SB494 - Charter schools: establishment prohibition and renewal procedures.

Amended IN Assembly September 09, 2025 Amended IN Assembly July 10, 2025 Amended IN Senate April 10, 2025 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 494 Introduced by Senator Cortese February 19, 2025 An act to amend Sections 45113 and 88013 47607.2 and 47612.7 of the Education Code, relating to school and community college employees. charter schools. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 494, as amended, Cortese. Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: appeals: contracted administrative law judges. Charter schools: establishment prohibition and renewal procedures. (1) Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, authorizes the establishment, operation, and governance of charter schools. Existing law authorizes a charter school that has an approved charter to receive funding for nonclassroom-based instruction only if a determination for funding is made by the State Board of Education, as specified. The act prohibits, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2026, inclusive, the approval of a petition for the establishment of a new charter school offering nonclassroom-based instruction, as specified. This bill would extend that prohibition to continue through January 1, 2027. (2) Existing law, until January 1, 2026, sets out performance standards and procedures for the renewal of the charter of an existing charter school, including, among other things, the use of verified data, as provided. Existing law sets out revised standards and procedures that are operative on and after January 1, 2026, that, among other things, no longer requires a chartering authority to use verified data and instead requires a chartering authority to use only the data reported on the California School Dashboard in making a renewal decision, as provided. This bill would extend, until January 1, 2027, the operation of the performance standards and procedures for the renewal of charter schools that would otherwise be inoperative on January 1, 2026, and would delay the operation of the revised standards and procedures until January 1, 2027. To the extent the bill imposes new duties on local educational agencies acting as chartering authorities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (1) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employee’s right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall not be less than 5 days after service of notice to the employee, as provided. This bill would instead require the governing board of a school district or community college district to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings authorizing the employee to request a hearing within a minimum of 30 days after service of notice of the specific charges to the employee, as provided. (2) If a classified employee is notified by the governing board of a school district or community college district that the employee’s service will not be required for the ensuing year due to lack of work or lack of funds, existing law authorizes the employee to request a hearing to determine if there is cause for not reemploying the employee for those reasons, as provided. Existing law requires an administrative law judge to conduct that hearing and to prepare a proposed decision, as specified. Existing law authorizes any county or other local public entity to contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings, and authorizes the office to contract for services for an administrative law judge or a hearing officer to conduct proceedings, as provided. This bill would authorize a permanent classified employee of a school district, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to a contracted administrative law judge, paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization unless the employee organization and the school district have agreed to an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. The bill would require this alternative method of appealing a disciplinary action to be subject to judicial review pursuant to specified standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. If a permanent classified employee of a community college district, excluding a peace officer, requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the bill would require a contracted administrative law judge, paid for by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, to preside over the hearing and determine the outcome of the disciplinary action, as provided, unless the employee organization and the community college district have agreed to an alternative method of resolving the disciplinary action. The bill would require this alternative method of resolving disciplinary action to be subject to judicial review pursuant to specified standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. (3) The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law extends certain employment rules applicable to classified employees of school districts to classified employees of joint powers authorities consisting of 2 or more school districts, as provided, including the rule that a permanent classified employee may be subject to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board. Existing law also extends certain employment rules, including the rule related to disciplinary action, to classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools. This bill would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a school district the above-described authorization for a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to a contracted administrative law judge, except as specified. The bill also would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a community college district the above-described requirement that a contracted administrative law judge preside over a hearing and determine the outcome of the disciplinary action for a permanent classified employee that requests a hearing on the charges, as provided. (4) If a hearing on the charges will be conducted by an impartial third-party hearing officer pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or the governing board is reviewing the impartial third-party hearing officer’s determination, existing law authorizes a school district or a community college district to stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested. This bill would instead authorize a school district or community college district to stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested, as provided, regardless of who conducts the hearing on the charges. (5) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, or a delegated impartial third-party hearing officer, to delegate their authority to an administrative law judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided. This bill would additionally require a contracted administrative law judge to delegate their authority to an administrative law judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided. (6) To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 47607.2 of the Education Code, as amended by Section 57 of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2021, is amended to read: 47607.2. (a) (1) The chartering authority shall not renew a charter if either of the following apply for two consecutive years immediately preceding the renewal decision: (A) The charter school has received the two lowest performance levels schoolwide on all the state indicators included in the evaluation rubrics adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5 for which it receives performance levels. (B) For all measurements of academic performance, the charter school has received performance levels schoolwide that are the same or lower than the state average and, for a majority of subgroups performing statewide below the state average in each respective year, received performance levels that are lower than the state average. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the two consecutive years immediately preceding the renewal decision include the 2019–20 or 2020–21 school year, the chartering authority shall not renew a charter if either of the following apply for two of the most recent years for which state data is available preceding the renewal decision: (A) The charter school has received the two lowest performance levels schoolwide on all the state indicators included in the evaluation rubrics adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5 for which it receives performance levels. (B) For all measurements of academic performance, the charter school has received performance levels schoolwide that are the same or lower than the state average and, for a majority of subgroups performing statewide below the state average in each respective year, received performance levels that are lower than the state average. (3) A charter school that meets the criteria established by this subdivision and paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 47607 shall only qualify for treatment under this subdivision. (4) The chartering authority shall consider the following factors, and may renew a charter that meets the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) only upon making both of the following written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support the findings: (A) The charter school is taking meaningful steps to address the underlying cause or causes of low performance, and those steps are reflected, or will be reflected, in a written plan adopted by the governing body of the charter school. (B) There is clear and convincing evidence showing either of the following: (i) The school achieved measurable increases in academic achievement, as defined by at least one year’s progress for each year in school. (ii) Strong postsecondary outcomes, as defined by college enrollment, persistence, and completion rates equal to similar peers. (C) Clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) shall be demonstrated by verified data, as defined in subdivision (c). (5) Verified data, as defined in subdivision (c), shall be considered by the chartering authority until June 30, 2025, 2026, for a charter school pursuant to this subdivision, operating on or before June 30, 2020, only for the charter school’s next two subsequent renewals. (6) For a charter renewed pursuant to this subdivision, the chartering authority may grant a renewal for a period of two years. (b) (1) For all charter schools for which paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 47607 and subdivision (a) of this section do not apply, the chartering authority shall consider the schoolwide performance and performance of all subgroups of pupils served by the charter school on the state indicators included in the evaluation rubrics adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5 and the performance of the charter school on the local indicators included in the evaluation rubrics adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5. (2) The chartering authority shall provide greater weight to performance on measurements of academic performance in determining whether to grant a charter renewal. (3) In addition to the state and local indicators, the chartering authority shall consider clear and convincing evidence showing either of the following: (A) The school achieved measurable increases in academic achievement, as defined by at least one year’s progress for each year in school. (B) Strong postsecondary outcomes, as defined by college enrollment, persistence, and completion rates equal to similar peers. (4) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3) shall be demonstrated by verified data, as defined in subdivision (c). (5) Verified data, as defined in subdivision (c), shall be considered by the chartering authority for the next two subsequent renewals until January 1, 2026, 2027, for a charter school pursuant to this paragraph. (6) The char [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]