As it turns out, it depends on who you ask.

The Next Generation Science Standards, developed by a partnership of U.S. states and national research organizations presents one idea. Emphasizing science and engineering in practice, with a focus on the core disciplines and their intersections, the standards have been adopted by 20 states and the District of Columbia. Another 25 states have versions of those standards with some variations. Five states have entirely different approaches. Unlike with Race to the Top and the Common Core, there are currently no financial incentives for states to sign on to the science standards.

But that’s not all. The National Science and Technology Council released its own plan on the future of STEM education last year. States also have separate individual working definitions of STEM commonly approved through their legislatures. There’s no guarantee that these different conceptions of STEM actually line up with one another. Even within a state, the adopted definition could have little to do with how districts instruct STEM in classrooms.

“No one’s really getting the room together and saying, ‘Let’s nail this (down) so that we have a common language,” said Courtney Carmichael, supervisor of curriculum and instruction for Closter Public Schools in New Jersey.

Carmichael presented her research in June in Philadelphia at the 2019 International Society for Technology in Education national conference, the largest education conference in the country. At the presentation, Carmichael argued that differences in how states understand STEM education have significant consequences for career and college readiness across the U.S.

Scientists in the early 2000s originally coined the term SMET but changed it to STEM for easier pronunciation. It was designed to give students skills to prepare for jobs in growing markets like engineering and computer programming. But taking highly skilled STEM work and simplifying it for kids isn’t easy. Part of the confusion around STEM comes from what’s lost in that translation, said Nancy Butler Songer, professor of education at Drexel University in Philadelphia. If the end goal is to have an adult build an app or design a bridge, where do you start with a child?

“There are some similarities and some profound differences between what professionals do and what kids should be doing in schools,” she said.

The first disagreement around STEM might be the simplest: what exactly is the relationship between its letters? Educators have been conflicted for years over whether to treat STEM as an acronym — composed of discrete parts — or as an integrated model of teaching.

“I think there’s a fundamental confusion about whether STEM refers to the science and engineering and mathematics disciplines themselves… or whether STEM refers to a different approach to learning that involves collaboration, computational thinking, creativity, problem solving, design thinking, etc,” Songer said.

Carmichael described one example of the more integrated method as teaching kindergarteners how to build a toy boat that will travel from one side of a small pool to the other. It may not be the same as presenting isolated lessons on addition tables and basic physics, but it covers all the bases.

“You have to engineer a boat, you have to make a boat, you have to figure out what floats, you have to understand the principle of why it floats, maybe some ideas about wind, and then you have to incorporate the mast that goes across,” she said. Doing that means weaving together lessons from many STEM fields.

And even for those who accept this interdisciplinary approach, there are different schools of thought on whether “interdisciplinary” is even the right descriptor. The word implies a meeting of distinct subjects, but it doesn’t encompass comprehensive integration, some say. For that, “transdisciplinary” has become increasingly popular.

“Some places say it has to be transdisciplinary to be STEM,” says Songer. “There’s confusion about the definition of transdisciplinary versus interdisciplinary, which just means more than one in my understanding,” she said.

But states can’t seem to agree on whether or not the integrated methodology is important enough to code into policy. According to Carmichael’s research from 2017, 21 states included some multidisciplinary element in their definitions. Five states defined STEM as siloed subjects and another 15 states included both versions of STEM in their definitions. Nine states used neither.

Massachusetts, typically seen as a leader in education trends, notably opted out entirely from making a STEM definition. The state government has argued that “STEM is currently an acronym without much depth.”

Those variations might seem odd. But it gets more opaque. Because even though states have these working definitions of STEM, there’s no guarantee they are reflected in state policy — or in classroom instruction. Many states have STEM frameworks that extend beyond, and sometimes even conflict with, their working definitions.

“I could put a definition on a Department of Ed website. Box checked, walk away. But when a legislature is appropriating millions of dollars year in, year out” that definition isn’t the sole influencer on policy decisions, said Jennifer Dounay Zinth, lead consultant at Zinth Consulting LLC and former researcher with the Education Commission of the States.

For example, even though Massachusetts decided not to establish a working definition of STEM, they still have a detailed state plan for excellence in STEM education.

The debate also continues over whether STEM is inclusive enough with its letters. For many educators, STEAM which includes an “A” for art is more appropriate. North Dakota, South Carolina and Rhode Island have incorporated STEAM into their working state definitions, according to Carmichael’s research. She argued that art is already covered with the “E” because engineering includes a focus on aesthetics and design.

Other advocates have pushed for even more additions, like STREAM, which includes a “R” for reading — or sometimes religion in religious education — or STEM-H, which includes health.

Carmichael, however, reasoned that with too many additions, the term loses its meaning. Throw art, reading, and history into the mix and what you’re describing becomes well, just school.

These diverting ideas of what STEM means might seem like simple semantics. But semantics are rarely simple. And without a clear working understanding of STEM, the U.S. risks unnecessary barriers to preparing students for the future, Songer argued.

“It kind of doesn’t matter a lot exactly which definition you latch onto, but this is a really important concept for countries and schools and lots of different federal ministries and governments to get right because this is where a growing number of jobs are in the future,” said Songer.

