SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Connie Leyva, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular
Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:

AB 967
Smith
April 2, 2019
No
Ian Johnson

Hearing Date:

Fiscal:

June 19, 2019

Yes

Subject: Local control and accountability plans.
SUMMARY
This bill applies various Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) requirements that
currently apply to school districts and county offices of education to charter schools, and
requires charter school LCAPs to be reviewed and approved by charter school
authorizers.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1)

Requires governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to
adopt an LCAP and an annual update which establish annual goals and identify
specific actions, in eight state priority areas.

2)

Requires the governing board of a school district to:

3)

a)

Establish a parent advisory committee to provide advice to the governing
board of the school district and the superintendent of the school district
regarding the LCAP.

b)

Establish an English learner parent advisory committee if the school
district includes at least 15 percent English learners in the school district
and the school district enrolls at least 50 pupils who are English learners.

c)

Hold at least one public hearing to solicit recommendations and comments
of members of the public.

d)

Adopt the LCAP or annual update at a public meeting.

e)

Submit the approved LCAP with the county superintendent of schools
within five days of local adoption.

Requires the superintendent of a school district to:
a)

Present the LCAP to the parent advisory committee and the English
learner parent advisory committee for review and comment.

 AB 967 (Smith)

Page 2 of 7

b)

Notify members of the public of the opportunity to submit written
comments related to the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).

c)

Review school plans to ensure consistency with the strategies included in
the School Plan for Student Achievement.

d)

Consult with the special education local plan administrator(s).

e)

Post approved LCAPs prominently on the homepage of the website of the
school district.

4)

Requires charter schools to annually adopt an LCAP to update the goals and
annual actions to achieve the goals identified in the charter petition.

5)

Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt LCAP templates to be
used by school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools.

6)

Requires charter school authorizers to ensure that each charter school under its
authority complies with all report required under charter law, including the LCAP.

7)

Establishes the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) with per-pupil funding
targets, adjustments for different student grade levels, and supplemental funding
for local educational agencies serving students who are low-income, English
learners, or foster youth.

ANALYSIS
This bill:
1)

Amends the requirements of the annual update of the goals and annual actions
to achieve those goals identified in the charter school petition to be included only
in the charter school’s LCAPs and annual updates completed prior to July 1,
2019. Repeals the annual update as of January 1, 2021.

2)

Adds charter schools to the local educational agencies that are intended to held
accountable as part of the Statewide System of Support through improved
outreach and collaboration with stakeholders to ensure the goals, actions and
services described in LCAPs reflect the needs of pupils and the community.

3)

Requires the governing body of each charter school to adopt an LCAP using a
template adopted by the SBE, as follows:
a)

The charter LCAP shall include all of the information specified in the
template adopted by the SBE.

b)

If the LCAP includes more than one charter school authorized in a single
charter petition, the LCAP adopted by the governing body of the charter
school shall include, for each charter school referenced, the information
specified in the template adopted by the SBE.

 AB 967 (Smith)
4)

Page 3 of 7

Requires charter schools to include in their Local Control and Accountability
Plan’s (LCAPs):
a)

The degree to which teachers of the charter school are appropriately
assigned and fully credentialed in the subject areas.

b)

Implementation of academic and content and performance standards
adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE).

c)

Parental involvement and family engagement.

5)

Allows the governing board of charter schools to consider qualitative information
for the descriptions required in the LCAP template.

6)

Requires governing boards of charter schools to include teachers, principals,
administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units, parents, and pupils
be involved in the development of the LCAP.

7)

Requires charter schools to annually update their LCAP.

8)

Requires the administrator of a charter school, prior to the adoption of the LCAP
or annual update, to consult parent, English learner parent, and foster youth
parent advisory committees.

9)

Requires governing bodies of charter schools to notify members of the public to
submit written comments regarding the LCAP or the annual update.

10)

Requires administrators of charter schools to review, if applicable, charter School
Plans for Student Achievement (SPSA) from multiple schools authorized in a
single charter petition.

11)

Requires the administrator of a charter school to consult with its special
education local plan area administrator to determine that specific actions for
individuals with exceptional needs are included in the LCAP.

12)

Requires governing bodies of charter schools to hold at least one public hearing
regarding the proposed LCAP or annual update.

13)

Requires governing bodies of charter schools to update the LCAP or annual
update in a public meeting.

14)

Requires charter schools with more than one charter school authorized in a
single petition to include summary tables listing and describing the specific
actions and budgeting expenditures in the LCAP template.

15)

Removes a sunsetted provision allowing for the SBE to adopt or revise the LCAP
template in accordance with the requirements of the Bagley Keene Open
Meeting Act.

 AB 967 (Smith)

Page 4 of 7

16)

Requires charter schools to post an approved Local Control and Accountability
Plan (LCAP) prominently on the school’s homepage of its website.

17)

Requires charter schools to file an approved LCAP or annual update with the
county superintendent of schools or the chartering authority, as applicable.

18)

Requires chartering authorities to approve a charter school’s LCAP or annual
update on or before October 8, as specified.

19)

Includes conforming changes in other sections of Education Code including: the
Low-Performing Students Block Grant, the College Readiness Block Grant, the
duties of a charter school authorizer to ensure that each charter school complies
with all reports required of charters under state law, submitting the LCAP to the
chartering authority, the State Board of Education’s (SBE’s) purpose for adopting
the LCAP template, and the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) budget
overview for parents.

STAFF COMMENTS
1)

Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 967 brings school transparency
for all parents and students. During my tenure as a schoolboard member, we
had an extremely thorough LCAP process. In doing so, we were able to engage
parents and students to make sure our school district was best serving them.
Not all parents and students are fortunate to have the means and access to their
schoolboards and LCAPs. AB 967 ensures that there are accountability
measures in place to have a thorough and transparent stakeholder process."

2)

Charter school LCAPs. All charter schools must complete an LCAP and annual
update, using the LCAP template adopted by the SBE. Charter schools are
required to consult with parents, students, principals, teachers, administrators,
and other school personnel as part of the development of the LCAP. A charter
school’s LCAP is a separate document from the charter petition. Both the charter
petition and LCAP must describe goals and specific actions to achieve those
goals, as well as measurable pupil outcomes, for all pupils and each subgroup of
pupils, including pupils with disabilities, for each of the state priorities that apply
to the grade levels served and the nature of the charter school program.
A charter school is required to submit its LCAP to its chartering authority and the
county superintendent of schools or only to the county superintendent of schools
if the county board of education is the chartering authority. However, charter
school authorizers are not required to approve LCAPs. School districts must
post their approved LCAP prominently on their district’s website homepage. This
bill proposes to require charter schools to also post their LCAPs prominently on
their website’s homepage.

3)

Community engagement through the LCAP process. Current law identifies
the minimum consultation requirements for development of the LCAP and annual
update. School districts and COEs are required to have and consult with the
parent advisory committee and English learner parent advisory committee, as
applicable, as well as parents, students, teachers, principals, administrators,

 AB 967 (Smith)

Page 5 of 7

other school personnel, local bargaining units, and the local community.
However, the local education agency (LEA) is not required to establish a new
advisory committee if the LEA has already established an advisory committee
that meets the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Parent advisory committees and English learner parent advisory committees are
subject to the meeting requirements of the Greene Act. These committees are
not subject to the Brown Act requirements. The Local Control and Accountability
Plan (LCAP) instructions provided by the CDE state that the LCAP should be
shared with, and LEAs should request input from, school-site level advisory
groups as applicable (e.g. school site councils, English Learner Advisory
Councils, student advisory groups, etc.) to facilitate alignment between schoolsite and district level goals and actions.
4)

