Skip to content

AB 1100 Op Ed


Wednesday, September 18, 2002

By Joe Simitian

The tension between the Sequoia Union High School District and local charter schools can only be described as regrettable. Indeed, that’s probably an understatement.

Contrary to the impression left by recent Almanac articles, however, a bill I’ve authored (Assembly Bill 1100) is designed to mitigate some of that tension by leaving more, not less, in the way of funding on the table for districts like Sequoia and charter school operators, like four in our area, operating with out-of-district charters. That’s why the bill had strong support from the Sequoia Union High School District as well as the California Network of Educational Charters (CANEC) on behalf of charter schools.

The need for AB 1100 arose last year when District officials discovered that a new State law (Senate Bill 955) turned charter school funding upside down for a handful of “basic aid,” self-funded, districts – districts like Sequoia with out-of-district charters serving local students.

In years past, the State had paid the $5,400 per pupil tab for these charter school students, but SB 955 mandated a total reversal of responsibility by imposing that $5,400 per pupil cost on the district of origin, even though the students technically no longer attended schools “in the district.” If SB 955 were left to stand as is, the blow would be twofold.

First, Sequoia, and similarly situated districts around the State, would take an immediate and substantial hit for the total cost of educating students who attend out-of-district charter schools (in Sequoia’s case about $1 million a year, growing to many millions of dollars a year over time).

Second, under SB 955 charter schools that had been able to negotiate with districts to provide funding supplements would undoubtedly see those supplements disappear; and, given the new costs, would experience an even greater resistance by basic-aid school districts to the efforts of charter schools to provide additional educational options.

It seemed to me there were three ways some relief might be achieved. First, delay implementation of SB 955’s provisions so that the District and charter schools serving students living in the District would have time to plan and budget accordingly. Second, phase in the implementation of SB 955 over a period of years to soften the blow. Third, and perhaps most important, require that only 70% of the $5,400 per pupil cost be paid by the District (with the State picking up the remainder), in recognition of the fact that the District still had certain fixed costs which didn’t disappear when the students left. If the District were allowed to retain that 30%, other District priorities might not be threatened, and the potential for some sort of negotiated charter school supplement would still remain.

My effort to soften the blow for all parties was well received by Sequoia and local charters, as well as similarly situated districts and charter schools elsewhere in the State. Both houses of the State Legislature passed the bill by wide margins with bipartisan support. And, contrary to the Almanac’s recent story, charter school forces around the state, as represented by the California Network of Educational Charters, support the bill.

In fact, the only opposition to AB 1100 came from the State Department of Finance, which prefers that SB 955 be left to stand – leaving local taxpayers on the hook for the full cost of these programs, damaging the Sequoia District and further threatening the viability of already embattled charters.

AB 1100 makes the best of a bad situation. It mitigates the impact on districts like Sequoia and their out-of-district charter schools, and it phases in the provisions of SB 955.

For our kids’ sake, let’s hope the Governor signs it.

(Assemblyman Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) represents portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and serves as Chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittees on Education Finance.)