Nationally, there are some ongoing efforts to build more of a consensus, including the STEMx network, which connects education organizations from 16 states across the country, including Tennessee, Ohio and Oregon, to share instructional tools and boost the number of STEM teachers. The network helps its members adapt successful STEM initiatives from one state to another — and understands that state context differs.

“We’re really not focusing on getting a universal agreement on what STEM has to look like. There are components within STEM such as rural education … that apply across the country. So whether we agree exactly on what the definition of STEM has to be, we understand that it is a mindset and a way of thinking,” said Wes Hall, director of STEMx.

Citizen Science, a federal agency, is another example of a push to build interest in STEM by bringing students across the country together with working scientists to contribute to meaningful research.

These are promising steps to researchers including Songer and Carmichael. But more work is needed to keep pace with the demands of the economy — and of the globe. After all, some of the biggest challenges the world faces will require STEM-related solutions, Songer said. Take climate change, for instance. Understanding that global dynamic demands training in chemistry, biology, earth and atmospheric sciences, medicine, and more.

“If we’re not attempting to solve those problems by clarifying our stance, we’re never going to get to the point that we’re going to be successful with policy,” she said. “I think we really need to get our act together.”

A line forms Wednesday as speakers wait to voice their opposition to AB 1505 in Sacramento. (Photo: Lety Gomez via Twitter)

After a seven-hour hearing and in a room inundated with advocates in color-coordinated T-shirts, the California Senate Education Committee narrowly passed two bills this week that will more strictly regulate charters, including giving local districts greater leeway to deny charter applications.

The sharply contested bills split the committee 4-3, with state Sen. Steve Glazer, a Democrat, siding with the committee’s two Republicans in opposition. The committee, which covered 25 bills during its day-long session, took several earlier votes on the charter bills that deadlocked 2-2 and then 3-3 before all seven members were present.

The two bills tighten restrictions on charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently operated, and will now advance to the Senate Appropriations Committee before moving to the Senate floor for a vote.

AB 1505, the more controversial of the two, would grant local districts more discretion to approve or deny new charter petitions and narrow the existing appeals process for denied applications. The Education Committee vote came after compromise language put forth by Gov. Gavin Newsom was put into the proposed regulations. The Assembly’s version would virtually eliminate the appeals process and give sole authorizing power to local districts, which often see charter schools as competition.

The two witnesses who spoke in support of the bill at Wednesday’s hearing before the vote — Cindy Marten, superintendent of San Diego Unified School District, and Dana Dean, director of the California School Boards Association — argued that AB 1505 is more democratic by giving local districts more control over the schools that operate within their boundaries.

“The charter school laws are outdated. This bill strengthens local control by providing school districts with more tools to evaluate how new charter schools will impact all students in the district, including financial impact,” said Calif. Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell in a statement. O’Donnell chairs the Assembly Education Committee and, along with Assemblymember Rob Bonta, introduced the measure to the committee on Wednesday.

Appreciate the ongoing discussion on #AB1505 by @AsmPatODonnell & me. It's important we create the best possible solution for all CA students & allow strong local review of newly-proposed charter schools & their potential impact on a district’s programs & fiscal health. #CAleg pic.twitter.com/d88HIz04Pw

— Rob Bonta (@RobBontaCA) July 11, 2019

After the vote, the California Teachers Association, the powerful state teachers union that co-authored AB 1505 and made limiting charter expansion central to teacher strikes in Los Angeles and Oakland earlier this year, took to Twitter to celebrate.

https://twitter.com/WeAreCTA/status/1149090621937684480

KIPP SoCal Public Schools, which operates 19 charter schools educating roughly 8,200 students in Los Angeles and San Diego, described the vote as legislators putting politics before students.

We are disappointed in today's 4-3 vote for anti-charter legislation AB1505. We hope that @DrPanMD @ilike_mike @SenatorLeyva @SenMariaEDurazo will focus on real solutions to fix public education in the future. Thank you @ScottWilkCA @Steve_Glazer @L2ChangCA #KidsNotPolitics

— KIPP SoCal Public Schools (@KIPPSoCal) July 10, 2019

Opponents of the bill, mostly charter school advocates and families, also spoke at Wednesday’s hearing. Carlos Marquez, representing the California Charter Schools Association, and Caitlin O’Halloran, representing the Charter Schools Development Center, argued AB 1505 could threaten the growth of high-performing charter schools. Both expressed caution at the bill’s allowance for districts to consider the financial impact charter schools would have on their budgets. This is despite a new amendment to the legislation that would restrict financial considerations only to districts already under economic strain.

The bill would also allow districts to deny charter petitions if they too closely resemble existing school programs. That’s a problem for charter advocates who argue that existing programs that are failing students should be subject to competition from other charters.

“We find it unacceptable that AB 1505 grants districts broad discretion to deny new charters on the basis of running a similar program with no regard of whether the program is failing kids,” Marquez said at the hearing.

On Thursday, Myrna Castrejón, president of the California Charter Schools Association released a statement, responding to the vote.

“We all agree that many of California’s students are not being well-served in our public schools today,” she said. “Let’s not sacrifice the needs of our most vulnerable students who are excelling in charter schools.”

