SENT VIA EMAIL

1107 9Th Street, Suite 200.   Sacramento, CA 95814
p 916-448-0995   f 916-448-0998   www.ccsa.org

July 27, 2020

David Holmquist
Office of the General Counsel
Los Angeles Unified School District
333 S. Beaudry Avenue, 20th Floor
Los Angeles CA 90017

RE: LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools
Dear Mr. Holmquist:

I am writing on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association (“CCSA”) regarding the
LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools (“New Charter Policy” or “Policy”), which
was approved by the Los Angeles Unified School District (“District”) Board of Education
(“Board”) at the July 9, 2020 meeting. The hasty and unilateral manner in which the District
adopted the New Charter Policy was in direct conflict with the District’s then-operative
Policy for Charter School Authorizing, dated February 7, 2012 (“Former Charter Policy”).
What is more troubling, the New Charter Policy does not comply with the law. The District
is acting well beyond its legal authority, and the Policy contravenes the intent of the
Legislature by actively discouraging the establishment of charter schools and dramatically
curtailing their ability to remain independent from school districts. We urge the District to
make immediate amendments to bring the Policy into conformity with the law.
The Charter Schools Act was expressly intended to foster innovation and encourage the
establishment of charter schools. 1 In 1992, the California Legislature passed the Charter
Schools Act (the “Act") with the intent to “increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with
special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as
academically low achieving,” "encourage the use of different and innovative teaching
methods," “create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to
be responsible for the learning program at the schoolsite,” and "provide parents and pupils
with expanded choices." 2 With respect to the review of new charter petitions, the Act
explicitly states that "…the chartering authority shall be guided by the intent of the
Legislature that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the California
educational system and that establishment of charter schools should be encouraged." 3 This
language manifests a clear intent by the Legislature to encourage the approval of charter
petitions to increase learning, spark innovation, and provide expanded choice as a means to
stimulate improvement within all public schools. While the Act underwent significant
Educ. Code §§ 47601, 47605(c).
Educ. Code § 47601.
3 Educ. Code. § 47605(b) (emphasis added).
1
2

 changes effective July 1, 2020 as the result of Assembly Bill 1505 (“AB 1505”), the
Legislature’s expressed intent remains unchanged, despite revising other portions of the
same subdivisions of law. 4 Yet, the New Charter Policy applies the law in such a way as to
impede these outcomes.

It is telling that the New Charter Policy is also considerably more restrictive than the policies
recommended by the California School Boards Association ("CSBA"), a trade group made up
of more than 1,000 California school districts and county offices of education. 5
The District’s Process Demonstrates an Intent to Circumvent and Undermine
Stakeholder Input.

As articulated in CCSA’s letter to Board President Vladovic on July 7, 2020, the District’s
Former Policy 6 required proposed modifications to that policy or any related administrative
procedures to be “sunshined with at least 20 business days of advance notice.” The Board
adopted the New Charter Policy only eight days after it was made available to the public on
July 1, 2020, violating the commitment made to stakeholders included in the Former Charter
Policy. In doing so, the Board deprived its constituents of the opportunity to provide
meaningful input on policy changes that will impact the quality and availability of public
school options in Los Angeles (as later described in this letter).

Not only did the Board violate its own policy, it also rushed to approve the 117-page Policy
in a haphazard manner that makes it impossible for the public to determine which aspects
of the Policy now apply. The Board approved sections of the Policy through five separate
motions and neglected to provide public comment with respect to each section. While certain
motions seemingly approved the respective Policy sections as submitted, others tentatively
approved the draft with direction for staff to return various amendments at the August 4,
2020 Board meeting. At one point, Board member Goldberg gave such direction after the
vote occurred but failed to clarify the content of those requested amendments. 7
The District Exceeded Its Authority and Abused its Discretion in Adopting the New
Charter Policy

In addition to the procedural errors referenced above, the District exceeded its authority
under the California Education Code by adopting a Policy that unlawfully expands the scope
of review and control that the District may legally exercise over charter schools in Los
Angeles. As CCSA has stressed in its nearly annual letters dating back to 2008, the District is

The Policy selectively ignores the clear, express legislative intent in the statute and inappropriately refers to an isolated comment in
legislative history. Further, in signing the bill into law, Governor Gavin Newsom notes that “AB 1505 is the result of leaders from all sides
of this issue coming together to enact a law that is meaningful, purposeful and, most importantly, prioritizes students and families from
both traditional and charter schools across California” and that “We now have the framework for charter and traditional schools to work
together collaboratively in service of their communities and neighborhoods.” (“Governor Newsom Signs Charter School Legislation, Oct
03, 2019, available at: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/10/03/governor-newsom-signs-charter-school-legislation-10-3-19/)
5 https://www.csba.org/en/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/EffectiveGovernance/CharterSchools
6 LAUSD Policy for Charter School Authorizing, revised February 7, 2012, Page 3 (available at:
https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/106/Policy%20on%20Charter%20School%20Authorizing%20LAU
SD-Revised-02-07-12.pdf
7 07-09-20 Special Board of Education Meeting Video Stream, 7:50 (available at:
https://lausd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=3653
4

