0. Combat Warfare: Legislative Threats to Charter Schools AND Building Momentum for Legislative Engagement
Amy Blumberg
Rand Martin
Courtney S. Miller
Adam Keigwin
Esme Marcial
March 22, 2017

1. AGENDA Current legislative landscape
Legislative Opportunities – Sponsored bills
Threats – Opposed Bills
Legislative Engagement
Case Study: SB 322
Case Study: AB 2242
Take Action Today!
Q&A

2. Current Landscape
More charter school supporters than ever in the legislature post-General Election
ASSEMBLY
46 Supporters
11 Cultivatables
26 Opponents
SENATE
17 Supporters
8 Cultivatables
15 Opponents
CTA focused on Prop. 55 extension not legislative races, nervous about CCSA Advocate wins
For purposes of this slide, I’ve combined Supporters and Endorsed candidates into the Supporter category.
I’ve also combined Cultivatables and Untested Dems into the Cultivatable category.
Here’s the actual breakdown:
Assembly
36 Supporters in the Assembly
6 Cultivatables
26 Opponents
8 Endorsed
5 Untested (Dems)
Senate
15 Supporters
2 Cultivatables
15 Opponents
2 Endorsed
6 Untested (Dems)

3. Legislative Landscape
Leadership:
Pres. Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles)
Sen. Republican Leader Jean Fuller (R-Bakersfield)
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-South Gate)
Asm. Republican Leader Chad Mayes (R-Yucca Valley)
Senate Education Committee – Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) Chair
Reduced to 7 members, favorable committee
Scott Wilk (Vice Chair), Cathleen Galgiani, Richard Pan, Connie Leyva, Tony Mendoza, Andy Vidak
Assembly Education Committee – Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach) Chair
less favorable, 7 members, majority is possible
Rocky Chavez (Vice Chair), Kevin McCarty, Tony Thurmond, Todd Gloria, Shirley Weber, Kevin Kiley

4. Landscape continued Democrats have supermajority in both houses
Speaker Rendon giving policy chairs lots of discretion to drive policy debate
Legislature distracted by President Trump and policies to roll back ACA, immigration rights, environmental protections
Controversial new Education Secretary casting spotlight on charter schools

5. Pushing Back on the Kids Not Profits Campaign

6. Opportunities- CCSA Sponsored Legislation
2 Authorizing Bills
AB 950 (Rubio): Countywide and Statewide Benefit Charter Improvements
Current standards for CWB and SWB are nearly impossible to meet, not consistent with legislature’s intent for the law (only aware of 1 CWB and 1 SWB in state)
Revises standard for county and statewide charters
Must be high quality charters as defined by COE and SBE
Required to share best practices with low performing district schools and charter schools

7. Authorizing Legislation
AB 1224 (Weber): County Authorizer Pilot Program
All parties acknowledge CA’s authorizing system in broken
Many other authorizing model in other states
Allows the State Board of Education to select up to 5 interested County Offices of Education to authorize up to 10 charter schools for 7 years
Study alternative authorizing in a controlled environment
Research best practices and what quality authorizing looks like
Allows for philanthrophic donations to assist with start up costs

8. Facilities Improvements
SB 765 (Wiener): First Right to District Surplus Property
Win-Win for charters and school districts
Charter Schools have right of first refusal for district’s surplus property
School districts have more flexibility in how they can spend money
Law was previously on the books but sunset, little financial incentive for districts to surplus property
Teacher housing has first right of refusal in front of charters in very high cost of living counties: San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz

9. Charter School Transparency
SB 806 (Glazer): Charter School Operational Transparency and Governance, Ban For-Profit Charter Schools
Charter schools comply with Brown Act, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act with some flexibility to make workable for charters
Strengthen language in Corporations code on self-dealing
Allow for Gov. Code 1090 in very limited circumstance
Authorizer believes there is a violation, after audit by 3rd party that is agreed upon between authorizer and charter school, if charter is found in violation of Corporations Code or Political Reform Act

10. SB 806 (Glazer) continued
Ban for-profits while maintaining flexibility to contract with for-profits for services, instruction
For-profits may not influence the appointment of board members
For-profits may not influence the charter school budget
Limits instruction services by for-profits to 50%
Only 5 for-profit charter schools currently in CA
Only non-profits, school districts, COE or SBE may operate a charter school

11. Legislative Threats #1 Threat
SB 808 (Mendoza): Fiscal denials, Removes Charter Appeal Rights, COE, and SBE Charters
Decimate the charter school sector in CA
Moves CA education in the wrong direction
Allows charter petitions and renewals to be denied for fiscal reasons by local school districts
Places interests of grown ups over the needs of students and the community

12. SB 808 (Mendoza) continued
Eliminates charter schools’ due process rights to appeal to the County and State Board, forcing all charters back to the local level upon renewal without any credible rationale for why
Local districts often have greater difficulty being objective on charter petitions, influenced by local politics, charters viewed as competitors
COE and SBE can be more objective and have rigorous petition evaluation process

13. Legislative Threats
AB 1478 (Jones-Sawyer): Charter School and CMO Governance
Would subject charter schools and CMOs to the Brown Act, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act, and Government Code 1090
Government Code 1090 is absolutely unworkable for charter schools
Subjects board members to criminal penalties
Takes away critical financial flexibility for charter schools to obtain loans, reduced cost for services from willing board members
Similar to AB 709 but also covers “entities managing charter schools”
Jones-Sawyer compelled to introduce after concerns over Celerity
No allowance for recusal like in Corporations code
Flexibility needed in Brown Act compliance such as teleconferencing
Need extended time for charters to comply with PRA requests