• Read more: Commentary: When success is not enough — charter schools delivering better outcomes for low-income students still target of progressive ire

The version of AB 1505 that passed the Senate Education Committee has some notable differences from the legislation that passed the Assembly. Last week, representatives from Newsom’s office introduced several amendments to the bill that softened some of its most restrictive elements.

While earlier versions of AB 1505 sought to eliminate the existing appeals process for denied charter petitions, the current version now allows an appeal to the county Board of Education and also to the state Board of Education — though only if the state determines other authorizers abused their discretion.

Some of the new amendments in AB 1505 also come from a report by the state’s charter task force that Newsom convened, including extending the timeline by which districts need to approve charter petitions from 60 days to 90 days. Some measures, including ones allowing a district to consider whether a charter petition would be redundant, and one imposing a one-year moratorium on virtual charters, also come from the task force’s report, although they did not receive unanimous support from its members.

• Read more: With new report from state task force, pressure mounts on Gov. Newsom to break silence on pending legislation that would restrict charter schools
  

The new version of the bill includes criteria for when districts can deny renewal applications for existing charter schools as well. Unlike traditional public schools, charters in California must seek renewal status every few years. The current version of AB 1505 would prevent districts from denying a renewal application if the charter program made it to the highest two levels of state academic indicators. On the other hand, denial of a renewal application must be weighed for charter programs that measure in the lowest two levels of state academic indicators.

AB 1507 would close a loophole in the state’s current charter policy that allows some districts to boost their budgets by approving charter schools outside their boundaries. While considered less controversial than AB 1505, AB 1507 also saw long lines of advocates expressing support or opposition to the measure. At just over 1,300 schools, California has the most charter schools and charter school students of any state in the country.

• Read more: Lawmakers are trying to end a weird quirk of California’s charter school sector. Here’s why the state is so unusual

While the passage of the bills in the Senate Education Committee represents a win for its supporters, both sides acknowledged continued discussion is needed to reach a universally supported deal. More revisions to the legislation are expected before the final vote this fall. The state legislative session ends in September.

Marquez outlined several points within the bill that are still unacceptable to the California Charter Schools Association, including the limited appeals process, and criteria for charter schools applying for renewal. But, he noted at the hearing, “the window of opportunity to seek greater protections for our families and the schools they so cherish has not closed and we will continue to work with the administration, author, and proponents over the coming weeks to resolve outstanding issues.”

O’Donnell echoed that sentiment, saying in a statement, “I look forward to continuing conversations with the Governor’s office and others on the passage of this bill.”

This article was published in partnership with The 74. Sign up for The 74’s newsletter here.  

(Photo: AltSchool via Twitter)

The education startup AltSchool, founded in 2013 by two Silicon Valley alumni, has announced that it’s breaking from the chain of four private microschools it operates in the Bay Area and New York City. The schools are known for their tiny class sizes and emphasis on “student-centered learning,” which tailors curriculum to each individual student’s academic and social-emotional needs. Parents from these schools pushed for the transition in management after convening with the company.

AltSchool will rebrand as Altitude Learning this fall and will focus on distributing its education software product that is based on — and was tested in — these experimental schools. The company has also developed a two-year-old “partner network” — currently with 42 schools and districts across the U.S. — to share tools and professional development on student-centered learning. Almost every school in the network subscribes to the AltSchool software.

Devin Vodicka, chief impact officer at AltSchool (and soon, Altitude Learning) and former superintendent of the Vista Unified School District in California, hopes the transition will help the company focus on spreading its platform.

“The approach to the development of the software has been to use input from students and from educators,” he said. “Now that we have two years of partnering with schools that we are not operating under our belt, we are very confident we can continue to leverage that same approach throughout this partnership network and the lab schools themselves.”

The lab schools will now be run by Higher Ground, a Montessori school management group based in California. They will continue to participate in the partner network.

The original founders of AltSchool, former Google employee Max Ventilla and tech consultant Bharat Mediratta, will move to positions on Altitude’s board. Joining Vodicka at the head of Altitude as its incoming president is Ben Kornell, former director of the performance-based assessment nonprofit Envision Learning Partners and a former administrator and teacher in Bay Area public schools.

The company’s roots in Silicon Valley go beyond staffing. By 2017, AltSchool had raised more than $173 million from funders, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Thiel Foundation.

The AltSchool software has been praised by some of the company’s partners for transforming student-first teaching methods. Joe Erpelding, the principal of Design39Campus, a 1,200-student public K-8 school in San Diego, has been using AltSchool’s platform for a year in fourth and fifth grades and plans to extend it to sixth grade next year. The partner network was appealing to him because of the ongoing support it offers — something that’s not always guaranteed with groups hawking education software, he said.

“If you look at it as a vendor, I’m typically going to go buy … 5 bucks a kid or 10 bucks a kid but it comes with zero culture change,” said Erpelding.

In addition to helping launch the AltSchool Software, the partner network also trains schools on professional learning to help teachers adapt to a student-centered approach. Five schools within the network haven’t yet subscribed to the software but are still using the teacher training resources.