2

 not permitted to impose additional criteria for approval of charter petitions or renewals. 8
The Act, as amended by AB 1505, sets forth an exhaustive list of criteria for approval and
grounds for denial of a charter petition. 9 An authorizer may not impose additional
requirements. 10 So long as the statutory criteria are met, “the governing board of the school
district shall not deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school.” 11

Although the officials charged with a statute's administration have limited discretion to
interpret and apply its terms, administrative action must be within the scope of authority
conferred by the enabling statute. 12 Administrative action that is not authorized by the law
or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature is void. 13 Additionally, administrative policies
“that alter or amend the statute or enlarge or impair its scope” are void. 14

The Act provides no explicit grant of authority for school districts to enact policies for
implementing the law that are unsupported by the letter and spirit of the statute, and thus
the terms of the New Charter Policy that alter, expand or are inconsistent with the Act are
invalid. 15 In many places, the New Charter Policy expands the scope of review for new and
renewing charter petitions beyond what is legally permissible. In other places, the policy sets
forth administrative procedures that are inconsistent with the statute. Finally, the policy
imposes burdensome substantive obligations exceeding those required by law.
Specifically, 16 the District abused its discretion in adopting a Policy that:

a. Unlawfully Adds Facilities Needs as a Justification for Charter Denial. The Policy
requires a charter petition to include detailed facilities information that is not
required by law. 17 While the law requires a petitioner to provide information
about the “the facilities to be used by the charter school,” it does not require the
petition to identify a “specific location or facility.” This imposition of additional
requirements for approval of a charter petition is unlawful. 18

The Policy also impermissibly expands the analysis of whether a proposed charter
school is “demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in
which the school is proposing to locate” by including an analysis of the “location
and types” of facilities to be used by the charter school. 19 The law, as amended by
AB 1505, sets forth specific factors to be addressed under this justification for
denial. These factors include the fiscal impact to the district, the extent to which

CCSA was hopeful that the District’s practices were moving toward greater conformity with the law, following its collaboration with the
charter school community in 2017 to amend the District Required Language. However, the New Charter Policy demonstrates a move in
the opposite direction in that it inappropriately manipulates AB 1505 to curtail growth and renewal of charter schools in Los Angeles.
9 Educ. Code § 47605 (b-c)
10 United Teachers of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 504
11 Educ. Code § 47605(b).
12 US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California, (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 113, 131-32
13 Terhune v. Superior (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 864, 872-873
14 Rosas v. Montgomery, (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 77, 87-88
15 Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Dep't of Developmental Services, 38 Cal. 3d 384, 391-92 (1985) ("An administrative agency only has such
authority as has been conferred on it.").
16 The number of violations included in the New Charter Policy are too numerous to recite in this letter. The examples provided herein
represent only few of the most salient examples and not an exhaustive list of CCSA’s objections.
17 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, pages 12 and 56
18 54 Cal.4th 504
19 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, pages 18-20
8

3

 the proposed school would substantially undermine existing offerings, and
whether the proposed charter school would duplicate a program currently
offered within the district. 20 Notably, these factors do not include consideration
of the “types or location” of facilities to be used by the charter school, nor can they.

As the District is well aware, charter schools have express legal rights in regards
to District facilities pursuant to Proposition 39 ("Prop. 39") that was enacted by
the voters in November 2000 and codified as Education Code section 47614.
Pursuant to Prop. 39, California's voters declared that "public school facilities
should be shared fairly among all public school pupils, including those in charter
schools." 21 Prop. 39 imposes a mandatory duty on the District to "make available,
to each charter school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for the
charter school to accommodate all of the charter school's in-district students in
conditions reasonably equivalent to those in which the students would be
accommodated if they were attending other public schools of the district." 22 In
addition, pursuant to the mandate of Prop. 39, charter schools have the express
right to share district facilities in a location near to where they wish to locate, i.e.,
the District must make a reasonable effort to locate charter schools near the area
where they wish to locate. 23 As case law has expressly found, Prop. 39 requires
that "to the maximum extent practicable, the needs of the charter school must be
given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools." 24 The purpose
of Prop. 39 is "to equalize the treatment of charter and district-run schools with
respect to the allocation of [public school campus] space between them." 25 In
addition, Prop. 39, as a voter approved ballot initiative may only be amended by
by the voters, not by school district board members. 26 It is a distortion of the law
to suggest that AB 1505 justifies violating the rights of charter school students to
Prop. 39 facilities. The District must comply with Prop. 39 law, and criteria that
expressly violate that law cannot possibly be a lawful consideration in the
authorization process.

