level growth measure, and is scheduled to sunset in 2025 and be repealed in 2026 because it was understood that the growth measure would be in place by that time.

Verified data is considered by the chartering authority during the charter school renewal process for schools in the low and middle performance categories (for more information on performance categories, see section below entitled, How are charter schools identified for low performing, middle performing and high performing?). The chartering authority considers verified data (assessment data) outside of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) and considers renewing a charter school if the verified data show measurable increases in academic achievement or strong postsecondary outcomes. Increases in academic achievement are defined as showing one- year's progress for each year in school. Strong postsecondary outcomes are defined as achieving rates of college enrollment, persistence, and completion that are equal to those of their peers. The list of approved verified data criteria and list was adopted by the SBE.

Concerns about verified data. The SBE adopted the criteria for verified data with fidelity and in accordance with the parameters of existing law. The list of verified data has been in use since 2020, which has provided the opportunity for the state to learn more about these assessment sources. Concerns include:

1. Stakeholders have raised concerns that the assessments included in the list of verified data are of less rigor and less statistically reliable than the CAASPP.
2. It appears that some verified data sources use a test-retest model, where students take an assessment, the student is then provided interventions, and then the student re-takes the test again, which by design, will show student growth because students are being tested during the same school year.
3. It appears that some verified data sources use CAASPP data and then weight the growth that students are expected to achieve differently based on the student's race.

State student-level growth model. According to the CDE, since 2015, California has invested significant time and effort in developing a student growth model that is valid, reliable, and fair. California conducted a thorough and thoughtful process of selecting the model that best meets California's needs. On May 12, 2021, the SBE approved a student-level growth model using grades four through eight growth scores. The development and adoption of this growth model was accomplished due to the valuable input from a broad range of stakeholders, and the expertise of the CDE's assessment vendor, Educational Testing Service (ETS), and the Technical Design Group (TDG).

A growth model is a way of measuring the growth of students' assessment scores year to year based on their statewide assessment scores in English language arts and mathematics. Growth is different from achievement. Achievement—such as a single assessment score—shows us how much students know at the time of the assessment. Growth shows us how much students' scores grew from one grade level to the next. In an accountability system, aggregate student growth can provide a picture of average growth for students within a school, local educational agency (LEA), or student group. California's student-level growth model methodology uses statewide Smarter Balanced test results from students in grades four through eight, due to the fact that CAASPP assesses students in grades three to eight and 11. The following is the expected data release timeline:

1. July 2021 through Fall 2024:
   1. Work with LEAs and stakeholders on communication, data use, and visualization strategies.
   2. Develop a report that displays the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California levels with growth scores.
2. Fall 2024:
   1. Earliest release of the next growth model data using current ELA and mathematics data (i.e., 2022, 2023, and 2024 results).
3. 2025:
   1. The SBE will decide how the growth model will be used in relation to the California School Dashboard.

According to the Author

"AB 2254 will ensure that the best available data will be used to evaluate charter schools when they are up for renewal. We all know that more and better nuanced data is essential to good decision making, and that one data set alone may not always be sufficient to evaluate a complex issue. This is particularly true when it comes to assessing our schools.

California has done a great job in creating the Dashboard as the primary tool for evaluating its schools and identifying schools and districts for intervention and assistance. But no school or district uses it as the only tool to inform their practice or assess student achievement. While the Dashboard may be great for a first step toward improving practice, it alone will not always be a sufficient tool for high stakes decisions such as charter renewal.

When charter renewal standards were updated to align to the Dashboard the law also created a much more rigorous process and a much higher bar for schools to be renewed. It also created a specific and rigorous review process to allow charter schools to include other supplemental assessment data in their renewal evaluations. These additional assessments may only be used if they meet specific requirements of the law and are approved by the State Board of Education for this purpose.

While the law put a sunset on the use of this 'verified data' what we now know is that the reasons for the inclusion of verified data for renewal have not changed, so the sunset must be removed. In many cases, the Dashboard alone may be insufficient to adequately and accurately reflect the performance of a charter school for such a high-stakes decision as renewal. For example, many small schools do not generate Dashboard colors needed for renewal determination, and high schools only test at one grade level- which means student growth will not be reflected in their Dashboard. The Dashboard alone is also potentially an inequitable metric for high stakes renewal decisions, because schools serving the most high-need populations are overrepresented in the low track for renewal and would be at high risk of closure without consideration of supplemental verified data.

Before high stakes closure determinations are made based primarily on Dashboard data, these charter schools (and the students they serve) deserve the opportunity to supplement the analysis of their performance by providing additional data that conveys a deeper, fuller picture of the work they are doing to support student growth and outcomes. Otherwise, schools doing some of the best work with our high need pupils could be closed. AB 2254 provides an opportunity for a nuanced evaluation of charter schools so that authorizers can make fully informed decisions about the charter schools in their communities."

