Presented To:
Senate Select Committee on
California’s Master Plan for Education,
Informational Hearing on Charter Schools
History and Development of Charter
School Policy in California
L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T ’ S O F F I C E
August 1, 2006
1LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
August 1, 2006
Timeline of Major Charter School Legislation
Legislation
Year Chapter Bill Significance
1992 Chapter 781 (SB 1448, Hart)
Authorized the creation of charter schools
in California.
1998 Chapter 34 (AB 544, Lempert)
Instituted first round of significant
programmatic changes.
1999 Chapter 78 (AB 1115, Strom-Martin)
Instituted first round of significant fiscal
changes.
Chapter 828 (AB 631, Migden)
Applied state collective bargaining laws to
charter schools.
2000 Proposition 39
Instituted first round of significant facility
changes.
2001 Chapter 892 (SB 740, O'Connell)
Changed funding rules for nonclassroom-
based charter schools. Created Charter
School Facility Grant Program.
2002 Chapter 1058 (AB 1994, Reyes)
Instituted second round of significant
programmatic changes.
Chapter 935 (AB 15, Goldberg)
Created bond-financed Charter Schools
Facilities Program.
2003 Chapter 892 (AB 1137, Reyes)
Extended second round of significant
programmatic changes.
2005 Chapter 359 (AB 740, Huff)
Instituted second round of significant fiscal
changes.
History of Major Charter School Legislation
2LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
August 1, 2006
Major Policy Developments: Charter School
Authorization and Operation
The 1992 legislation: (1) authorized the creation of charter
schools, (2) established petition signature requirements,
(3) delineated 13 specifi c petition components, (4) created a
county appeals process, (5) required charter renewal every fi ve
years, and (6) specifi ed four conditions under which charters
could be revoked.
The 1998 legislation: (1) changed petition signature
requirements, (2) created a county/state review process and a
state appeals process, (3) gave state the authority to revoke any
charter, (4) required charter school teachers to hold
comparable teaching licenses as other public school teachers,
and (5) allowed charter schools to be operated as/by nonprofi t
public benefi t corporations.
Legislation enacted in 2002: (1) modifi ed the county/state
review and appeals process; (2) required a petition to identify
each charter school site; (3) generally required these sites to be
located within geographic boundaries of local school district;
(4) gave counties authority to monitor charter schools; and
(5) required charter schools to submit budget documents to their
charter authorizers as well as audit reports to their authorizers,
county offi ce of education, and the state Controller.
Legislation adopted in 2003: (1) specifi ed fi ve new charter
authorizer oversight duties (including visiting each charter school
annually, ensuring each charter school complies with state
reporting requirements, and monitoring each charter school’s
fi scal condition), and (2) required charter schools to achieve
specifi ed levels of academic performance prior to receiving
charter renewal.
;
;
;
;
3LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
August 1, 2006
The 1992 legislation stated that charter schools were to receive:
(1) base per pupil revenue limit funding equal to that of its school
district and (2) categorical funding, including special education
funding, for students entitled to/eligible for those programs.
Legislation enacted in 1999 : (1) stated intent that charter schools
receive operational funding equivalent to that of a similar school
district serving a similar pupil population, (2) allowed charter
schools to receive funding locally through its school district or
directly from the state, and (3) established a three-part charter
school funding model still in effect today (consisting of the
average statewide revenue limit funding, categorical block grant
funding, and separate categorical program funding).
The 2001 legislation required the State Board of Education to:
(1) develop criteria for determining the amount of funding to
provide for charter school nonclassroom-based instruction and
(2) make specifi c funding determinations for individual charter
schools.
The 2005 legislation made signifi cant changes to the charter
school categorical block grant, including: (1) revising the list of
programs in the block grant and (2) specifying a single per pupil
funding rate of $400 for 2006-07 and $500 for 2007-08, to be
adjusted annually thereafter for infl ation.
;
;
;
;
Major Policy Developments:
Charter School Finance
4LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
August 1, 2006
The original charter school legislation included only one
provision relating to facilities. It stated that a governing board
had the option of requiring a charter school petitioner to provide
information on the facilities it planned to use.
The 1998 legislation: (1) required charter school petitioners to
provide information on the facilities it planned to use, (2) added
a new section requiring a school district to permit charter
schools to use, at no charge, facilities it was not currently using
for instructional or administrative purposes, and (3) made charter
schools responsible for the “reasonable maintenance” of those
facilities.
Proposition 39: (1) stated legislative intent that facilities be
“shared fairly” among public charter and noncharter schools,
(2) required school districts to make available to charter schools
facilities that were “reasonably equivalent” to other district
facilities, and (3) allowed school districts to charge charter
schools a prorate share of their facility operating costs.
The 2001 legislation established the Charter School Facility
Grant Program, which provides charter schools serving
low-income students with grants to cover a portion of their
lease costs.
Legislation enacted in 2002 created the Charter Schools
Facilities Program, which authorizes bond fi nancing of new
charter school facilities.
;
;
;
;
;
Major Policy Developments:
Charter School Facilities