b. Subjects Future Charter School Families to an Unlawful and Potentially
Intimidating Verification Process. The Policy misstates the law and impermissibly
permits the District’s Charter Schools Division (CSD) to “follow up with
meaningfully interested parents/guardians and/or teachers to validate
signatures.” 27 Additionally, the statutory requirement is that a charter petition—
(that is, the pages with signatures) must be attached to the proposed charter and
contain a prominent statement that a signature indicates meaningful interest. 28
The law does not require each signature to include a statement of meaningful

Educ. Code § 47605
Educ. Code, § 47614(a)
22 Educ. Code, § 47614(b) [emphasis added]
23
Educ. Code, § 47614(b)
24
Ridgecrest Charter School v. Sierra Sands Unified School District (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1001
25
Id. [emphasis added]
26 Cal.Const. Art. 2, § 10(c) (“The Legislature may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only
when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without the electors' approval.”)
27 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 12 (available at http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/07-0920BR001LAUSDCharterSchoolsPolicyAttachmentASaniPublic.pdf
28 Educ. Code, § 47614(a)(3)
20
21

4

 interest, as required by the Policy. 29 As long as the petition meets the statutory
signature requirements, an authorizer is not permitted to impose additional
requirements or engage in its own fact-finding efforts to prevent a petition from
consideration. 30 In addition, as Board Member Melvoin alludes 31 during the July
9, 2020 meeting, these tactics are likely to be confusing or intimidating to parents
and may disproportionately impact undocumented families.

c. Limits the Communities that Charter Schools Can Serve. The Policy defines
“community” in a fixed way that is unsupported by the law. 32 Narrowly defining
“community” to focus on a restricted geographic area based on the District’s own
“Community of Schools” model is inconsistent with intent of the Act to offer choice
and stimulate innovation in public education. Many charter schools offer unique
programs that attract students from across a wide geographic area, such as those
offering performing arts, military, or dual immersion programs. As indicated by
an existing charter school parent during public comment at the July 9, 2020
meeting, parents enroll their children in schools well outside the narrow threemile radius imposed by the District’s definition of “community.” 33 This restrictive
notion of neighborhood schools stifles the innovation intended by the Act, and the
District’s attempt to impose such a narrow interpretation is unsupported by legal
authority. This interpretation is also problematic because charter school
petitioners seldom have a defined location prior to charter approval.

The Policy also expands application of the analysis of whether a proposed charter
school is “demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in
which the school is proposing to locate” by requiring a material revision for a
“change in location/address” outside the “community” (which is narrowly and
unilaterally defined by the District). 34 The law expressly requires a material
revision to add new school sites or grade levels, but does not require a material
revision to change locations. Requiring a material revision and corresponding
community impact assessment for a change in location, particularly when the
District has unilaterally defined the boundaries of a “community” and has the
ability to impose any such moves through its Prop 39 offers, is an abuse of
authority.

29

d. Unlawfully Imposes a Burdensome “Community Impact Statement” as a Condition
of Approval. The Policy expands the analysis of whether a proposed charter school
is “demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in which
the school is proposing to locate” by adding factors not established by law. 35 These
include “trends in declining/increasing enrollment; effective use of district
facilities and resources; and, needs to achieve adequacy of funding for public

LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 12; Educ. Code § 47505(b)
Compare Ochoa v. Anaheim City 11 Cal.App.4th 209 (2017)
31 07-09-20 Special Board of Education Meeting Video Stream, 6:42
32 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 18
33 07-09-20 Special Board of Education Meeting Video Stream, 1:45
34 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, pages 20, 34
35 54 Cal.4th 504
30

5

 schools.” 36 It also must include an analysis of the location and types of facilities
to be used by the charter school. 37 The Policy mistakenly relies on commentary in
legislative history as authority for adding these unlawful considerations, when the
plain language of the statute limits the factors the District may consider. 38

e. Restricts a Charter Petition’s Consideration by the District Board. The Policy sets
forth a lengthy and one-sided process for determining whether and when a
petition is deemed complete and received by the District. 39 The Act, as amended
by AB 1505, is specific about when a petition is deemed received for purposes of
triggering the timeline for approval. 40 Accordingly, this process is prohibited.
The Policy also prevents petitioners from resubmitting a petition or submitting a
new petition within one year from original submission date, in the event a
petitioner chooses to withdraw a petition prior to Board action. The Act and
implementing regulations set forth specific timelines under which the governing
board of a school district must grant or deny a charter petition, 41 and the District
must comply with these timelines regardless of when a petition is submitted.