Arguments in Support

The California Charter School Association states, "CAASPP testing only occurs at limited grade levels resulting in large portions of the student population with incomplete or inconsistent academic data:

1. High school students are only tested in one year (11th grade), so they will never have a meaningful growth score on the Dashboard. This is particularly problematic when students enter below standard. (Over 500 charters schools serve students in high school grades.)
2. Schools serving lower grades will not have CAASPP testing for most of their students and new schools that add grade cohorts each year (e.g., K-5) may only have tested their first cohort when renewal data is required. Additional academic metrics are necessaryto assess the school's progress at lower grades.
3. Many smaller schools do not generate Dashboard "colors" required for renewal tracks due to a low number of students, and others do not have enough students in various grades or subgroups for disaggregation of data in the Dashboard for meaningful evaluation. When full Dashboards were last available (in 2018 and 2019), of the 1,145 charter schools that were four years or older, 162 charter schools (14%) DID NOT have two or more academic indicators for both years, disqualifying them from renewal track placement. Without allowance to consider supplemental assessments, the authorizers would have no meaningful basis to approve or deny renewal of these charter schools.
4. The Dashboard has limited utility for measuring a school's performance with students who were not continuously enrolled in the school for multiple years. This inaccurately penalizes schools that have active outreach to more transient student populations such as drop-outs or immigrants.

Uncertainty about the Status of a Growth Metric in the State Dashboard Requires Access to Supplemental Data for Renewal Evaluations. A robust assessment of student academic growth over time is an essential component of determining the effectiveness of a school. AB 1505 included the use of "verified data" in charter renewals because, at the time, the Dashboard lacked a growth metric. The use of "verified data" was limited in time because it was assumed that a full growth indicator would be available within a couple of years. The law even provided an opportunity for the SBE to reconsider the use of verified data once the growth metric was in place (see EC 47612(c)(7)).

Unfortunately, because of the pandemic delays in testing data and other issues, the incorporation of a growth metric into the Dashboard has still not been realized. Currently, the Dashboard still lacks any academic growth metric, and it is unclear if, whether, or when a student growth metrics may be fully incorporated into the Dashboard metrics. At the March 2024 SBE meeting, CDE staff reported that it would provide data on academic growth as supplemental table to the Dashboard after the December 2024 release of the full Dashboard, and that sometime after that, they would begin discussion of how, whether or when academic data may be fully integrated into the Dashboard. Such uncertainty requires the continued use of verified data for charter renewals at least until such time that the Dashboard fully incorporates growth data and sufficient time has allowed the used of both the Dashboard and verified data. This is essential to ensure that the SBE, and the Legislature can reconsider the criteria and conditions for the use verified data for the long-term, as intended under current law (EC Section 47607(c)(7))."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Teachers Association states, "In 2019, we sponsored AB 1505 in part to hold charter schools and neighborhood public schools to the same standard. Prior to enactment of this bill, charter schools used random data sources to justify renewal which did not provide accurate or reliable information about a charter school's quality. Charter schools are publicly funded institutions and must be held accountable to taxpayers, parents, and policymakers. Our 2019 bill developed a transition time during which verified data sources could be used by charter schools during the renewal process, with the eventual goal being that all public schools (charter or neighborhood) would be using the Dashboard for school accountability purposes.

Allowing charter schools to use a different set of metrics is not comparable, making it difficult to assess the charter school's performance relative to other schools. The Dashboard is an online tool designed to help communities across the state access important information about a school, and it is relied on by parents, students, and policymakers. Using data sources outside of the Dashboard may obscure areas needing improvement or mask deficiencies that require attention. If there are concerns with the Dashboard, then changes should be made to the Dashboard; any necessary changes should impact all LEAs to ensure we hold charter schools and neighborhood public schools to the same standard. Charter schools are public schools that were established with a promise: We will give you the freedom to innovate and you will show us results.

Charter schools were established as lighthouses that would try new things, and that we could look upon to determine whether there are some policy shifts that could benefit the entire public education system. I have referred to them at times as the Research and Development division of our public education system, although I recognize that much innovation is happening in our neighborhood public schools. I attended a meeting in Oakland of the Little Hoover Commission years ago regarding charter schools and was excited to hear from the director of Oakland Unified School District's charter division about an institutional system they had established of "knowledge transfer." This system was comprised of the principals at charter schools and the principals at neighborhood public schools meeting on a regular basis to discuss best practices and what was working - that is what the charter school movement should be about: Sharing lessons learned, and we don't do this enough. That said, the public education system cannot learn from this experiment if everyone is not being evaluated by the same measuring stick.

