A New Era for California’s Charter Public Schools

The announcement of a compromise deal on charter public school-focused legislation, AB 1505, affirms that charter schools are here to stay as a permanent and valued fixture of California’s education system.

AB 1505 at a Glance 

The original version of AB 1505 would have had devastating consequences for the most vulnerable students in our state. Advocates like you ensured that the most critical protections were maintained and that new provisions would be focused on our values of equity, quality, predictability and co-existence within our public education system. AB 1505 ensures that:

  • Charter schools that are closing the achievement gap are granted a streamlined renewal, with the ability to now be renewed up to seven years.
  • There is restoration of an appeals path to counties and the State Board of Education when a new or renewing charter school petition has been denied.
  • Any consideration of the fiscal impact of a new charter school petition must be balanced with the academic needs of the students who are going to be served.  
  • A five-year transition exists for non-core charter school teachers to secure appropriate certification.

What is New for Charter Public Schools

AB 1505 introduces a new landscape for charter schools, including their petitions, existing school renewals, and charter school teacher credentialing. Key, new elements of AB 1505 include:

  • Consideration of fiscal impact in a new charter school petition, though with the critical protection of needing to balance the academic need of students in the community being served. 
  • A 2-year moratorium on new nonclassroom based schools. Additional conditions for existing nonclassroom based schools are addressed in a different bill, AB 1507. 
  • A three-tiered charter renewal process based on the California School Dashboard color indexes.
  • Certification by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) for all non-core, non-college prep charter school teachers is now required, though with the critical protection of a five-year transition period
A New Era for California's Charter Public Schools


12
Leave a Reply

Your name and email are not required to comment.

avatar
1 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
AnonymousAnonymousTarareluctantly anonymousAnonymous Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

So. Much.Winning. Thanks Stand for decimating the community and cheerleading rvsd into spending almost a million dollars to get RVC exactly where it can thrive without meddling. There were far better solutions that would have saved strife and much needed dollars. Although I’m not a blanket charter fan, I’m glad families whose kids will thrive in an alternative – and families who are shut out of segregated schools like rvsd by virtue of neighborhood unaffordability- retain some choice of schools in this county that keeps lower income kids of color in places where they and their parents have NO choice… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

So did you see what happened in Sausalito?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Completely different situation. But, also, important to point out that African-American families who live in Marin City who exercised a right that others have to choose an alternative will lose it – because the adults (charter and non-charter) could not figure out how to deal fairly with the desire for an alternative.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Not a completely different situation at all. Both Charters are run by private entities with their own student selection. RVC leadership has a well-known history of discrimination. Remember gender balancing? They wanted equal numbers of each gender which entailed denying admission based on gender.

Larry
Guest
Larry

Really?
So you’re saying gender balancing is discrimination? That the MAP program at Manor many years ago, run under the auspices of RVSD was intended to discriminate? Who were they discriminating against, exactly? Was it boys or girls?
Discrimination is an act of preference not balancing. Desegregation is also an attempt at balancing.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Yes, not getting a place because of your gender is discrimination.

-Editor
Guest
-Editor

Not talking about some generalized concept here. Gender balancing in the classroom is an attempt to make equal, not discriminate for preference. Using this against the Charter is silly, by the way. In any respect, the practice happened years ago in the MAP program and has nothing to do with RVC today.
Curious as to why you find this relevant. Are you saying that the RVC is gender discriminating? Or are you just trying to be negative?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

The problem with private enterprise running schools is one of the rules about admission and oversight. Each school has its own set of rules. It opens up all sorts of opportunity for discrimination. Charter school supporters that choose to not see this will be doing large swathes of children a disservice.

Tara
Guest
Tara

Obviously you haven’t read the law. Or, you’re just making a feeble attempt to gaslight the remaining gullibles in the Ross Valley.

reluctantly anonymous
Guest
reluctantly anonymous

RVC abides by state enrollment criteria – anyone who wants to be enrolled is accepted until the school is full, then lottery and waiting list. The discrimination claim is ridiculous.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

RVC accepts all students, unless there are too many applicants for a grade level, and then there’s a public lottery. Claims of “cherry picking” are not based in fact. There are uneven numbers of boys and girls in many grades at RVC because it depends on which kids enroll each year (just like in the district schools).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

only allowing kids whose parents make enough $$ or have a big enough trust fund to live in your zip code — that’s not discriminatory, right?