Further, the procedures established for allowing petitioners to present at Board
meetings do not comply with the law. The law requires “equivalent time and
procedures to present evidence and testimony to respond to the staff
recommendations and findings.” 42 Yet, the Policy states that "[I]tems placed on
the consent agenda would not necessitate the provision of equivalent time to
petitioners since District staff will not be making a presentation" and “[T]he
LAUSD Board may ask District staff follow-up questions regarding the
recommendation.” 43 If the LAUSD Board does so, equivalent time procedures
would not apply.” Because the District has sole discretion over whether to place
items on the consent agenda, the District could deny petitioners any opportunity
to present. In addition, by allowing only District staff to respond to questions
posed by the Board, these procedures would result in more presentation time
being afforded to District staff.

f. Prohibits Access to Equitable Funding. The Policy states that “If a petitioner’s
budget includes borrowing against the school’s future revenues as a source of
funding (“factoring of receivables”), this may lead to findings regarding the
proposed charter school’s financial sustainability.” 44 The practice of borrowing
against receivables is a lawful method of ensuring cashflow, particularly when

LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, pages 18-20
LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, pages 18-20
38 Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 260 (“The statute's plain meaning controls the court's interpretation unless its
words are ambiguous”)
39 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 6
40 Educ. Code. § 47605 (b) (“A petition is deemed received by the governing board of the school district for purposes of commencing the
timelines described in this subdivision on the day the petitioner submits a petition to the district office, along with a signed certification
that the petitioner deems the petition to be complete.”)
41 Educ. Code. § 47605 (b).
42 Educ. Code. § 47605 (b).
43 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, pages 9 and 23
44 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 11
36
37

6

 state education funding is deferred, and is often the only method available to
charter schools that lack the same borrowing power as local school districts.
Accordingly, this is not a permissible justification for denial under the law.

g. Fails to Accurately Restate the Legislature’s Intent. The Policy recites the
justifications for denial, but omits the underlying premise that the District “shall
be guided by the intent of the Legislature that charter schools are and should
become an integral part of the California educational system and that the
establishment of charter schools should be encouraged.”

h. Imposes Additional Unlawful Renewal Standards. The procedures outlined for
consideration of a renewal petition are not consistent with the law. To begin, the
Policy indicates that staff will only engage in the review process if the charter
school has met renewal criteria. 45 Determining if a school has met renewal
criteria is the Board’s role. The Policy also states that the District may “approve a
renewal petition with or without conditions and/or benchmarks.” 46 The notion of
conditional or benchmarked renewals is now preempted by specific renewal
terms tied to the renewal eligibility tiers established by AB 1505. 47

While not included in the current version of the Policy, requests for amendments
made by Board members during the July 9, 2020 meeting would also
impermissibly expand criteria for renewal of a charter school petition. We noted
that Board Members Goldberg and Schmerelson requested to include charter
school personnel turnover rates as evidence of an unsound educational program
for purposes of denying a renewal petition. 48 The law outlines specific standards
and criteria for renewal, and an authorizer is not permitted to expand upon these
criteria. In addition, with respect to consideration of personnel turnover, it is
worth noting that turnover can often be attributed to individual growth
opportunities, relocations, external budget pressures, or other reasons which are
often confidential.

i.

We further note that Board Member Goldberg requested that “a charter that owes
the district money at time of renewal should not be renewed.” 49 As above, this is
not a permissible justification for nonrenewal under the law. Further, the question
of whether a “charter school owes the District money” is often a disputed question
of law and fact, and is not a permissible basis for denying a charter school renewal.
Contradicts Express Requirements for Prompt Appellate Review. The Policy for
requesting the documentary record for purposes of appeal is not in accord with
the law. The law explicitly requires the documentary record be prepared “no later
than 10 business days after the request of the petitioner is made.” 50 The Policy

LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 22
LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 23
47 Educ. Code § 47607, 47607.2
48 07-09-20 Special Board of Education Meeting Video Stream, at 8:12
49 07-09-20 Special Board of Education Meeting Video Stream, at 8:18
50 Id. § 47605(k)(2)(a)
45
46

7

 attempts to circumvent this timeline by requiring that a request be made in
writing during certain hours of the day and starts the timeline from the District’s
acceptance of the request. 51 It is also worth noting that this process does not align
with the process and timeline for reciprocal oversight demands from the District
to charter schools.

The timeline for acting upon a petition on remand from the County Office of
Education or State Board of Education is similarly inconsistent with the law. The
Act requires the District to act upon a remanded petition within 30 days of receipt
by the remanding agency. 52 Yet, the Policy provides that the petition shall be
reviewed 30 days from “the date on which receipt of the remanded petition has
been placed on the agenda for an LAUSD Board meeting.” 53 This interpretation
impermissibly allows the District to delay acting upon a remanded petition.

j.