It is time for charter schools to join California's school accountability system just like all other neighborhood public schools. Doing so enhances accountability, fosters trust, facilitates informed decision-making, and supports quality improvement efforts."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time and ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown but likely significant amount, to charter school authorizers, of an unknown amount, who are typically school districts and county offices of education, to consider additional information in making their decision whether or not to reauthorize a charter school.
2. Minor one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to charter schools to authorize for their charter school authorizer to receive certain data directly.
3. Ongoing General Fund costs of $400,000, beginning January 1, 2026, and until SBE adopts certain performance standards for English language arts and mathematics, for CDE to contract out to for a list of vendors on the verified data list of approved providers.
4. Ongoing General Fund costs to CDE, of a likely minor amount, to publish charter school names and performance.
5. One-time General Fund costs to CDE, of an unknown amount, but likely in the tens of thousands to low hundreds of thousands of dollars, to publish on its website resources for chartering authorities to use during charter renewal related to data analysis.

VOTES

ASM EDUCATION: 7-0-0

YES: Muratsuchi, Addis, Alvarez, Bonta, Flora, Hoover, McCarty

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: May 1, 2024

CONSULTANT: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003182

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2254

Author:(Blanca Rubio) – As Amended Ver:May 1, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill extends the time by which a charter school authorizer must consider alternative performance data, known as “verified data,” for a charter school it authorizes. The bill also requires a charter school authorizer to consider additional information in its decision about whether to reauthorize a charter school.

Specifically, this bill extends the existing requirement of a charter school authorizer to consider verified data for purposes of reauthorizing a charter school until the State Board of Education (SBE) adopts certain performance standards for English language arts and mathematics, instead of until January 1, 2026. The bill also requires a charter school authorizer to consider the data the California Department of Education (CDE) uses to produce the California School Dashboard, instead of verified data, for the purposes of charter school reauthorization if the California School Dashboard for the previous year is not yet available at the time of the charter school’s reauthorization.

This bill further requires a charter school authorizer, after the SBE adopts performance standards for English language arts and mathematics, to consider performance on those standards, in addition to the data reported on the California School Dashboard, in its decision as to whether to reauthorize a charter school.

The bill also requires CDE to (a) publish on its website resources for chartering authorities to use during the charter renewal process related to data analysis, (b) on or before the 60th day following the release of the California School Dashboard, publish on its website a list of the names and performance levels of each charter school in the state.

The bill requires a charter school to authorize its chartering authority to receive verified data from each assessment publisher.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time and ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown but likely significant amount, to charter school authorizers, of an unknown quantity, who are typically school districts and county offices of education, to consider additional information in making their decision whether or not to reauthorize a charter school. The state has over 1,000 charter schools.

If the Commission on State Mandates determines these requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to school district and county office of education charter school authorizers.

1. Minor one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to charter schools to authorize their charter school authorizer to receive certain data directly.
2. Ongoing General Fund costs of $400,000, beginning January 1, 2026, and until SBE adopts certain performance standards for English language arts and mathematics, for CDE to contract out for a verified data list of approved providers of data.
3. Ongoing General Fund costs to CDE, of a likely minor amount, to on or before the 60th day following the release of the California School Dashboard, publish on its website a list of the names and performance levels of each charter school in the state.
4. One-time General Fund costs to CDE, of an unknown amount, but likely in the tens of thousands to low hundreds of thousands of dollars, to publish on its website resources for chartering authorities to use during charter renewal related to data analysis.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. To continue operating, a charter school must be periodically renewed by its authorizer, which is typically a school district or county office of education. Part of this reauthorization process requires a charter school to meet performance standards. Current law, until January 1, 2026, requires a charter authorizer to consider “verified data” in decisions about whether to renew a charter school. (Verified data is data on student performance that is verified by CDE as acceptable for consideration by charter authorizers in certain charter renewal decisions.) After January 1, 2026, an authorizer is to consider, instead, data available on the “California School Dashboard,” a dashboard displaying performance and other data for all schools, including charter schools. Some data for the dashboard is not yet available, but likely will be available in the next few years, if not sooner.

This bill extends the requirement for a charter authorizer to consider verified data until certain data is available on the California School Dashboard, rather than January 1, 2026, among other provisions.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is sponsored by the California Charter Schools Association, which is concerned charter schools will close if charter authorizers are not able to consider verified data in charter renewals. This bill is opposed by the California Teachers Association, who believe charter schools should not be able to use different performance data for charter renewals than what is on the California School Dashboard for all schools.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Al Muratsuchi, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2254 (

Author:Blanca Rubio) – As Introduced Ver:February 8, 2024

SUBJECT: Charter schools: renewal criteria

SUMMARY: Requires verified data to be considered by a chartering authority for schools identified as low performing and middle performing indefinitely; and, states that it is declaratory of existing law that middle performing charter schools are authorized, instead of required, to provide verified data to the chartering authority. Specifically, this bill:

1. Deletes the June 30, 2025 sunset date on the requirement for verified data to be considered by a chartering authority for charter schools identified as low performing on the California school Dashboard (Dashboard), and instead indefinitely requires verified data to be considered.
2. Deletes the January 1, 2026 sunset date on the requirement for verified data to be considered by a chartering authority for charter schools identified as middle performing on the Dashboard, and instead indefinitely requires verified data to be considered.
3. Authorizes, instead of requires, charter schools identified as middle performing on the Dashboard to provide verified data to the chartering authority and states this is a declaration of existing law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Charter Schools Act of 1992, which authorizes a school district governing board or county board of education to approve or deny a petition for a charter school to operate independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing, among other things, improved pupil learning, increased learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving, holding charter schools accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and providing the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems. (Education Code (EC) 47605)
2. Establishes a process for the submission of a petition for the establishment of a charter school. Authorizes a petition, identifying a single charter school to operate within the geographical boundaries of the school district, to be submitted to the school district. Authorizes, if the governing board of a school district denies a petition for the establishment of a charter school, the petitioner to elect to submit the petition to the county board of education. Authorizes, if the county board of education denies the charter, the petitioner to submit the petition to the state board of education (SBE) only if the petitioner demonstrates that the school district governing board or county board of education abused its discretion in denying the charter school. Authorizes a school that serves a countywide purpose to submit the charter petition directly to the county office of education.
3. Requires, upon renewal, a charter school to be identified as either low performing, middle performing or high performing based on Dashboard accountability data. Requires that low performing charter schools be denied, however the school may be renewed for a two year period if the authorizer is presented with verified data that meets specified criteria and the authorizer finds it compelling. Authorizes middle performing charter schools to be renewed for 5 years. Authorizes high performing charter schools to be renewed for 5-7 years.
4. Defines verified data to mean data derived from nationally recognized, valid, peer-reviewed, and reliable sources that are externally produced. Requires verified data to include measures of postsecondary outcomes. Requires, by January 1, 2021, the SBE to establish criteria to define verified data and identify an approved list of valid and reliable assessments. Prohibits data sources other than those adopted by the SBE pursuant to be used as verified data. States that upon adoption of a pupil-level academic growth measure for English language arts and mathematics, the SBE may reconsider the adopted criteria. States that verified data is in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date, is repealed. (EC 47607.2)
5. Requires each chartering authority to do all of the following with respect to each charter school under its authority:
   1. Identify at least one staff member as a contact person for the charter school;
   2. Visit each charter school at least annually;
   3. Ensure that each charter school under its authority complies with all reports required of charter schools by law, including the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) and annual update to the LCAP, required pursuant to Section 47606.5;
   4. Monitor the fiscal condition of each charter school under its authority; and
   5. Provide timely notification to the California Department of Education (CDE) if any of the following circumstances occur or will occur with regard to a charter school for which it is the chartering authority:
      1. A renewal of the charter is granted or denied;
      2. The charter is revoked; or
      3. The charter school will cease operation for any reason. (EC 47604.32)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

What does this bill do? This bill requires verified data to be considered by a chartering authority for charter schools identified as low performing and middle performing indefinitely and states that it is declaratory of existing law that middle performing charter schools are authorized, instead of required, to provide verified data to the chartering authority.

Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 2254 will ensure that the best available data will be used to evaluate charter schools when they are up for renewal. We all know that more and better nuanced data is essential to good decision making, and that one data set alone may not always be sufficient to evaluate a complex issue. This is particularly true when it comes to assessing our schools.

“California has done a great job in creating the Dashboard as the primary tool for evaluating its schools and identifying schools and districts for intervention and assistance. But no school or district uses it as the only tool to inform their practice or assess student achievement. While the Dashboard may be great for a first step toward improving practice, it alone will not always be a sufficient tool for high stakes decisions such as charter renewal.

“When charter renewal standards were updated to align to the Dashboard the law also created a much more rigorous process and a much higher bar for schools to be renewed. It also created a specific and rigorous review process to allow charter schools to include other supplemental assessment data in their renewal evaluations. These additional assessments may only be used if they meet specific requirements of the law and are approved by the State Board of Education for this purpose.

“While the law put a sunset on the use of this ‘verified data’ what we now know is that the reasons for the inclusion of verified data for renewal have not changed, so the sunset must be removed. In many cases, the Dashboard alone may be insufficient to adequately and accurately reflect the performance of a charter school for such a high-stakes decision as renewal. For example, many small schools do not generate Dashboard colors needed for renewal determination, and high schools only test at one grade level- which means student growth will not be reflected in their Dashboard. The Dashboard alone is also potentially an inequitable metric for high stakes renewal decisions, because schools serving the most high-need populations are overrepresented in the low track for renewal and would be at high risk of closure without consideration of supplemental verified data.

