State Board discussions set the stage for action
Public comments on Parent Empowerment, statewide benefit charters
Published: March 1, 2011
The Parent Empowerment Act and statewide benefit charters will return to the California State Board of Education’s agenda next month after dominating much of the panel’s meeting in February.
The March 9–10 meeting will be just days before the expiration of emergency Parent Empowerment regulations that were adopted last July. Those regulations have stirred questions and controversy—much like the law itself, which narrowly passed the state Legislature in 2009 in California’s ultimately fruitless bid for federal Race to the Top competitive grant funds. The law establishes conditions under which parents at up to 75 academically struggling schools can petition for implementation of one of RTTT’s four inventions: turnaround, restart, closure or transformation.
Advocates who are trying to use the Parent Empowerment Act to convert McKinley Elementary School, in the Compton Unified School District, into a charter packed the State Board’s Feb. 9 meeting. However, their testimony and that of others underscored problems already encountered in implementing the law. Questions have arisen about who can circulate petitions, who can sign them, how to validate signatures, and other issues.
The emergency regulations expire March 15 but can be extended. They are similar to permanent regulations the State Board released for public comment in December. New Gov. Jerry Brown has replaced seven of the panel’s 11 members since then, however, and the new board has postponed final action on those permanent regulations.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, who serves as the State Board’s secretary and executive officer, disclosed at last month’s meeting that Assembly Education Committee Chair Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, is discussing legislative changes to help address concerns with the existing law. Torlakson also said he will assemble a working group of stakeholders “to craft long-term regulations that treat all parties fairly and provide a transparent, informative, and workable process.” CSBA Research Consultant Marguerite Noteware has agreed to participate.
Statewide benefit charters
The State Board also discussed but deferred action on statewide benefit charters, another controversial issue—especially since an appeals court last year agreed with CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance and other plaintiffs in a key ruling regarding a statewide benefit charter the State Board had granted to Aspire Public Schools in 2007.
The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled July 26 that the State Board had no evidence that Aspire’s statewide charter provides “instructional services of a statewide benefit” or that those services cannot be provided under a series of locally approved charters. As CSBA Senior Policy Consultant Stephanie Medrano Farland explained then, “The concern is that charter petitioners will bypass local districts in an attempt to avoid local oversight and move straight to the State Board, where they are likely to receive a favorable reception and local accountability doesn’t exist.”
In fact, the Alliance lawsuit contends, the State Board has failed to enforce provisions of the charter it gave Aspire or of a related memorandum of understanding. The 2010 appellate ruling returned the case to Alameda Superior Court for reconsideration, where it remains.
Because of the legal issues, the new State Board postponed a scheduled Feb. 9 public hearing on Aspire’s application to revise its statewide charter. However, board President Michael Kirst directed California Department of Education staff to begin drafting new regulations to more clearly define what a statewide benefit is. Addressing the board, CSBA’s Farland welcomed the move but also stressed that the capacity of local school boards to fulfill any purported benefits of a statewide charter must also be addressed.
Easy link: