CSBA sues over Prop. 39 charter facility regulations 

New rules on facility requests take effect Nov. 1

A court hearing is scheduled in early October in Sacramento Superior Court on CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance lawsuit challenging regulations the State Board of Education imposed this year on school districts faced with charter school facilities requests under Proposition 39.

Unless overturned, the new regulations will take effect Nov. 1 and apply to facilities requests received by districts this fall for the 2009–10 school year. Approved earlier this year after years of dispute, the requirements stray far beyond the intent of the initiative that the state’s voters approved in 2000, CSBA representatives say. Some changes exceed the scope of the state board’s authority and so are not legally valid, they add.

“It’s unfortunate that we have been forced to seek recourse in the courts to get clarity on the legal authority of the State Board of Education,” said CSBA President Paul H. Chatman. “We are convinced these new regulations are clearly outside of its statutory responsibility. If charter schools are to have expanded authority under the law, then that is a matter for the Legislature. It is not the role of the State Board of Education to enact laws; its role is to carry out the laws enacted by the Legislature.”

Among the most burdensome new requirements is a provision giving districts just 30 calendar days to review charter schools’ detailed requests for facilities for the following school year. Due Nov. 1, the requests include complicated enrollment projections and other components that affect charters’ actual needs, but districts have only until Dec. 1 to review all the components of the requests.

The new timeline will require significant staff time and resources, especially since the review period coincides with the Thanksgiving holiday, CSBA Senior Policy Analyst Stephanie Medrano Farland pointed out. Districts that receive more than one facilities request, as well as districts with small administrative office staffs, will be severely impacted by the requirement, Farland said.

“School districts are spending an inordinate amount of effort on these facilities requests already, Farland said. “Nearly 98 percent of public school students have chosen to stay in traditional public schools. With these new regulations, the State Board of Education continues down the path of ignoring the needs of traditional school students in charter school matters and has adopted regulations here that favor the 2 percent over the 98 percent.”

The Alliance suit also challenges the sweeping regulatory interpretation of Proposition 39’s provision that charter school facilities provided by districts must be “furnished and equipped.” Under the new rules, this requirement can extend from such essential items as furniture to motor vehicles and machinery and intangible assets such as major software programs.

Another point of contention is a provision allowing conversion charters, such as those created by parent or faculty petition, to continue to occupy school sites as long as annual requests for the facilities are made. SBE waivers would be required to move the charters, but Farland is skeptical that many waivers will be
granted.