“Before high stakes closure determinations are made based primarily on Dashboard data, these charter schools (and the students they serve) deserve the opportunity to supplement the analysis of their performance by providing additional data that conveys a deeper, fuller picture of the work they are doing to support student growth and outcomes. Otherwise, schools doing some of the best work with our high need pupils could be closed. AB 2254 provides an opportunity for a nuanced evaluation of charter schools so that authorizers can make fully informed decisions about the charter schools in their communities.”

Background on charter schools. According to the CDE, as of April 2024, there are approximately 1,300 charter schools in California, with an enrollment of over 685,000 pupils. Some charter schools are new, while others are conversions of existing public schools. Charter schools are part of the state's public education system and are funded by public dollars. A charter school is usually created or organized by a group of teachers, parents, community leaders, a community-based organization, or an education management organization. Charter schools are authorized by school district boards and county boards of education. A charter school is generally exempt from most laws governing school districts, except where specifically noted in the law. Specific goals and operating procedures for the charter school are detailed in an agreement (or "charter") between the authorizing board and charter organizers.

AB 1505 (O’Donnell), Statutes of 2019, established verified data and requires charter authorizers to consider verified data for middle and low performing charters for renewal during a transition period before the SBE’s student growth measure is adopted. Verified data was intended to be used only until the SBE adopted a student level growth measure, and is scheduled to sunset in 2025 and be repealed in 2026 because it was understood that the growth measure would be in place by that time.

What is verified data? Verified data is considered by the chartering authority during the charter school renewal process for schools in the low and middle performance categories (for more information on performance categories, see section below entitled, How are charter schools identified for low performing, middle performing and high performing?). The chartering authority considers verified data (assessment data) outside of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) and considers renewing a charter school if the verified data show measurable increases in academic achievement or strong postsecondary outcomes. Increases in academic achievement are defined as showing one- year’s progress for each year in school. Strong postsecondary outcomes are defined as achieving rates of college enrollment, persistence, and completion that are equal to those of their peers. The list of approved verified data criteria and list was adopted by the SBE.

Approved list of academic indicators for verified data. The following academic progress indicators are on the approved verified data list:

• Achieve3000 by McGraw Hill, Grades 2–12
• ACT by ACT, Inc, Grades 11–12
• Adaptive, Diagnostic Assessment of Mathematics (ADAM)/Diagnostic Online Math Assessment (DOMA) by Let’s Go Learn, Grades K–9
• aimswebPlus by Pearson Assessments, PreK–12
• California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and Grade 11
• Developmental Reading Assessment, Third Edition (DRA3) by Pearson Assessments, Grades K–8
• Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment (DORA) by Let’s Go Learn, Grades K–12
• easyCBM by Riverside Insights, Grades K–8
• English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) by Educational Testing Service, Grades K–12
• Exact Path by Edmentum, Grades K–12
• FastBridge by Illuminate, Reading Grades K-12, Math Grades K–8
• i-Ready 9-12 by Curriculum Associates, Grades 9–12
• i-Ready K-8 by Curriculum Associates, Grades K–8
• Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) by Istation, Grades K–8
• IXL Real-Time Diagnostic: Math and ELA by IXL, Grades K–12
• MAP Growth by NWEA, Grades K–12
• Math Growth Measure by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Grades K–12
• mCLASS by Amplify, Grades K–6
• PreACT and PreACT 8/9 by ACT, Inc., Grades 8–10
• RAPID by Lexia Learning, Grades K–12
• Reading Growth Measure by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Grades K–12
• SAT Suite by College Board, Grades 8–12
• Star Assessments by Renaissance, Grades K–12 Test of English Language Learning (TELL) by Pearson Assessments, Grades K–12

Approved list of postsecondary indicators for verified data. The following postsecondary indicators are on the approved verified data list:

• California Department of Education DataQuest College-Going Rate
• California State University Enrollment Dashboard Student Origin
• California Partnership for Achieving Student Success (Cal-PASS) Plus High School to Community College Transition Report
• National Student Clearinghouse StudentTracker
• University of California Admissions by School Source
• University of California Undergraduate Graduation Rates

Concerns about verified data. The SBE adopted the criteria for verified data with fidelity and in accordance with the parameters of existing law. The list of verified data has been in use since 2020, which has provided the opportunity for the state to learn more about these assessment sources. Concerns include:

• Stakeholders have raised concerns that the assessments included in the list of verified data are of less rigor and less statistically reliable than the CAASPP.
• It appears that some verified data sources use a test-retest model, where students take an assessment, the student is then provided interventions, and then the student re-takes the test again, which by design, will show student growth because students are being tested during the same school year.
• It appears that some verified data sources use CAASPP data and then weight the growth that students are expected to achieve differently based on the student’s race.