14. Legislation of Concern
AB 406 (McCarty): For-Profit Charter Schools
Would prohibit a charter school from entering into a contract or agreement with a for-profit entity to manage or operate a charter school.
Agree on goal, may not agree on language
Charters need flexibility to contract with for profit back officer provider, instructional services
Starting language was in AB 787 (Hernandez), vetoed by Governor Brown

15. Legislation of Concern continued
AB 1360 (Bonta): Charter Admissions and Discipline
Would clarify charter school admissions policies and procedures and due process for pupils related to pupil discipline.
Starting language is same as SB 322
Opposition SB 322:
No data to support re-regulation of charter schools in the area of discipline
Prescriptive expulsion process costly for charters, would require a material revision
Policies get in the way of charter schools’ restorative justice practices
Ok with admission language in SB 322

16. Statewide Engagement Why Does Advocacy Matter?
Capitol Advocacy Leaders Program
Statewide Engagement in the Capitol and in the District
Case Study: SB 322 (Leno)
Case Study: AB 2242 (Lopez)

17. District Advocacy All politics are local
RELATIONSHIPS are key – build now, see how you can help them, ensure the relationship is in place when you need something
Life/death of charter schools start at local level
Elected officials care about their constituents & getting re-elected
School visits allow elected officials to visualize work of charter schools and helps charter leaders dispel myths

18. Advocacy in the field
Multi-faceted approach: Capitol, district, lobbyists, regional team, school leaders, CCSA Advocates
Capitol Advocacy Leaders (CAL) created to intentionally connect charter school leaders and their institutions to their legislators, building long-term, dynamic relationships that can be strategically deployed to mobilize by issue.
CAL Liaisons keep legislators informed and engaged and hold them accountable for their actions.

19. Outcomes
Launched in
Currently there are 86 school leaders established as “CAL Liaisons” who are paired with 84 legislators
CAL Liaisons are meeting with their legislative representatives, hosting school tours and attending community events on a regular basis
Liaisons testified in front of legislative and regulatory bodies as expert witnesses, held roundtable briefings with legislators, staff and other charter leaders
Liaisons participated in community demonstrations, holding legislators accountable for their actions
I think this is a good transition to the local piece. I can transition and introduce Miles: “Miles is going to talk about Advocacy at the local level. It is important to remember that although we are pairing each legislator with a school leaders in their district, that results in only 10% of our schools being represented. Our strength is in numbers, and legislators are loyal to their constituents, the voters in their district that put them in office and either keep them in office or vote them out.”

20. Case Study: SB 322
2016: SB 322 (Leno) placed very burdensome discipline and admission regulations on charters.
Supported by CTA, CFT, CSEA and the ACLU
Passed the Senate with all but 2 Democrats voting in favor of the bill
Passed Assembly Education and Appropriations Committees on party-line votes

21. Case Study: SB 322 What impacts a legislator to vote a certain way?
Their past election (contributions and endorsements)
Their next election
Media (positive and negative)
Research and data
Relationships in the district and relationships with constituents
How did these issues affect the fate of SB 322?
CCSA success in 2015 elections and primary successes & support in 2016
CCSA “Thank You” campaign and negative campaign against CTA
Educational conversations around restorative rights and civil justice
CDE data vs. national study
School leaders and parents: Massive opposition efforts by CAL, charter school movement included testimony, letters and phone calls.

22. What was the final outcome of the SB 322 vote?
Case Study: SB 322
What was the final outcome of the SB 322 vote?
Before the SB 322 vote:
37 Supporters in the Assembly
1 Cultivatable Member
42 Opponents
After the SB 322 vote:
39 Supporters in the Assembly
10 Cultivatable Members
31 Opponents
After the 2016 Election:
44 Supporters in the Assembly
6 Cultivatable Members
27 Opponents
3 Untested Democrats

23. Case Study: AB 2242 (Lopez)
Would have placed a number of restrictions on non-profit public benefit corporations and would prohibit for profit corporations from operating charter schools
Attempt to prohibit common CMO structures
Prohibit sole statutory members
Would have required up to 50% of charter schools reorganize or undergo a material revision to comply
Unclear what problems it sought to address
Language was so broad it may have prohibited charter schools from working with any organization that could influence the decisions of the schools including attorneys, accountants, educational consultants

24. AB 2242 (Lopez) All politics are local
RELATIONSHIPS are key – build now, see how you can help them, ensure the relationship is in place when you need something
Bring back district advocacy points. Lopez was a case of local politics and we used parent/leader/community relationships to get to Lopez.

25. “Elected officials care about their constituents & getting re-elected”
Organized Money
Organized People
** Want to talk about the 2 types of power and why parents were successful at stopping Patty-Organized People
“Elected officials care about their constituents & getting re-elected”

26. Give Take Elect Organized Money Organized People
* Why local politics and engaging are important. How it should be! Thought it was a good segway to your Make an Impact slide.
Take
Elect

27. Make an Impact! What can you do right now?
Text CCSA to to send a letter supporting our legislative package and opposing SB 808 to the Senate and Assembly Education Committee Chairs!
Stop by the CCSA booth in the exhibit hall to:
Register for Advocacy Day
Support AB 1224 and AB 950 by sending a letter to key legislators through our Phone2Action App!
Oppose SB 808 by sending a letter and to key legislators through our Phone2Action App!
Tweet you support for charter schools to your legislator

28. Advocacy Day 2017 Meet us at the Dome for Advocacy Day 2017!
Registration is easy:
Stop by the CCSA booth in the exhibit hall and register with the Government Affairs team
Register online:
Registration closes April 15th!

29. Questions? Thank you for joining us! Amy Blumberg ablumberg@ccsa.org
Courtney Miller
Esme Marcial
Rand Martin
Adam Keigwin