The AltSchool partner schools are in 12 states, mostly in California and New York City, with others scattered throughout the country from Alaska to the Terrell Independent School District in Texas. Just over half of these schools are private, while 15 are traditional public schools and another three are charters, which are publicly funded but independently operated. Altogether, the network includes more than 300,000 students. Vodicka said he was encouraged by the rising proportion of public schools in the network.

Erpelding also noted the impact on special education students in particular, especially those with Individualized Education Programs, plans developed for students with special needs. IEPs are typically assembled by professionals and teachers without student input, especially with younger students. But using one of the tools within the AltSchool software, he said, students can set their own social and emotional objectives.

“Guess who’s in that [IEP] meeting? Adult, adult, adult, adult,” he said. “When students know what their goal is, they’re going to put their goal into the AltSchool platform. They’re going to take video and photo evidence of their progress … and they’re going to showcase that.”

Not everyone has been such a fan of AltSchool. The company has received pushback in the past, especially for how it has managed its lab schools. Critics have viewed these schools, and their students, as “guinea pigs” for AltSchool as it tested its software product. In past years, the company has shuttered five of its schools.

AltSchool co-founder Ventilla has said in the past that these schools could be temporary and acknowledges that they were in part used for research and development. Vodicka confirmed that the company has learned valuable lessons from working in the lab schools. One example: Students are expected to record their work via photo or video and upload it into the AltSchool software. Little kids had trouble taking clear pictures, however, so the company developed a tool that requires both hands to take the photo.

Vodicka acknowledged that concerns over the future of these schools helped steer AltSchool to the current management transition. The company approached parents of these schools and assembled a steering committee, which ultimately requested moving to new operators.

“I think the net result is very positive,” he said. “We’ve learned that there is an entire community of practice and that we can be a part of that movement in a different way than we imagined at the initial stages of AltSchool.”

Critics have also pointed out that AltSchool’s software, at $100 to $150 per student annually, was prohibitively expensive for districts. The company has since changed the pricing model to reflect the two services (professional development and software product) it offers. Prices now vary, said Maggie Quale, communications officer and director of public relations for AltSchool.

But Vodicka said the company is “well-positioned for sustainability” and looking at new ways to expand the partner network. He and his colleagues are still taking feedback from the field about what makes for a sustainable price. Collaboration, he said, will be key to building a strong future for Altitude Learning.

“That’s really our goal,” he said. “The best way to do that is partnering with others that are committed to similar success.”

Disclosure: The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative provides financial support to The 74, the parent of LA School Report.

Parents advocating against AB 1505 and the other bills it was packaged with await the state Assembly’s public hearing on April 10. (Photo: Speak Up)

A controversial charter school regulation moving through the California legislature will take its next step Wednesday when the state Senate Education Committee holds a public hearing that’s expected to draw crowds of supporters and opponents of the state’s large charter school sector.

Assembly Bill 1505 would grant local districts sole authority to approve or deny petitions for charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently operated and often seen as competition by local school districts. Under the current system, both the county and state boards of education can approve petitions denied by districts on appeal. The state Assembly narrowly passed AB 1505 last month, although with a stipulation that a final version of the bill will retain some kind of appeals process extending beyond districts.

• Read more: Charter school showdown in Sacramento: Assembly moves forward with package of powerful regulations as proponents and teachers unions clash

The legislation began this spring as part of a package of bills rewriting state charter policy. The state Assembly ultimately only passed two. The other item, Assembly Bill 1507, closed a loophole some districts were using to boost their budgets by approving charter schools outside of their boundaries. The Senate Education Committee is considering both bills but Wednesday’s hearing will only cover AB 1505.

“I’m proud to co-author AB 1505, which will finally allow our local school boards to factor the financial, academic, and facilities impacts that charter schools will have on their districts,” state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, said last week. “Our locally elected boards are in the best position to determine whether a proposed charter school would negatively impact their district.”

In April, the state Assembly held its own public hearing on the bill amid a throng of advocates at the capital. Three witnesses for each side gave extended statements.

• Read more: Lawmakers are trying to end a weird quirk of California’s charter school sector. Here’s why the state is so unusual

The speakers in favor of AB 1505 comprised leaders from both the Oakland and San Diego Unified school districts, as well as a traditional public school advocate from the San Bernardino County District. All described their frustration when charter petitions their districts denied were approved by the county or state on appeal. In these cases, enrollment at traditional public schools fell as students moved to charters.

“The financial oversight and management challenges are complex and need to be supported by state law in order to be better addressed and best addressed locally,” said Oakland Unified board President Aimee Eng. At 27 percent, Oakland has the highest ratio of charter school students of any district in the state. Since the 2006-07 school year, nine charter schools in Eng’s district have opened after appealing for approval from the county.

The witnesses in opposition to the bill featured the CEO of a charter school network, a representative for the Sacramento County Board of Education, and Lety Gomez, a founding parent of a charter school in her East San Jose neighborhood. She voiced the concern among many critics of AB 1505 that the legislation would make it too easy for districts to close high-performing charter schools.

“This bill is trying to take away [from] communities of color the right to school choice and equal opportunity. I cannot afford private school for my daughter. And with the current cost of living, I cannot afford to move in order to find the school that best supports her,” she said.