How are charter schools identified for low performing, middle performing and high performing? Below is a chart that outlines which Dashboard indicators are used to identify charter schools as low performing, middle performing or high performing.

Charter schools are identified as low performing if all schoolwide Dashboard indicators are red and orange or if all academic Dashboard indicators are the same or lower than the statewide average for a majority of the school’s subgroups. These schools have a default of non-renewal, however they may be renewed for two years with specific findings. In 2024, 98 charter schools were identified as low achieving according to this criterion.

Charter schools are identified as high performing if all schoolwide Dashboard indicators are blue and green or if all academic Dashboard indicators are the same or higher than the statewide average, for a majority of the school’s subgroups. These schools have a renewal length of between 5-7 years. For 2024, 210 charter schools were identified as high achieving according to these criterion.

Charter schools are identified as middle performing based on all Dashboard indicators, both schoolwide and subgroups, and the law specifies that academic indicators will have greater weight, as defined by the chartering authority. For 2024, 840 charter schools were identified as middle achieving according to this criterion. Of the 840 middle achieving charter schools, approximately 200 were identified as middle achieving due to the school’s small number of pupils or due to the school not serving enough pupil subgroups that perform below the state average.

California School Dashboard. The Dashboard is an online tool that reports school and LEA performance and progress on both state and local measures. State measures apply to LEAs, charter schools, and student groups, and are based on data that is collected consistently across the state. Local measures apply at the LEA and charter school level and are based on data collected at the local level. Charter schools are displayed as their own LEA on the Dashboard independent of their authorizer. 

The state and local measures are drawn from the ten priority areas of the LCFF. The Dashboard is updated annually. LEAs receive one of five color-coded performance levels on the state indicators. From highest to lowest, the five performance levels are: Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, and Red.  The data displayed on the Dashboard is used to determine which LEAs and charter schools receive Differentiated Assistance (DA) from COEs and the Statewide System of Support. Eligibility for DA is based on the LEA and school performance on the state and indicators (or colors) on the Dashboard.

State student-level growth model. According to the CDE, since 2015, California has invested significant time and effort in developing a student growth model that is valid, reliable, and fair. California conducted a thorough and thoughtful process of selecting the model that best meets California's needs. On May 12, 2021, the SBE approved a student-level growth model using grades four through eight growth scores. The development and adoption of this growth model was accomplished due to the valuable input from a broad range of stakeholders, and the expertise of the CDE's assessment vendor, Educational Testing Service (ETS), and the Technical Design Group (TDG).

A growth model is a way of measuring the growth of students’ assessment scores year to year based on their statewide assessment scores in English language arts and mathematics. Growth is different from achievement. Achievement—such as a single assessment score—shows us how much students know at the time of the assessment. Growth shows us how much students' scores grew from one grade level to the next. In an accountability system, aggregate student growth can provide a picture of average growth for students within a school, local educational agency (LEA), or student group. California’s student-level growth model methodology uses statewide Smarter Balanced test results from students in grades four through eight, due to the fact that CAASPP assesses students in grades 3-8 and 11. The following is the expected data release timeline:

• July 2021 through Fall 2024:
  • Work with LEAs and stakeholders on communication, data use, and visualization strategies.
  • Develop a report that displays the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California levels with growth scores.
• Fall 2024:
  • Earliest release of the next growth model data using current ELA and mathematics data (i.e., 2022, 2023, and 2024 results).
• 2025:
  • The SBE will decide how the growth model will be used in relation to the California School Dashboard.

With the forthcoming sunset of verified data, what data will charter authorizers consider during renewal? As of January 1, 2026, chartering authorities will consider the same data from the Dashboard that is available for all other public schools statewide.

What data are other states using to inform charter school renewals? For schools ending in grades K-3, the District of Columbia charter oversight authority uses the median of the school’s Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP) student level conditional growth percentile as the growth measure. For schools ending in grades 4-8, the District of Columbia charter oversight authority uses the median growth percentile on the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) as the growth measure. Additionally, several other assessments are authorized for use in grades K-8.

Arguments in support. The California Charter School Association states, “CAASPP testing only occurs at limited grade levels resulting in large portions of the student population with incomplete or inconsistent academic data:

• High school students are only tested in one year (11th grade), so they will never have a

meaningful growth score on the Dashboard. This is particularly problematic when

students enter below standard. (Over 500 charters schools serve students in high school

grades.)

• Schools serving lower grades will not have CAASPP testing for most of their students

and new schools that add grade cohorts each year (e.g., K-5) may only have tested their

first cohort when renewal data is required. Additional academic metrics are necessary

to assess the school’s progress at lower grades.