Additionally, the procedures for posting staff findings of remanded petitions are
not in accord with the law. The Policy states that "LAUSD will post any staff
recommendations related to the remanded petition in compliance with the Ralph
M. Brown Act."54 These remanded petitions are governed by the same statutory
provisions as new petitions. As such, findings must be posted 15 days in advance
of the meeting at which the Board will act upon the petition and the District must
provide the petitioner with equivalent time to present.

Restricts Autonomy of Existing Schools. The Policy impermissibly applies the
standards and criteria for material revisions, including the community and fiscal
impact analysis, to nonmaterial changes, such as changes in location. 55 In using
the term “material,” the Legislature expressed their intent that certain changes
would be subject to the standards and criteria described in Education Code 47605,
while others would not. The statutory provision defining the types of changes that
are deemed “material” for purposes of remand during the appeal process further
demonstrate this point. 56 The District is abusing its discretion in imposing a
material revision process to nonmaterial changes. In doing so, it is restricting the
ability of charter schools to operate autonomously from the District, as intended
by the Legislature.

k. Unlawfully Delegates Board Powers to Staff. The Policy requires, as a condition of
approval of a new petition, that the petitioner execute all applicable Memoranda
of Understanding (MOU) or agreements prior to Board action. 57 There is no basis
in law for this requirement, and the District is not permitted to impose additional
criteria for approval of a charter petition. 58 In addition, this requirements puts

LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 32
Educ. Code. § 47605(k)
53 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 32
54 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 32
55 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, pages 34-35 (for example, “Regardless of whether a change in the charter is deemed
to be “material” or “non-material,” the CSD will still review the request using the standards and criteria for consideration of a material
revision.”).
56 Educ. Code. § 47605 (k).
57 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 9
58 54 Cal.4th 504
51
52

8

 l.

petitioner in a position of agreeing to the District’s onerous and unilateral terms
under duress.

Rewrites the Law and Imposes Burdensome Requirements on Charter School
Governance. The Policy goes beyond the scope of the law by misstating the law
and imposing additional requirements on charter schools concerning governance.
While 47604.1 applies certain requirements to charter schools, charter schools
are not actually subject to the very same standards as other local educational
agencies (as suggested by the policy). The Policy also misstates provisions of the
public records act. The Policy further misstates provisions of Government Code
section 1090 as applied to charter schools, and does not account for the
exceptions under the law. 59

m. Restricts Charter Independence by Imposing Specific Charter Language. The
Policy imposes “District Required Language” (“DRL”), noting that such language
must be included in each new and renewing charter petition. 60 As previously
expressed to the District, we object to the imposition of any required language on
charter petitioners as a condition of charter approval. The District lacks the
authority to impose DRL on charter petitioners, as well as to deny charter
petitions that do not conform to the District’s preferences. 61

n. Ignores the Positive Impacts of Charter Schools on a Community. The Policy
expands application of the “fiscal impact” determination with respect to
determining whether a proposed charter is “demonstrably unlikely to serve the
interests of the entire community.” The Policy allows this determination to be
broadly based on “revenue losses” or “impacts to staff positions” for district
schools. 62 The law explicitly requires that this determination be tied to specific
facts regarding the extent to which a proposed program would undermine or
duplicate existing programs. 63 In addition, this analysis fails to reflect long-term,
positive fiscal impacts to the community or impacts with respect to the entire
district budget.

The cumulative effect of the aforementioned provisions of the Policy is to discourage the
establishment of charter schools, which infringes on charter public school students
fundamental right to education. We urge the District to propose amendments to the New
Charter Policy to comply with law prior to the August 4, 2020 Board meeting. 64 To aid in this
effort, CCSA Local Advocacy staff are prepared to provide an edited version to LAUSD’s
Charter School Division staff. We will monitor the District’s consideration of these changes,
and will consider all legal options available to us if the District proceeds to implement the
New Charter Policy without amendments aligning its terms to the law.
LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 39
LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 68
61 54 Cal.4th 504
62 LAUSD Policy and Procedures for Charter Schools, page 20
63 Educ. Code. § 47605 (c)(7)
64 07-09-20 Special Board of Education Meeting Video Stream, see 9:01 and 9:30
59
60

9

 Please also be aware that the State Board of Education is expected to promulgate regulations
implementing AB 1505, and the Policy may ultimately be inconsistent with those regulations.