That tension has come to a head across the state. In addition to restricting the appeals process for denied charter school applicants, AB 1505 also allows districts to consider the financial impact of charter schools on their budgets when making the decision. District school officials argue that charter schools siphon away badly needed funding, while charter proponents say their schools are being scapegoated for the fiscal mismanagement of district schools.

In a statement from February, when AB 1505 and its companion bills were first introduced, California Teachers Association President Eric Heins called for “significant changes in the decades-old laws governing charter schools that have allowed corporate charter schools to divert millions away from our neighborhood public schools.”

Pro-charter forces are worried the bill would essentially cut off charter school growth in the state. California has just over 1,300 charter schools, more than any other state in the country. Myrna Castrejon, president of the California Charter Schools Association, said in May that the bill would lead to “closing down the charter schools that are helping [vulnerable communities] learn and thrive.”

Should the Senate pass AB 1505, the measure would go to Gov. Gavin Newsom for approval. In June, representatives from two prominent civil rights groups, the National Action Network and the National Urban League, met with members of Newsom’s staff. Both oppose AB 1505 and argue it would harm California’s students of color, who tend to be among the lowest-performing in the state.

Newsom has so far been reticent to take a strong position on charter regulations but during his campaign he received the support of California teachers unions. Charter schools are typically not unionized and curbing their growth was at the heart of teacher strikes this year in Los Angeles and Oakland.

Adding to the complexity is a report released last month from the California Charter Task Force. Newsom assembled the group and charged it with studying the impact of charter schools on state education funding. The unanimous recommendations the task force published countered the goals of AB 1505 by stating “no changes were recommended to the [charter schools] appeals process.” But the report also included several measures that did not reach unanimous support advocating big changes to the charter appeals process directly in line with the bill.

• Read more: With new report from California task force, pressure mounts on Gov. Newsom to break silence on state legislation that would restrict charter schools

At the state Assembly hearing in April, AB 1505’s author, Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell, said that the results of the task force would likely be reflected in the bill. But in advance of the Senate vote, it isn’t yet clear to what extent that will be true. The Senate Education Committee will decide whether to advance the bill to the full voting body on the same day as the hearing. The current legislative session ends in September.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (L) and State Superintendent for Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (courtesy photos)

*Corrected June 20

After three months of meetings, the California charter school task force has released its much-anticipated report, raising questions about the future of legislation that could reshape the state’s growing charter school landscape.

The report, sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday, outlined four unanimously supported recommendations revising the authorizing process for new charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently operated. It also included seven other “discussed proposals” that were approved by a majority, but not with full consensus.

The four unanimous recommendations are:

• Extending the timeline for approving or denying a new charter school petition from 60 to 90 days.
• Creating a statewide entity to develop standards for charter school oversight and train charter school authorizers
• Maintaining funding for district schools one year after a student leaves to attend a charter school
• Allowing greater discretion for districts to consider new charter school petitions, including academic outcomes, local school enrollment and saturation

These changes reflect wider sentiments across the state that the existing charter approval standards aren’t consistent for authorizers. Under current law, districts approve new charter school petitions but denied charter schools are able to appeal to the county and eventually the state Board of Education — meaning thousands of governing bodies serve as authorizers. The unanimous recommendations would provide one authority to steer them.

But at the same time as the California Charter School Policy Task Force was convening this spring, state legislators advocated for their own regulations on the charter approval process. Assembly Bill 1505, which the state Assembly narrowly passed in May and will now go to the state Senate, imposes tougher restrictions on new charter petitions — and gives local school districts exclusive rights to approve or deny them while taking away the county and state appeals option.

• Read more: Charter school showdown in Sacramento: Assembly moves forward with package of powerful regulations as proponents and teachers unions clash
  

While Newsom was elected in November with deep support from charter school critics, and signed a law this spring requiring greater transparency from the schools, he has been largely silent on the legislative battle to restrict them.

But with the report’s release, the pressure may be building for the new governor — already recognized as significantly less charter-friendly than his predecessor, Gov. Jerry Brown — to make a defining move, notes Julie Marsh, professor of education policy at the University of Southern California.

“There’s been the cover to say, ‘Well let’s not act yet because we want to wait and see what this task force says,’” Marsh said. “Once that is out, you can no longer stall in acting on these issues.”

The charter task force was one of several study groups the governor assembled on various education issues. State superintendent for public instruction, Tony Thurmond, led the 11-member group which comprised a mix of representatives from charter schools, teacher and other school employee unions, and local districts. To many, the group represents a broader effort to better understand where support for charter schools in California lies.

Just what the governor, and state senators, will draw from the report, however, is somewhat less clear. The four unanimous recommendations don’t support the efforts of AB 1505. While the bill would give sole authorizing power for charter petitions to local districts and allow other considerations, like saturation,to be taken into account, the unanimous recommendations don’t propose any changes to the current charter appeals process.

• Read more: Two of the strongest anti-charter bills fail in the California legislature, but two others move ahead as both sides claim victory

Further down in the report, however, the seven “other discussed proposals” tell a different story. Among those majority-supported measures are policies to remove the State Board of Education from hearing charter school appeals and to reserve charter authorization in most cases to local districts.

Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell, the author of AB 1505 and chair of the Assembly Education Committee, sees the report as a positive step. He views the recommendations as in line with the goals of AB 1505 and AB 1507, another bill passed by the Assembly which would prevent districts from authorizing charter schools outside their boundaries.

“The Charter Task Force’s report reflects priorities to strengthen accountability and empower local control, which are consistent with the proposals in AB 1505 and AB 1507,” he said in a statement Tuesday. “I look forward to collaborating with the Governor, State Superintendent and the Senate in the coming months to ensure student success and taxpayer accountability.”

The California Teachers Association, which sponsored AB 1505 and whose board of directors served on the task force, focused on the seven non-unanimous policies and praised Thurmond’s decision to include them in the final report.

“The recommendations made by the majority of the task force further solidify the need to pass AB 1505 and, quite frankly, the evidence some were waiting on to vote in favor of AB 1505,” CTA President Eric Heins said in a statement.

Not all task force members agreed with that assessment, including Margaret Fortune, the California Charter Schools Association board chair and president and CEO of Fortune Schools, a charter network in Sacramento. She urged state legislators and Newsom to consider only what the group agreed on unanimously, excluding the seven measures that support the efforts of AB 1505, but did not reach that threshold.

“My hope is that the governor will look at that hard-won consensus set of recommendations and look at moving forward in this legislative session with legislation that reflects what the consensus of the task force arrived at,” she said.

Fortune and another task force member, Cristina de Jesus, president and CEO of Green Dot Public Schools California, a Los Angeles-based charter network, said the decision to include the non-consensus policies in the final report signaled political bias. The seven points were not raised until the end of one task force meeting, they claim, and not everyone was present for the vote.

They cited Thurmond’s support from teachers unions in his campaign as one source of potential bias. Teachers unions tend to oppose the expansion of charter schools, which are typically non-unionized, and the issue of curtailing them was a central demand of teacher strikes this year in Los Angeles and Oakland.

• Read more: Research shows that charter schools do best for California’s low-income and minority students. Now state officials are considering slowing their expansion

“It’s political gamesmanship that is meant to obscure and confuse the fact that the consensus recommendations that got 11-0 votes protected the appeal rights of charter schools,” says Fortune, noting that the recommendations do advocate more discretion for school districts to approve a charter school petition based on enrollment and academic outcomes.

“Is the second half of the report contradictory to the first? Yes, and it should be thrown out and disregarded,” she says. “Shame on the superintendent for including it.”

Kindra Britt, director of communications for the California Department of Education, at first would not comment on Fortune’s and de Jesus’s criticisms of how the non-unanimous items were handled, citing an internal agreement not to identify individual comments or how members voted. Later, she did confirm that not everyone on the task force was present during the vote on those items, but said that members had opportunities to voice their perspectives on the majority-only proposals at later meetings. She reiterated the department’s perspective that the report is factual.

In a separate statement released Friday Thurmond said, “It’s important to include both the areas where a consensus was reached, as well as the areas where a majority was reached, in order to show the depth that members were willing to go and the challenging and difficult conversations that occurred throughout this process.”

The next step for AB 1505 is the state Senate Education Committee. If it’s voted out of committee and then approved by a majority of the 40-member Senate, it will go to Newsom, either to be signed into law or vetoed. A two-thirds vote in each house would be needed to override a veto. The legislative session ends in September.

While negotiations over the charter school appeals process in California, which has more charter schools than any state in the country, has grown increasingly divisive, there is still space for consensus on regulation, says Marsh,the USC professor.Many of the systemic issues facing public education, including funding, are critically important for advocates on either side of the charter debate.

De Jesus agrees with that point. Despite the controversial elements of the report, the fact that the task force was still able to come up with four recommendations with universal support is a point worth recognizing, she said.

“There’s absolutely room for consensus. There’s room for discussion and really putting students at the forefront,” she said. “I think this is a huge deal. Everybody should pay attention.”

Protesters — many affiliated with the California Teachers Association — gather on May 22 in Sacramento to advocate for tougher regulations on California charter schools. (Source: Maripaz Berlin)

What started as a package of four bills tamping down on charter schools in California quickly became two this week, as legislation in the Assembly and the Senate that looked to cap the schools in one chamber and place a moratorium on their future growth in the other were both withdrawn.

The demise of Assembly Bill 1506 and Senate Bill 756 before a vote was taken on either was seen as a decisive victory by charter supporters.

“Charter public school families’ voices were heard loud and clear by Sacramento politicians: We cannot and will not accept legislation that limits access to great public schools,” Myrna Castrejón, president and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, said in a statement released Thursday.

“Today, the collective power of charter school leaders, teachers, families and students defeated this extreme legislation and with their voices, we’ll continue to do all we can to defend great public schools throughout California,” she continued.

But proponents of the bills, including California NAACP education chair Julian Vasquez Heilig, remain focused on the prospects of the surviving legislation, seeing this week’s events as a step in a larger process. Those two remaining bills are:

● AB 1505 – The bill gives local school districts sole authority to approve new charter schools and to consider how new schools would impact the district’s budget in the approval process. Since new charter schools typically attract students – and their per pupil funding – away from traditional public schools, many expect that this measure would make it much more difficult for new charter schools to be approved. AB 1505 passed May 22 and will now go to the state Senate.

