BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 734
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 734
(Kim) - As Amended March 23, 2015
SUBJECT: School intervention: parent empowerment: petition
appeal
SUMMARY: Authorizes a charter school to appeal to a county
board of education if a local educational agency (LEA) does not
implement the option specified in a Parent Empowerment Program
(PEP) petition. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that if a LEA receives a petition pursuant to PEP
and does not implement the option requested in the petition in
its final disposition of the petition, the petitioners may
appeal the final disposition of the petition to the county
board of education.
2)Authorizes the county board of education to approve the appeal
if it finds that the LEA acted in violation of any requirement
of the PEP or the PEP regulations specified in Title 5 of the
California Code of Regulations, or did not act in good faith.
Requires the LEA to implement the option requested in the
petition if the county board of education approves the appeal.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 734
Page 2
1)Establishes the PEP as follows:
a) Requires a LEA to implement one of the four
interventions for turning around persistently
lowest-achieving schools as defined in Race to the Top
(RTTT) statute or the Alternative Governance reform
described in Section 1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that is selected by
parents for any school not identified as persistently
lowest-achieving, has an Academic Performance Index (API)
score of less than 800, but that is subject to corrective
action, if at least one-half of the parents or legal
guardians of pupils attending the school, or a combination
of at least one-half of the parents or legal guardians of
pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle
schools that normally matriculate into the middle or high
school, sign a petition making the request.
b) Specifies that the LEA may choose another RTTT or NCLB
intervention only if the LEA makes a written finding at a
regularly scheduled public hearing as to why it cannot
implement the option requested by parents, and notifies the
SPI and the SBE that the option selected by the LEA has
substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate
yearly progress (AYP). Also restricts this program to the
first 75 schools that inform the SPI and SBE of the final
disposition of the petition.
c) Specifies that a LEA shall not be required to implement
the option requested by the parent petition if the request
is for reasons other than improving academic achievement or
pupil safety.
2)Defines "persistently lowest-achieving schools", under the
RTTT program, as the following:
a) The lowest 5% of the low-achieving schools (schools in
Program Improvement) as measured by the academic
AB 734
Page 3
achievement of all students in a school in terms of
proficiency on the state's assessment in reading/language
arts and mathematics combined;
b) The lowest 5% of secondary schools, as measured by the
academic achievement of all students in a school in terms
of proficiency on the state's assessment in
reading/language arts and mathematics combined, that are
eligible for but do not receive Title 1 funds;
c) Any high school with a graduation rate less than 60% in
each of the last three years; and,
d) Excludes, to the extent allowable under federal law,
specified special needs or alternative schools and those
schools that have experienced academic growth of at least
50 points on the API, unless the SPI and SBE jointly
overrule that exclusion. Also authorizes the SPI and SBE
to jointly exclude a community day school from this
definition.
FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS: Background. In February 2009, the President signed
into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
which, among others, established $4 billion for one-time State
Incentive Grants known as the RTTT. One of the eligibility
requirements for RTTT is identifying, including establishing a
definition for, persistently lowest-achieving schools in the
state and requiring these schools to implement one of four
intervention models, as follows:
1)Turnaround model: Replace the principal and 50% of the
existing staff; implement strategies to recruit, place and
AB 734
Page 4
retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of
students; use data to improve instructional program; provide
high-quality professional development that is aligned with the
school's instructional program; among others.
2)Restart model: Convert a school to a charter school, or close
and reopen a school under a charter school operator, a charter
management organization, or an education management
organization.
3)School closure: Close a school and enroll the students in
other higher achieving schools in the LEA.
4)Transformation model: Similar to the Turnaround model,
replace the principal and develop strategies focusing on
principal and teacher effectiveness, instructional reform,
increasing learning time and creating community-oriented
schools, and providing operational flexibility and support.
Parent Empowerment Program. SBX5 4 (Romero), Chapter 3,
Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth Extraordinary Session, established the
PEP whereby parents and legal guardians at a school not
identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school under the
RTTT, has an API score of under 800 and has been in corrective
action for at least one academic year, can require a governing
board to implement any of the RTTT interventions or an
alternative intervention authorized by the NCLB if at least
one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending
the school, or a combination of at least one-half of the parents
or legal guardians of the pupils attending the school and its
elementary or middle feeder schools, sign a petition making the
request.
SBX5 4 authorizes a governing board to choose another RTTT or
NCLB intervention if it makes written findings in a regularly
scheduled public hearing of the reason it cannot implement the
intervention requested by parents and guardians, and inform the
SPI and the SBE how the alternative intervention it has selected
AB 734
Page 5
has substantial promise of enabling the school to meet AYP.
SBX5 4 limits the number of affected schools to the first 75
statewide; excludes schools with an API of 800 or higher; and
specifies that a LEA is not required to comply with the petition
request if the reason for the request is not related to academic
achievement or pupil safety.
Persistently lowest achieving schools. Because California did
not receive a RTTT grant, the state used the "persistently
lowest achieving" schools list established for School
Improvement Grants as a substitute. Persistently lowest
achieving schools are the lowest 5% of low achieving schools.
These schools are already required to implement one of the
intervention models. The schools subject to PEP are those not
considered the lowest achieving schools in the state.
The PEP statutes do not provide many specific parameters about
the process, such as who is eligible to sign the petition, the
process for collecting signatures, or how signatures are to be
verified. In 2011, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted
regulations that established the parameters and timelines for
submission and verification of signatures.
How many parent triggers? All of the petitions for the PEP have
occurred in southern California. They include:
Compton: The first PEP submitted to a school district was in
Compton Unified School District in December 2010, which was
rejected by the Compton Unified School District governing board
in 2011 after much confusion and conflict over what petitioners
and LEAs may or may not, or were or were not required, to do.