Finally, we would like to call your attention to the apparent lack of understanding of charter
school law and current district policy expressed at the July 9, 2020 meeting. 65 To ensure that
future policy developments are consistent with the law, we believe it is critical for members
of the Board and District staff to understand the key elements of charter school law, as well
as changes to the law over the past few years. We ask that fundamental misunderstandings
of the law be addressed before any subsequent policy vote take place.
Sincerely,

RICARDO J. SOTO
Chief Advocacy Officer and General Counsel
RS:AM:
C:

65

Richard Vladovic, President, and Members of the Board of Education, Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD)
Austin Beutner, Superintendent
Pedro Sacido, Chief of Staff
Veronica Arreguin, Chief Strategy Officer
Jose Cole-Gutiérrez, Director, Charter School Division

07-09-20 Special Board of Education Meeting Video Stream, see 6:47, 6:58, 7:06, 8:36

10

 July 8, 2020
Honorable Board Members and Superintendent Beutner,
We represent 80 non-profit organizations within the L.A. Unified boundaries or currently
overseen by L.A. Unified. Our public schools serve over 100,000 students across Los Angeles.
Our education models are unique, the communities we serve are different and diverse, but
we are united in our mission to deliver meaningful outcomes for the students, families, and
communities we serve.
On behalf of those communities, we are writing to oppose the draft proposed L.A.
Unified "Policies and Procedures for Charter Schools" that the Board will consider on
Thursday, July 9 and request a delay on the policy vote to July 30 to comply with your
current authorizing policy.
The draft local policy comes before the L.A. Unified board as the result of a historic legislative
negotiation, the intent and spirit of which was to end the polarization and "us versus them"
dynamics that have underpinned much of the California public education discourse for years.
AB 1505 was informed by the work of a multi-stakeholder taskforce convened by
Superintendent of Public Instruction Thurmond, which included labor partners and the
charter community. The bill that was ultimately signed into law was authored by Assembly
Members O'Donnell, Bonta, McCarty, and Smith. The law amends the Charters Schools Act,
and importantly put forward that "...the chartering authority shall be guided by the intent of
the Legislature that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the California
educational system and that the establishment of charter schools should be encouraged."
As you know, charter public schools in Los Angeles have made meaningful, well-documented
contributions to our public school system since the Charter Schools Act was passed in 1992.
Los Angeles charter public schools are closing equity and opportunity gaps for English
Language Learners, Students with Disabilities, Black and Latino students, and students from
low-income families: research from Stanford and USC continually demonstrates the
outstanding success of Los Angeles students who attend charter schools. Last year, L.A.
Unified charter school students who are African American, Latinx, socioeconomically
disadvantaged, English learners, or student with disabilities were more likely than their peers
across the state or in the District to score higher on state tests, graduate from high school,
earn their a-g credits, and gain admissions to and attend a UC or CSU university.
Given the positive impact on students and families to date, it is especially important that L.A.
Unified gets the work of updating local charter policy right. L.A. Unified has a 25-year legacy
as a one of the highest-quality charter authorizers in the state and country. The policies you
pass directly affect the entire public school system. L.A. Unified has been a leader in
leveraging its charter policy to improve outcomes for all kids: during the same time charters
have grown, student achievement across all local public schools has improved, and far more
students are graduating now District-wide than before the original Charter Schools Act
passed. Students and families in Los Angeles depend on L.A. Unified to continue to lead on
good policy creation and implementation for kids.

1

We therefore ask the L.A. Unified Board to uphold parent and student rights under the
Charter Schools Act, AB 1505, and Proposition 39 to support, not destroy, great schools to
close equity and opportunity gaps. You can do so by directing staff to simply stick to the law
like other authorizers already have across the state and eliminate subjective additions and
modifications that will likely undermine our shared progress.
Recognizing our shared progress and history, we also must also recognize that we are in a
moment of grave world-wide uncertainty where systemic classism and racism--including in
our education system--are being laid bare. The destabilizing impact of creating a policy that
will shut quality schools down as we find our way out of a pandemic, economic crisis, and
learning crisis is unconscionable. We need every tool possible to get every child back on
track, learning, regardless of neighborhood, race, or socio-economic background. The last
thing we should consider right now is drafting policy to shut down or close off good
education options. 
We ask the district to follow through on the Governor's intent to deliver a "framework for
charter and traditional schools to work together collaboratively in service of their
communities and neighborhoods" by meaningfully integrating charters into a Community of
Schools vision for joint planning around facilities, enrollment, and curriculum so we can truly
work together to dismantle the injustice perpetuated by an entire education system that
needs to do more for kids.
We have done good work together, and we have a responsibility to improve these efforts and
do even more together for students and families with the local implementation of AB 1505.
Unfortunately, as written, the policy before the board distorts AB 1505 law to strip over
100,00 students, 80% of whom are Black and Latino, of their existing rights under the Charter
Schools Act and Proposition 39. It treats families and students who choose the charter
schools L.A. Unified authorizers and oversees as second-class citizens. The policy appears to
be designed to deliver on UTLA leadership's goal to ban new charter schools and close
existing quality schools in ways that have no basis in the new law. This draft policy will
undercut the possibility of collaboration and exacerbate academic inequity.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that this Thursday, July 9, the Board take the
following action:
1. Delay the vote to July 30 or later to comply with L.A. Unified's current "Policy for
Charter School Authorizing" which states that "Any proposed modifications to this policy
or related administrative procedures will be sunshined with at least 20 business days of
advance notice."
2. Modify the policy by striking the draft language highlighted in the attached redline
document and outlined below, which not only go far beyond AB 1505, but often is in
unlawful, direct conflict with the Charter Schools Act and Proposition 39.
3. Develop a collaborative plan to engage all stakeholders including charter public
schools in the District Community of Schools vision around facilities use, enrollment, and