● AB 1507 – This bill closes a loophole in state law that has let some districts boost their budgets by approving charter schools outside their boundaries. AB 1507 would require all charter schools approved by a district to be located within it. It passed on May 13 in the state Assembly and is also now headed to the Senate.

“The commonsense transparency and accountability in [AB] 1505 has a really good shot in the Senate. I don’t think a plausible outcome of this legislative session is that California will do nothing,” said Heilig, a professor of education leadership at California State University Sacramento.

Charter school showdown in Sacramento: Assembly moves forward with package of powerful regulations as proponents and teachers unions clash

On Wednesday, Sen. Maria Elena Durazo sidelined the Senate moratorium bill, which she authored. The bill would have placed a two-year halt on new charter schools in the state unless the Senate passed further regulations. The measure could return for consideration next January, according to Senate rules.

The next day, Assemblyman Kevin McCarty opted to hold his bill on the last day it was eligible for a vote in the chamber. AB 1506 would have mandated a statewide cap on charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently run, to be determined at the end of the year.

Just a week earlier, hundreds of protesters — many affiliated with the California Teachers Association — marched through Sacramento demanding state representatives pass the bills, among other legislation. The teachers union sees charter schools as draining traditional district schools of badly needed funding and argues that charters, which are generally not unionized and have grown rapidly in California, require stricter regulation.

The union protest at one point intersected with a smaller, opposing demonstration by black parents that was organized by the California Charter Schools Association. The association says black students are the lowest-performing student subgroup in California after special education students and black and brown families, whose neighborhood schools are failing, deserve high-quality options.

The support for the moratorium by the California NAACP echoes the position of the national body, which called for a moratorium on charter schools in 2016. Three local branches of the California NAACP broke from that position in May, saying that charter schools produced some of the strongest academic outcomes for black students in the state.

3 California NAACP chapters break with state and national leaders, calling for charter moratorium to be overturned

While the bills are dead for now, both Durazo and McCarty suggested they could return to the legislature in the future.

“We are fighting for good public education. It is worth it to take the time to get it done right,” Durazo said in a prepared statement.

The two remaining Assembly bills are not yet scheduled for votes in the state Senate, but are expected to come up before the end of the legislative session in mid-September. With the failure of the more aggressive charter restrictions, questions remain about whether they will actually make it into law. The Assembly was also expected to craft a new appeals process for charter school applications to go along with AB 1505, but it’s unclear where that stands.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose election was opposed by charter school backers and supported by the teachers union, has been publicly silent on the legislation. In May, he signed legislation making charter school operations more transparent, including that they be subject to open meeting, public records and conflict-of-interest laws.

Some California officials see a clear distinction between the still-alive AB 1505 and 1507 and the other now-dead moratorium and charter cap legislation.

While speaking with the San Francisco Chronicle, California Congressman Rob Banto described a desire among lawmakers to stay away from “blunt instruments,” in the charter policy debate, instead favoring more precise regulation.

“People want more of a scalpel,” he said.

In the past, the state has been a relatively stable ground for the growth of charter schooling. It’s 1992 Charter Schools Act represented one of the movement’s first successful statewide initiatives. And under former Gov. Jerry Brown, the state instituted few substantial regulations on the schools until last year, when it banned for-profit charters.

The continued momentum of two of the original four bills signals to Vasquez Heilig that past reluctance to tighten control on charter schools in Sacramento may be over.

“California is the leading edge of a lot of this political movement,” he said. “People are realizing that the deregulation of charters have not led to appreciable achievement differences, especially for African Americans.”

A 2014 CREDO study found that low-income black students in California charter schools gained 36 more days of learning in reading and 43 more days in math a year than their district school counterparts. Low-income Latino students gained an additional 22 days of learning in reading and 29 days in math compared with their district peers.

Members of the California Teachers Association at Wednesday’s rally in Sacramento. (Photo: state Sen. Connie Leyva/Twitter)

The biggest statewide battle over charter schools in the country is coming to a head in California. Amid competing protests in Sacramento on Wednesday, the California Assembly narrowly passed legislation that would give local school districts sole authority to approve new charter schools.

The bill, titled AB 1505, is one of several new measures the Assembly has passed or is considering that would level tougher regulations on charters schools, which are publicly funded but independently run. The schools are typically not unionized and have greater control over decisions such as staffing, the length of the school day and the school year and their educational model.

Under the current law, new charter schools seeking approval can appeal to the county and then the state if the district initially denies them. In order to hit the 41-vote mark supporters of AB 1505 needed, the Assembly agreed to create a new appeals process, but it’s not yet clear what that would look like.

With @WeAreCTA members marching around CA State Capitol today, the Assembly *just barely* passes #AB1505, part of a suite of legislation to limit #charterschools — a bill that could make it easier for a district to block a charter from opening. #caedchat #lausd #caleg pic.twitter.com/f6cDhm3CVQ

— Kyle Stokes (@kystokes) May 22, 2019

The vote signals a broader policy shift in California, home of the 1992 Charter Schools Act that many recognize as one of the first big wins for the movement. California has the largest number of charter schools and charter school students in the country, with about 11 percent of students in the state attending charters. But public support for them — especially among Democrats — has become more ambiguous.