Opponents of the petition complained about paid petitioners, of
being harassed and misled about the purpose of the petition.
This petition resulted in a lawsuit when the school district
required parents to verify their signature by showing some form
AB 734
Page 6
of identification. Ultimately, a charter school was opened at a
nearby church instead of at the schoolsite.
Adelanto: The next petition also resulted in a lawsuit in the
Adelanto Elementary School District in San Bernardino. Similar
to the Compton Unified experience, parents complained of
harassment and of being misled at the Desert Trails Elementary
School. The governing board rejected the petition when parents
asked to rescind their signatures, which reduced the number of
signatures to below 50%. The court ruled that the law did not
authorize rescission of signatures and required the governing
board to accept the signatures. The school was converted to a
charter school.
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD): In 2013, parents
at the 24th Street Elementary School in the LAUSD submitted a
petition. Then Superintendent John Deasy worked with the
petitioners and agreed to a shared governance plan allowing a
charter school to take over fifth through eighth grades. The
governing board approved the agreement.
Anaheim: The most recent PEP was submitted in Anaheim this
year. The Anaheim City School District governing board rejected
a petition to convert Palm Lane Elementary School into a charter
school, citing insufficient valid signatures. Petitioners have
filed a lawsuit.
What does this bill do? This bill authorizes petitioners to
appeal to the county board of education if a LEA fails to
implement the option requested in a PEP petition. The county
board of education is authorized to approve the appeal if it
finds that the LEA violated the requirements specified in the
law and in regulations adopted by the SBE, or if the LEA did not
act in good faith. If the county board of education approves
the appeal, the bill requires the LEA to implement the option
AB 734
Page 7
requested in the petition.
This bill has two effects. The bill can be interpreted as
authorizing an appeal because the school district did not
implement the option chosen by the petitioners. For the most
part, the PEP has been contentious and has not had the effect of
bringing the school community together to improve conditions at
a school. If a school district believes that the option chosen
by the petitioners do not work for that school community, but
another option would, the Committee may wish to consider whether
the county board of education should be allowed to interfere in
an option a school district deems best for that community.
The bill allows an appeal to the county board of education to
determine whether the LEA violated the PEP statutes or
regulations established by the SBE, or determine whether the LEA
acted in good faith. Asking the county board of education to
determine whether the school district acted in good faith is
subjective. It is not clear how a county board of education
would make that determination, nor should a county board of
education be put in the position to do so. Requiring the county
board to review the process will include verification of
signatures. The county office of education may not have the
capacity to re-verify signatures, nor should it be required to
do so.
At least one of the lawsuits involves whether parents and
guardians have a right to rescind their signatures. For
example, parents have reported signing a petition after being
told that the petition is about improving the maintenance of the
school. Parents or guardians who signed the petition not fully
understanding what they were signing should be allowed to
withdraw their support. If the Committee chooses to pass this
bill, staff recommends an amendment to allow parents and
guardians to rescind their signatures within a specified time
after the petition was submitted.
AB 734
Page 8
Has PEP been effective? In concept, the PEP was designed to
empower parents. However, in practice, the PEP has become a
lightning rod in dividing the school and parent community.
Three out of four of the triggers have resulted in lawsuits.
Allowing the petitioners to appeal to the county board of
education and allowing the county board of education to mandate
a school district to implement a reform will only create more
discord at the local level. Schools where the trigger has been
pulled only occurred due to assistance from outside
organizations with funding. Furthermore, there are reports that
the charter school that took over Desert Trails in Adelante,
which was chosen by 53 of 600 parents, has had constant staff
turnovers and turmoil. The Committee may wish to consider
reevaluating the PEP and developing a more collaborative process
to involve parents and address student achievement.
Arguments in support. The author states, "AB 734 ensures the
integrity of the parent petition verification process by adding
a second layer of appeals for parents. In the event that a LEA
rejects a final petition, parents have the option of appealing
to the County Office of Education to ensure the LEA did
everything in good faith and followed the law and regulations.
If the County Office of Education (COE) finds that the LEA
violated the law, the COE would grant the petition."
Arguments in opposition. The California Teachers Association
(CTA) states, "The implementation of the parent trigger law has
been disruptive to the education process. Parent trigger laws
ignite controversy, not parent-school-community collaboration.
Described by advocates as a citizen initiative to balance the
power between parents, school administrators, and educators in
the school reform process, parent trigger laws are being
advocated as a "silver bullet" that cuts through the
complexities of the "education establishment" and gives parents
new, formal, legal power to "fix" their children's schools. And
AB 734
Page 9
on face value, it's hard to disagree with these principles and
goals. Low-income parents of color taking to the streets to
take on entrenched and unaccountable school boards and
principals are compelling figures to want to get behind.
However, those parents and their kids are not the real faces
pushing parent trigger. CTA believes school reform is a shared
responsibility and supports policies and practices that link
schools, families, and communities to achieve improvement
goals."
Prior related legislation. AB 2518 (Dababneh), introduced in
2014, specifies that if the intervention identified in the
petition is the restart model and the petitioners opt to solicit
charter school or educational management organization proposals
for the selection of a specific charter school or educational
management organization operator, then all parents and legal
guardians of pupils attending the school have the right to
participate in the selection of the charter school or
educational management organization operator, regardless of
whether they signed the petition. The author held the bill in
this Committee.
AB 203 (Brownley), vetoed by the Governor in 2011, made a number
of changes to the PEP.
SBX5 4 (Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth
Extraordinary Session, enacted the PEP.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 734
Page 10
EdVoice
Opposition
California Teachers Association
Public Employees Union Local 1
Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087