2

student need to ensure that students and families, regardless of the school they attend,
benefit from joint planning and coordination.
If the District does not modify this policy, it will ultimately deny quality new and
existing charters as a matter of practice as it undermines existing law. Those schools will be
approved at the County or by the State Board under Abuse of Discretion provisions, making
collaboration, joint planning, and sharing of best practices to improve outcomes for kids
almost impossible. That is not the outcome any of us want for our students, families, and
communities, and we hope L.A. Unified agrees.
We are committed to working with you to develop a shared vision for collaboration that
supports a strong Los Angeles public school system. The policy-making process to date,
where policies have been finalized for months and were only shared with us seven days
before a subsequent rush to vote, has not afforded communities most affected by these
decisions with the opportunity to weigh in on the final proposals. We represent and work with
critical stakeholder groups including Black and Latino parent and student communities,
Indigenous Tribes and organizations, and the Option 3 Charter Operated Program just to
name a few. Their voices should be heard, and we need the time and space to appropriately
to weigh in. Any next step must uphold the intent and letter of the law and support
stakeholder's rights.
Below, we have included a list of top-priority policy concerns we hope the board will direct
staff to address within the draft policy. We respectfully request the opportunity to meet with
the Board, District leadership and staff to address these changes.
In partnership,

Xavier Reyes
Founder and CEO
Alta Public Schools

Stephen Bluestein
Executive Director
Ivy Bound Academy

Adriana Abich
Chief Executive Officer
Camino Nuevo Academy

Ricardo Mireles
Executive Director
Academia Avance

Dana Hammond
Chief Executive Officer

Dan Katzir
President and CEO
Alliance College-Ready Public Schools

Marcos Aguilar
Co-Founder and Executive Director

Alfonso Paz and Cesar Lopez
Co-Directors
APEX Academy

Anahuacalmecac International University
Preparatory of North America

Academy of Media Arts

Kalin Balcomb
Executive Director
Arts in Action Community Charter Schools

3

Stefan Bean
Area Superintendent
Aspire Public Schools

Linda Pierce
Principal
Champs Charter HS of Arts

Erin Studer
Executive Director
Chime Charter School

Mark Kleger-Heine
Executive Director
Citizens of the World Charter Schools Los Angeles

Vanessa Jackson
Executive Director
Collegiate Charter High School

Karen Smith
Principal
Discovery Charter Preparatory #2

Oliver Sicat
Chief Executive Officer
Ednovate

David Hussey
Executive Director
El Camino Real Charter High School

Ted Morris
Co-Founder
Endeavor College Preparatory

Alison Diaz
Founder
Environmental Charter Schools

Leslie Chang
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Equitas Academy Charter Schools