AB 1505 is one of four bills regulating charter schools that either the California Assembly or Senate is considering. Here’s a breakdown of what they would do:

• AB 1505 – The bill gives local school districts sole authority to approve new charter schools and to consider how new schools would impact the district’s budget in the approval process. Since new charter schools typically attract students – and funding – away from traditional public schools, many expect this measure would make it much more difficult for new charter schools to be approved. AB 1505 passed on Wednesday and will now go to the state Senate.

• AB 1506 –  This measure would place local and state caps on charter schools. Those figures would be determined at the end of 2019. AB 1506 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 16 and will now head to the full body.

• AB 1507 – This bill closes a loophole in state law that has let some districts boost their budgets by approving charter schools outside their boundaries. AB 1507 would require all charter schools approved by a district to be located within it. It passed on May 13 in the state Assembly and is now headed to the Senate.

• SB 756 – The only bill in the package being considered first by the state Senate, SB 756 would put a two-year moratorium on new charter schools unless the Legislature passes the reforms above. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill on May 16 and it’s headed now to the full body.

Wednesday’s demonstrations — with fiery chants and parades of decorated flags and signs — highlighted the highly charged divide over the charter school legislation. On one side are teachers unions, including the powerful California Teachers Association, whose members marched on the capitol in support of AB 1505 and other initiatives, including raising public education funding. Teachers unions in California have made curtailing charter schools central to their cause and the issue was at the heart of this year’s teacher strikes in Los Angeles and Oakland.

“We’ve been through an era of the Wild West around the charter schools,” CTA President Eric Heins told his supporters. “What we find is that there is a charter school industry that’s risen in California without any accountability or transparency.”

https://twitter.com/rachelranamok/status/1131633312974245888

On the other side of the debate are charter proponents, including the influential California Charter Schools Association. The organization held a smaller counter-protest called the “black parent strike.” The group opposes the bill, arguing broadening school choice in California — a state with persistent achievement gaps between white students and students of color — is a racial equity issue.

“We are standing up and telling legislators and the (teachers union) that they cannot take away the rights of our most vulnerable communities … by closing down the charter schools that are helping them learn and thrive,” Myrna Castrejón, president of the charter association, said in a statement.

In blasting the California legislation in a statement Wednesday, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools cited a 2014 CREDO study that found low-income black students in California charter schools gained 36 more days of learning in reading and 43 more days in math a year than their district school counterparts. Low-income Latino students gained an additional 22 days of learning in reading and 29 days in math than their district peers.

A showdown between the California Teachers Association and the #BlackParentStrike group. A lot of signage on the #RedForEd
side with anti-charter messaging, none about student performance. #SchoolChoiceTheBlackChoice@edu_posthttps://t.co/krSfOlYEtK

— Sis. Peeples Servin’ Real Talk ️ (@PeeplesChoice85) May 22, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Charter schools have become a complex issue for black voters — in California and the U.S. nationally. While recent analysis from Democrats for Education Reform indicated support for charter schools is much higher among black Democrats than white ones, research from the Public Policy Institute of California last year showed that just over one-third of black families in the state support them generally.

The NAACP continues to uphold a national moratorium on charter schools, arguing they need greater transparency and can contribute to segregation. But earlier this spring, three of the organization’s branches in California publicly challenged that position, stating that only 10 majority African-American public schools in California fall in the top half of student performance statewide in English and math, and eight of them are public charter schools.

• Read more: 3 California NAACP chapters break with state and national leaders, calling for charter moratorium to be overturned

For the California Teachers Association, a major complaint with charter schools in the state is the perceived financial drain they have on already-stretched funding for traditional public schools.

“Concerned Californians will be calling on lawmakers to support legislation to fix the broken laws governing charter schools that have allowed for egregious cases of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars intended for students in neighborhood public schools,” reads a CTA press release from the day before the vote.

In the lead-up to the AB 1505 vote, the National Action Network and the National Urban League, two non-profit groups advocating for racial equality, issued their own letter urging Gov. Gavin Newsom not to sign off on charter-restrictive legislation.

“We have determined, these measures represent a direct attack on the ability of African American parents to choose the best education possible for their children,” it reads.

Rev. Dr. Tecoy Porter Sr., president of the Sacramento chapter of NAN, supports the letter and believes the NAACP’s moratorium is out of touch with black families in his community. He is skeptical of the concern that charter schools drain needed district funding.

“The big story is the underfunding of public schools, or the mismanagement of funds,” he says. “Unfortunately [supporters of AB 1505] are using charter schools as a scapegoat rather than addressing the real issue.”

If the state legislature passes AB 1505 or its companion bills, they will proceed to Newsom to be signed into law. Part of the energy behind this package of charter school bills is linked to the state’s new governor, who was heavily supported by the teachers unions and has more actively pursued charter school regulations. Similar versions of AB 1507 have passed in the California Legislature before, but former Gov. Jerry Brown consistently vetoed them.

“It should have happened a long time ago, but it’s happening now,” Heins told the San Francisco Chronicle.  “I think that Gov. Newsom thinks differently about this than Gov. Brown.”

This article was published in partnership with The 74. Sign up for The 74’s newsletter here.