How has statewide community engagement been going so far? Since the
establishment of the LCFF in 2013, LEAs have been implementing the LCAP
development process. The research related to the parent and community
components of LCAP development has been limited; the majority of research
comes from a small set of case studies but not a representative sample.
The 2018 report, “Getting Down to Facts II: Taking stock of stakeholder
engagement in California’s LCFF: What can we learn from the past four years to
guide next steps?” reports the following related to stakeholder engagement:
a)

Despite reported learning and improvement over time, most districts are
complying with the letter of the LCFF policy but not the full spirit of
democratic engagement. We find variation in the breadth and depth of
engagement in case study districts within and across years: the majority of
districts demonstrated shallow forms of engagement, while a set of
“outlier” districts achieved deeper and broader engagement. Statewide
survey and case study data indicate widespread struggles to attract
participation, particularly among traditionally underserved stakeholders
and groups targeted by LCFF.

b)

State guidelines for completing the LCAP (the “template”) state the
importance of “meaningful engagement” from parents, students, and other
stakeholders individuals connected to subgroups targeted for extra
funding (e.g., foster youth and English learners). Neither the statute nor
template provides guidance on the number or proportion of individuals or
groups to involve and or how to engage them (or what “meaningful”
engagement entails). While the statute established the California
Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to support districts in
achieving the goals outlined in their adopted LCAPs, the state has not
provided technical assistance or information on how to implement
stakeholder engagement requirements.

c)

While superintendents statewide perceive a lack of interest on the part of
stakeholders, polling data indicate that the majority of voters are in fact
interested in contributing to school and district decisions around goals and

 AB 967 (Smith)

Page 6 of 7

resources and would like to be more involved. Instead, our data suggest
that a host of other conditions may be contributing to the low participation
in Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)-related activities and the shallow
nature of these interactions with the district, including conditions related to
individual stakeholders (lack of awareness, fatigue, limited capacity),
relationships of trust (between districts and community, unions and
districts), organizations (lack of capacity) and broader institutional
pressures. Conversely, districts demonstrating deeper and/or broader
forms of engagement appeared to benefit from not only greater capacity
and levels of trust, but also a history of community engagement, strategic
plans, and assistance from external organizations and partners.
5)

Recent report cites lack of Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)
compliance, transparency, and engagement by some charter schools. A
2018 report “Keeping the Promise of LCFF in Charter Schools” by Public
Advocates included an investigation of 43 schools in Oakland, Sacramento,
Richmond, Los Angeles, and San Jose and found that one-third of all charter
schools examined had no LCAP online. The report cites that in the sample the
majority of state funds generated by high needs students were unaccounted for
in 2017-18 LCAP documents. Finally, in the sample used in the report only 21
percent clearly measured how they engaged parents in school decision-making,
and only 37 percent described how community engagement impacted their
planning process.

6)

Arguments in support. The California Association of School Business Officials
(CASBO) states, "CASBO supports this legislation, which is to align the
requirements of adopting the local control and accountability plans and the
annual updates for charter schools as required for school districts. We believe
that in the spirit of accountability and transparency, it is important to ensure that
all local educational agencies, including charter schools, meet the funding
formula's accountability and engagement process."

7)

Arguments in opposition. The Charter Schools Development Center states,
"By definition, charter schools are outcome-based and not rules-based. This
measure tries to apply a rules-based platform and shows a misunderstanding of
the existing law. Primarily charter schools are beholden to the outcomes outlined
in their charter document and under existing law an authorizer may not renew a
charter if those outcomes are not met. This is a different system that exists for
traditional schools. Therefore, the process for and importance of the LCAP
document is weighted differently for charters than it is for traditional schools."

SUPPORT
Bay Area Parent Leadership Action Network
Building Blocks for Kids—Richmond
Coleman Advocates
Gente Organizada
Public Advocates
West Contra Costa Parents Council

 AB 967 (Smith)

Page 7 of 7

OPPOSITION
California Charter Schools Association
Charter Schools Development Center
-- END --