Irene Sumida
Executive Director
Fenton Charter Public Schools

Liza Bercovici
Executive Director
Gabriella Charter Schools

Carrie Wagner
Executive Director
GALS Los Angeles

Chris Jones
Executive Director
Goethe International Charter School

Cristina de Jesus
President and CEO
Green Dot Public Schools California

Mathew McClenahan
Principal
High Tech Los Angeles High School

Katie Chau
Co-Founder
El Rio Community School

Hattie Mitchell
Founder
Collegiate Charter High School

Brian Bauer
Executive Director
Granada Hills Charter High School

Rachel Garber
Principal
High Tech Los Angeles Middle School

4

Nadia Shaiq
Chief Executive Officer
Isana Academies

Stephen Bluestein
Executive Director
Ivy Bound Academy

Myranda Marsh
Executive Director
James Jordan Middle School

Marcia Aaron
Founder and CEO
KIPP SoCal

Amy Held
Executive Director
Larchmont Charter School

David Calvo
Principal

Arina Goldring
Executive Director
Los Angeles Leadership Academy

Linda Lee
Executive Director
Los Feliz Charter School for the Arts

Alfredo Rubalcava
Chief Executive Officer
Magnolia Public Schools

Paul Okaiteye
Chief Executive Officer
New Designs Charter Schools

Amy Berfield
Executive Director
New Heighs Charter School

Richard Thomas
Executive Director
New Horizons Charter School

Samantha Navarro
Principal
New Millennium Secondary School

Jennifer Quinones
Principal
New Village Girls Academy

Mark Ryan
Superintendent
North Valley Military Institute

Drew Furedi
President and CEO
Para los Ninos

George Mora
Executive Director
Port of Los Angeles High School

Gayle Nadler
Executive Director
Multicultural Learning Center

Los Angeles Academy of Arts and
Enterprise

5

Sidnie Gallegos and P.K. Candeaux
Directors
Renaissance Arts Academy

Natasha Barriga
Founder and Head of School
Resolute Academy Charter School

Co-Founder, Executive Director
Scholarship Prep Charter School

Emilio Pack
Executive Director
STEM Preparatory Schools

Raul Carranza
Superintendent of Schools
TEACH Public Schools

Carolyn Yaffe
Executive Director
Valley Charter Schools

Anne Cochran
Executive Director
Valley International Prep High School

Kerry Kletter and Jennifer Clark
Directors
Village Charter Academy

TyAnthony Davis
Founder and Head of School
Vox Collegiate

Shawna Draxton
Executive Director
WISH Charter Schools

Yvette King-Berg
Executive Director
YPI Charter Schools

Charla Harris
Executive Director
Learning by Design

Jacqueline Elliot
Chief Executive Officer
PUC National

Gloria Romero

Rhonda Deomampo
Chief Executive Officer
Synergy Academies

Josh Stock
Executive Director
Lashon Academy

Jerome Greening
Chief Executive Officer
Puente Learning Center

Grace Lee-Chang
Chief Executive Officer
The Accelerated Schools

Fidel Ramirez
Chief Executive Officer
Vaughn Next Century Learning Center

Hrag Hamalian
Executive Director
Bright Star Schools

Parker Hudnut
Chief Executive Officer
ICEF Public Schools

Lynn Izakowitz
Executive Director
Our Community School

6

Corri Ravarre
Chief Executive Officer
Extera Public Schools

Dr. Pam Magee
Executive Director/Principal
Palisades Charter High School

Aadil Naazir
Executive Director
Center for Advance Learning

Ari Bennett
Principal
Birmingham Community Charter High
School

Kristy Mack-Fett
Executive Director
Ocean Charter School

Miguel Gamboa
Principal
Watts Learning Center

Sue Andres Brown
Founder & Head of School
California Collegiate Charter School

LaTonya Derbigny
Executive Director
Invictus Leadership Academy

Brooke Rios
Executive Director
New Los Angeles Charter School

Valerie Braimah
Executive Director
City Charter Schools

Sylvia Fajardo
Executive Director
Pacoima Charter School

7

Summary of Priority Concerns and Abuse of Discretion in Proposed LAUSD Policies
o

Ignores the spirit and letter of the Charter Schools Act and retained in AB 1505 which
states clearly that "... the chartering authority shall be guided by the intent of the
Legislature that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the
California educational system and that the establishment of charter schools should be
encouraged."

o

Unlawfully broadens the applicability of the new provision concerning community
interest to focus on protecting adult interests and status quo systems and structures,
and not on the academic needs of students the charter school proposes to serve.

o

Takes away school's right to present witnesses and evidence to the board if their
denial recommendation is placed on the "Consent" agenda, undermining the spirit of
the law and public process for schools who most need a voice.

o

Repeatedly, unlawfully incorporates public facilities considerations into the
"Community Impact" assessment related to AB 1505 in an unlawful attempt by the
District to shirk its responsibility to comply with Prop. 39. This overreach reinforces
UTLA's political strategy to close charters by violating student and family rights under
Prop. 39.

o

Unlawfully extends the rationale to trigger material revisions and corresponding
"Community Impact" assessments for existing charter schools who might need to
change public or private facilities, creating opportunities to shut down quality schools
who move, something that is not provided for in AB 1505.

o

Provides no consideration of the positive fiscal impact charter schools have on local
communities (graduation rates, employment, etc.).

o

Ties "Community Impact" to the District's "Community of Schools" model, which has
yet to be defined, has not been discussed with the charter community, and has no
known integration of charters in its planning.

o

Allows the District to deny a charter school based on the District's desire to "achieve
adequate funding for public schools," ignoring that charter schools are similarly
under-funded public schools.

o

Unlawfully restricts charter submission and resubmission timelines, making it much
more challenging for school founders to sufficiently plan for a thoughtful, communityfocused school opening.

o

Authorizes District staff to validate parent or teacher petition signatures - a tactic that
has historically been used to intimidate and harass parents interested in a
charter school and found to be unenforceable by courts across the State.

o

Continues the District's extra-legal practice of levying arbitrary renewal benchmarks
not described in law.

8