Site icon CCIS – California Consortium for Independent Study

Changes in Law 2017 – Governance and Operations

CCIS
State Capital

Capitol Advisors Group has produced a series of comprehensive client briefs detailing new education laws that were passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in 2017. Each brief is organized by subject area and includes an executive summary highlighting major changes we think you should know about. Bills signed by the Governor take effect on January 1, 2018, unless the bill specifically states otherwise. A PDF version of this report is available here.

In the broad category of governance and operations, one of the most politically-charged subject areas is charter schools. After several years of no significant changes to charter school law, the Legislature passed and Governor Brown signed AB 1360 by Assembly Member Rob Bonta (D-Alameda). The bill adds new requirements for charter school suspension/expulsion policies and clarifies admissions preferences and parental involvement policies.

The bill passed out of the Legislature with nearly unanimous bi-partisan support. The final Senate floor vote was 34-6. The final floor vote in the Assembly was 70-8. The bill was sponsored by an array of civil rights organizations (ACLU, Public Advocates, Alliance of Boys and Men for Color, and Public Counsel) and public employee unions, including the California Teachers Association (CTA), California Federal of Teachers (CFT), and California School Employees Association (CSEA). The bill also enjoyed the support of the California Charter School Association (CCSA), State PTA, and the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). The only opposition was from the Charter Schools Development Center.

Specifically, AB 1360 does the following:

  1. Adds a requirement that charter petitions contain a description of procedures for suspending and expelling students, or otherwise involuntarily removing them from the charter school. The procedures, at a minimum, must include a description of how the charter school will comply with state and federal constitutional and due process requirements, including the following:
    1. For suspensions of fewer than 10 days, provide oral or written notice of the charges against the pupil and, if the pupil denies the charges, an explanation of the evidence that supports the charges and an opportunity to present his or her side of the story
    2. For suspensions of 10 days or more and all expulsions for disciplinary reasons, ensure the provision of both of the following:
      • Timely, written notice of the charges against the pupil and an explanation of the pupil’s basic rights
      • A hearing adjudicated by a neutral officer within a reasonable number of days at which the pupil has a fair opportunity to present testimony, evidence, and witnesses and confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and at which the pupil has the right to bring legal counsel or an advocate
    3. A clear statement that no pupil shall be involuntarily removed by the charter school for any reason unless the parent or guardian of the pupil, or educational rights holder in the case of a pupil who is a foster child or homeless, has been provided written notice of intent no less than five schooldays before the effective date of the action and requires:
      • The written notice must be in the native language of the pupil or the pupil’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder
      • The pupil must be informed of his or her right to request a hearing before the effective date of the action
      • If the pupil’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder initiates a request to hold a hearing, the pupil must remain enrolled until the charter school issues a final decision
  2. Clarifies priority and preferences for student admissions to charter schools if the number of pupils seeking enrollment exceeds the charter’s capacity. Specifically, the priority order must be contained in the charter petition in accordance with the following:
    1. Each type of preference shall be approved by the chartering authority at a public hearing
    2. Preferences shall be consistent with federal law, the California Constitution, and Education Code Section 200
    3. Preferences shall not result in limiting enrollment access for pupils with disabilities, academically low-achieving pupils, English learners, neglected or delinquent pupils, homeless pupils, or pupils who are economically disadvantaged, as determined by eligibility for any free or reduced-price meal program, foster youth, or pupils based on nationality, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation
    4. Enrollment preferences shall not require mandatory parental volunteer hours as a criterion for admission or continued enrollment
  3. Requires a school district to provide charter schools with the pupil’s cumulative record, grades/report cards and health information within 30-days of a student enrolling at the charter school, if he/she was expelled or left the school district without graduating or completing the school year, for any reason, and enrolls in a charter school.
  4. Establishes that a charter school may encourage parental involvement, but shall notify parents that parental involvement is not a requirement for continued enrollment or acceptance into the charter school.

No state law codification of federal Title IX guidelines. A bill dealing with Title IX gender equity and anti-discrimination, SB 169 by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), enjoyed fairly strong bi-partisan support in the Legislature but was vetoed by the Governor. The bill sought to ensure that existing policies and procedures in California are at least as robust as federal requirements, and that state law will remain robust even if federal laws and regulations are weakened in the future. For the most part, the bill would have added new sections to the Education Code that mirrored federal “guidelines” that were articulated in a 2011 guidance letter issued by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), the agency that is primarily responsible for enforcing Title IX regulations. SB 169 would have inserted elements of this letter into the California Education Code and, more generally, directed the state’s educational institutions to adopt policies and procedures that comply with the letter. Among the more specific changes to existing law, this bill would have added a detailed category of “sexual violence” to the definition of “sexual harassment” for purposes of the Education Code, to include “sexual violence,” and would have required schools to designate an employee to act as “gender equity officer,” who would be charged with ensuring compliance with the provisions of this bill. Because the author and sponsors felt that current Title IX guidelines represent particularly strong and comprehensive standards, they sought to codify these standards in state law. The sense of urgency to do so was based, in part, on the fear that the Trump Administration may seek to diminish Title IX standards and undermine student protections.

Although Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, he issued a lengthy message explaining his support for Title IX protections and the reasons he felt further discussions and assessments were needed before changing California law. Governor Brown’s main concern was the potential impact of SB 169 on college sexual assault policies. He stated:

“This is not a simple issue. Sexual harassment and sexual violence are serious and complicated matters for colleges to resolve. On the one side are complainants who come forward to seek justice and protection; on the other side stand accused students, who, guilty or not, must be treated fairly and with the presumption of innocence until the facts speak otherwise. Then, as we know, there are victims who never come forward, and perpetrators who walk free. Justice does not come easily in this environment.

That is why in 2014 I signed into law the first affirmative consent standard in the country for colleges to adopt in their sexual assault policies, so that clear and basic parameters for responsible behavior could be established…

Since this law was enacted, however, thoughtful legal minds have increasingly questioned whether federal and state actions to prevent and redress sexual harassment and assault – well-intentioned as they are – have also unintentionally resulted in some colleges’ failure to uphold due process for accused students…

Given the strong state of our laws already, I am not prepared to codify additional requirements in reaction to a shifting federal landscape, when we haven’t yet ascertained the full impact of what we recently enacted…

It is time to pause and survey the land.

I strongly believe that additional reflection and investment of time in understanding what is happening on the ground will help us exercise due care in this complex arena. I intend to convene a group of knowledgeable persons who can help us chart the way forward.”

Expect further discussions of this important issue next year.

California statewide primaries will move up to March. In an attempt to increase the State’s relevancy in presidential elections and draw candidates to the state to campaign, Governor Brown signed SB 568 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), requiring, starting in 2019, all statewide primaries to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

The Governor signed the following bills related to school governance and operations this year:

Charter Schools

District Boundaries/Student Transfers

Elections

General Governance and Operations

PRA/Gov Code 1090

Student Discipline

Exit mobile version