• Many smaller schools do not generate Dashboard “colors” required for renewal

tracks due to a low number of students, and others do not have enough students in

various grades or subgroups for disaggregation of data in the Dashboard for meaningful

evaluation. When full Dashboards were last available (in 2018 and 2019), of the 1,145

charter schools that were four years or older, 162 charter schools (14%) DID NOT have

two or more academic indicators for both years, disqualifying them from renewal track

placement. Without allowance to consider supplemental assessments, the authorizers

would have no meaningful basis to approve or deny renewal of these charter

schools.

• The Dashboard has limited utility for measuring a school’s performance with students

who were not continuously enrolled in the school for multiple years. This inaccurately

penalizes schools that have active outreach to more transient student populations

such as drop-outs or immigrants.

“Uncertainty about the Status of a Growth Metric in the State Dashboard Requires Access to Supplemental Data for Renewal Evaluations. A robust assessment of student academic growth over time is an essential component of determining the effectiveness of a school. AB 1505 included the use of “verified data” in charter renewals because, at the time, the Dashboard lacked a growth metric. The use of ”verified data” was limited in time because it was assumed that a full growth indicator would be available within a couple of years. The law even provided an opportunity for the SBE to reconsider the use of verified data once the growth metric was in place (see EC 47612(c)(7)).

“Unfortunately, because of the pandemic delays in testing data and other issues, the incorporation of a growth metric into the Dashboard has still not been realized. Currently, the Dashboard still lacks any academic growth metric, and it is unclear if, whether, or when a student growth metrics may be fully incorporated into the Dashboard metrics. At the March 2024 SBE meeting, CDE staff reported that it would provide data on academic growth as supplemental table to the Dashboard after the December 2024 release of the full Dashboard, and that sometime after that, they would begin discussion of how, whether or when academic data may be fully integrated into the Dashboard. Such uncertainty requires the continued use of verified data for charter renewals at least until such time that the Dashboard fully incorporates growth data and sufficient time has allowed the used of both the Dashboard and verified data. This is essential to ensure that the SBE, and the Legislature can reconsider the criteria and conditions for the use verified data for the long-term, as intended under current law (EC Section 47607(c)(7).”

Arguments in opposition. The California Teachers Association states, “In 2019, we sponsored AB 1505 in part to hold charter schools and neighborhood public schools to the same standard. Prior to enactment of this bill, charter schools used random data sources to justify renewal which did not provide accurate or reliable information about a charter school's quality. Charter schools are publicly funded institutions and must be held accountable to taxpayers, parents, and policymakers. Our 2019 bill developed a transition time during which verified data sources could be used by charter schools during the renewal process, with the eventual goal being that all public schools (charter or neighborhood) would be using the Dashboard for school accountability purposes.

“Allowing charter schools to use a different set of metrics is not comparable, making it difficult to assess the charter school's performance relative to other schools. The Dashboard is an online tool designed to help communities across the state access important information about a school, and it is relied on by parents, students, and policymakers. Using data sources outside of the Dashboard may obscure areas needing improvement or mask deficiencies that require attention. If there are concerns with the Dashboard, then changes should be made to the Dashboard; any necessary changes should impact all LEAs to ensure we hold charter schools and neighborhood public schools to the same standard. Charter schools are public schools that were established with a promise: We will give you the freedom to innovate and you will show us results.

“Charter schools were established as lighthouses that would try new things, and that we could look upon to determine whether there are some policy shifts that could benefit the entire public education system. I have referred to them at times as the Research and Development division of our public education system, although I recognize that much innovation is happening in our neighborhood public schools. I attended a meeting in Oakland of the Little Hoover Commission years ago regarding charter schools and was excited to hear from the director of Oakland Unified School District’s charter division about an institutional system they had established of “knowledge transfer.” This system was comprised of the principals at charter schools and the principals at neighborhood public schools meeting on a regular basis to discuss best practices and what was working - that is what the charter school movement should be about: Sharing lessons learned, and we don’t do this enough. That said, the public education system cannot learn from this experiment if everyone is not being evaluated by the same measuring stick.

“It is time for charter schools to join California’s school accountability system just like all other neighborhood public schools. Doing so enhances accountability, fosters trust, facilitates informed decision-making, and supports quality improvement efforts.”

Recommended Committee Amendments. Staff recommends the bill be amended to:

1. Extend the sunset date for the use of verified data for low achieving and middle achieving charter schools until June 30, 2026 and January 1, 2027, respectively to allow for the SBE to fully implement the student level growth model.
2. Clarify that upon adoption of performance standards for growth of the SBE’s adopted pupil-level academic growth measure for English language arts and mathematics, the SBE may reconsider the criteria for verified data; and, clarify that charter authorizers shall consider the performance standards for growth of the SBE’s adopted pupil-level academic growth measure during charter school renewal.
3. Require the SBE to regularly review the list of verified data for continued inclusion and removal of sources.
4. Require CDE to provide resources to charter authorizers on how to use data published by the CDE that is used to develop the Dashboard during renewal; and require charter schools to allow the charter authorizer to receive verified data directly from the publisher in accordance with SBE adopted data use procedures, in order to provide transparency.
5. Require the CDE to release the charter school performance data within 60 days of the release of the Dashboard.
6. Technical amendment to update and clarify the term “verifiable data” to mean data that is used by the department to produce the Dashboard and delete obsolete language related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Related legislation. AB 1505 (O’Donnell), Chapter 486, Statutes of 2019, makes various changes to the processes of charter school authorization, appeals, and renewal, and specifically related to this bill, does the following:

1. Requires charter authorizers to use the state accountability system as the criteria for charter school renewal.
2. Authorizes charter renewals of five to seven years for high performing charter schools.
3. Authorizes charter renewals for five years for middle performing charter schools.
4. Specifies that charter authorizers shall not renew low performing charter schools.
5. Requires charter authorizers to consider verified data, approved by the SBE, for middle and low performing charters on renewal during a transition period before the SBE’s student growth measure is adopted. Allows a low performing charter to be renewed for two years using verified data.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

A Plus Charter Consulting
Academia Avance
Achieve Charter Schools
Albert Einstein Academies Charter Schools
Alder Grove Charter School
Alliance College-ready Public Schools
Alma Fuerte Public School
Alpha Public Schools
Alta Public Schools
Altus Schools
Aplus+
Ararat Charter School
Arts in Action Community Charter Schools
Association of Personalized Learning Schools & Services (APLUS+)
Aveson Schools
Bayfront Charter Schools
Bella Mente Montessori Academy
Big Picture Educational Academy - Adult High School
Big Sur Charter School
Birmingham Community Charter High School
Bridges Preparatory Academy
Bright STAR Schools
Caliber Public Schools
California Charter Schools Association (CCSA)
California Creative Learning Academy
California Pacific Charter Schools
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy
Center for Advanced Learning
Charter Schools Development Center
Chime Institute
Clovis Global Academy
Collegiate Charter High School of Los Angeles
Compass Charter Schools
Connect Community Charter School
Core Butte Charter School
Crete Academy
Davinci Schools
Discovery Charter Preparatory School
Ednovate
Education for Change Public Schools
Eel River Charter School
El Rio Community School
El Sol Science and Arts Academy
Environmental Charter Schools
Epic Charter School
Equitas Academy Charter Schools
Escuela Popular
Excel Academy Charter School
Extera Public Schools
Fenton Charter Public Schools
Gateway Community Charters
Girls Athletic Leadership Schools Los Angeles
Golden Eagle Charter School
Gorman Learning Center Charter School
Greater San Diego Academy Charter School
Green DOT Public Schools California
Griffin Technology Academies
Guajome Schools
Harriet Tubman Village Charter School
High Tech Los Angeles
Hometech Charter School
Icef Public Schools
Imagine Schools
Ingenium Schools
Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach
Isana Academies
Ivy Academia Entrepreneurial Charter School
Ivy Bound Academy Charter Middle School
James Jordan Middle School
Jcs INC. Family of Schools
Julia Lee Performing Arts Academy
Kairos Public Schools
Kipp Norcal
Larchmont Charter School
Lashon Academy
Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise
Los Angeles Leadership Academy
Method Schools
Mueller Charter Schools
Multicultural Learning Center
Navigator Schools
New Heights Charter School
New West Charter
Ocean Charter School
Ocean Grove Charter School
Olive Grove Charter School
Orange County Academy of Sciences and Arts
Pacoima Charter School
Para Los Niños
Pasadena Rosebud Academy Charter School
Pazlo Education Foundation
Puente Learning Center
Renaissance Arts Academy
River Oaks Academy
Sage Oak Charter Schools
San Diego Cooperative Charter Schools
Santa Rosa Academy
Scholarship Prep Charter School
Sequoia Career Academy
Sequoia Grove Charter Alliance
Shasta Charter Academy
Sherman Thomas Charter School
Sierra Foothill Charter
Sky Mountain Charter School
Soar Charter Academy
Soleil Academy
South Sutter Charter School
Sparrow Academy
Springs Charter Schools
Stem Prep Schools
Summit Public Schools
Sycamore Creek Community Charter School
Synergy Academies
The Classical Academies
The Foundation for Hispanic Education
The Language Academy of Sacramento
The Learning Choice Academy Charter School
Union Street Charter
Urban Discovery Academy
Valley Charter School
Value Schools
Vaughn Next Century Learning Center
Vibrant Minds Charter School
Vista Charter Public Schools
Watts Learning Center Schools
Wish Charter Schools
Ypi Charter Schools

Opposition

Alameda County Office of Education

California School Employees Association

California Teachers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087