|
|
Several Charter School Accountability Bills Heat Up Discussion in Senate Education Committee At Wednesday’s Senate Education Committee hearing, the contentious debate over the future of California’s charter schools was “up front and center.” Recently released studies have raised questions regarding the overall effectiveness of charter schools in closing the achievement gap between subgroups of California students. And pressure has been placed upon the legislature to strengthen accountability and oversight for charter schools. On the agenda for the committee were five different Assembly bills, all aiming to reign in charter schools to some degree — and all opposed by the California Charter Schools Association. The bills under consideration were:
AB 1982 (Ammiano, D-San Francisco)
AB 2320 (Swanson, D-Alameda)
AB 2363 (Mendoza, D-Norwalk)
AB 2543 (Lowenthal, D-Long Beach)
The ensuing debate left the Education Committee’s senators performing a complicated balancing act as they were forced to juggle union, constituent, and federal interests. While for the California Charter School Association, it seemed to be a case where any attempt to impose new standards of accountability and oversight must be met with opposition. During AB 2320’s presentation, the central debate over the role of charter schools in shaping the state’s education system became more clear as Senator Simitian spoke at length of the concerns over the success of charter schools and the public’s seemingly unbridled enthusiasm for these types of schools. He referred to both the original nature and goals of the Legislature’s first charter school bills, as well as the recent Stanford study which concluded that charter schools may provide be a slight and statistically insignificant improvement in academic performance as compared to regular K-12 public schools. After deliberation, Assemblyman Swanson was sent back into the hallways to consider amendments — only to be brought back in a few hours later to gain Senator Simitian’s vote but to lose committee chair Senator Romero’s vote. Swanson’s AB 2320 ultimately failed to get out of committee: the final vote was two Ayes, three Noes, with the remainder abstaining. In between Senator Swanson’s two separate hearings, Assemblyman Ammiano brought forth AB 1982. This bill featured the most obvious assault upon charter schools as it proposed placing a cap of 1,450 on future growth (the bill would sunset in 2016). Sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers and supported by the California Teacher’s Association, proponents argued that the Legislature should seek to slow down charter school growth until there is more evidence of their success rate in terms of academic performance. While it seems certain that charter school growth would not be in danger of reaching the limit until near the bill’s sunset period, the implications of restraining growth for those who favor charter schools stirred discussion. In one moment, which perhaps summarized the day’s events, a lobbyist for CFT proposed that charter schools be treated as a “precious resource.” This seems to be the central question of the charter school debate: should charter school growth eventually begin to supplant public schools, or should charter schools exist primarily as a “precious resource?” Editor's Note: Nate Rose is a UC San Diego Legislative Intern for Governmental Solutions Group, LLC, and Jeff Hudson is the editor of EdBrief and an award-winning education reporter and writer in print, radio and television media. |
|
