California

Under California law, the current cap on charter schools is 2,450 statewide, but the cap is raised by 100 schools each year. As of the 2019-20 school year, there were 1,336 charter schools open in the state.
California law imposes a moratorium on the establishment of new, nonclassroom-based charter schools until January 1, 2025.

California law allows new start-ups and public school conversions.

California law allows local school boards, county boards of education, and the state board of education to authorize charter schools. The law provides that a local school board may approve charter schools that will operate within the geographic boundaries of the school district.
The law allows a county board of education to approve a charter that will serve pupils for whom the county office of education would otherwise be responsible for providing direct education and related services or will operate at one or more sites within the county’s geographic boundaries as a countywide charter and provide instructional services not generally provided by the county office of education. In addition, the law provides that the county board must find that the charter will serve pupils who will benefit from those services and who cannot be served by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county.

The law allows a charter applicant denied by a local school board to appeal first to the county board of education and then to the state board of education.
Recently enacted legislation largely curtailed appeals to the state board of education, subjecting them to an “abuse of discretion” standard in lieu of the current de novo standard. State and county appeals currently are reviewed under a so-called de novo standard under which county and state boards do not assume the local board was correct and must, instead, consider the entire record. As a result of recently enacted legislation, the state board of education would shift to an “abuse of discretion” standard wherein it is generally assumed that the local board was correct to deny the charter unless the charter proponents demonstrate that the local board was arbitrary or absurd in their decision.
This recently enacted legislation provided that appeals to county boards of education would remain under the de novo standard of review. However, if a district denied the petition based on new “fiscally distressed district” criteria contained in the legislation, the county must also consider any fiscal impact finding of the district.

California law includes a small number of the model law's provisions for authorizer and overall program accountability.While the law does not require the legislature and governor to regularly review the performance of the state board of education as an authorizer, they can do so at any time. In addition, the ability of the state board of education to continue authorizing can be removed by the California legislature and governor (the entities that gave it that authority).

California law allows authorizers to charge each charter school up to 1% in revenues for the actual costs of oversight or up to 3% of revenues if the authorizer is providing a substantially rent-free facility to the school.
The statutory language permitting authorizers to charge “actual costs not to exceed” the specified percentage implies public accountability for authorizer expenditures, but it is not practiced in any consistent, structured way.

California law permits a charter school to separately purchase services from its authorizer, indicating that such fees are to be separate from the oversight fee.

The law does not explicitly prohibit an authorizer from requiring a school to purchase services. In practice, however, such a requirement could not be a condition for charter approval, as a school’s refusal to purchase services would not be cause for denial.

California law sets forth basic required elements for all charter applications, as well as additional requirements specific to conversions.
The law provides that statewide charter petitions must demonstrate the financial and academic success of the applicant’s schools previously approved in California. There is no such requirement for replication applications submitted to local school board and county school board authorizers.

The law requires a public hearing for all charter applications but not in-person interviews.
Recently enacted legislation expanded the list of reasons for districts to deny charter school petitions. These reasons will now include the fiscal impact of the charter school on the district, although a district must also consider the academic needs of the students that a school is proposing to serve in its fiscal impact analysis. These new denial criteria would apply to all charter petitions for new charter schools as well as proposals by existing schools to add grade levels or school sites. Renewals of existing charters that do not propose grade levels or school sites would not be subject to these new denial criteria.

Authorizers must make charter approval or denial decisions in a public meeting and must state reasons for denial in writing.

California law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for performance-based charter contracts. California law states that the charter petition becomes the charter. The law does not require a separately negotiated and executed charter contract that defines the roles, powers, and responsibilities for the school and its authorizer and includes clear performance terms and provisions based on a performance framework as recommended in the model law. However, the law requires Local Control Account Plans (LCAPs) that include outcomes in eight state priority areas. LCAPs must be reviewed and updated annually and provided to the authorizer. In addition, most of the charter schools and authorizers in the state execute a memorandum of understanding that covers administrative and operational understandings, but the educational goals in the charter remain as stated in the petition.

California law provides that an initial charter may be granted for up to five years.

The law requires that charter schools participate in the state’s accountability system, including annual state-produced school report cards, which are public. These report cards show academic performance on the state assessments, but do not include all the types of measures (including financial performance, compliance, and school-specific measures) that an authorizer’s performance report would normally include.The law also requires charter schools to participate in the state’s new school dashboards that provide performance for each school and subgroup for each of several state priorities including academic achievement, school climate, and college and career readiness indicators.

California law requires charter schools to adhere to generally accepted accounting principles and to provide multiple types of annual reports (e.g., attendance reports, school accountability report cards, local control accountability plans) to their authorizer, county office of education, and state board of education. In addition, the law requires a charter school to provide a report to its authorizer and the state on its annual audit and to produce certain annual or periodic reports for their authorizer (e.g., a preliminary budget, a first and second interim financial report, and an unaudited annual financial report). These reports are available to the public.
The law entitles an authorizer to inspect or observe any part of a charter school at any time. California law requires charter schools to respond to all reasonable inquiries from its authorizer, the county office of education, or the state department of education. Regulations set forth compliance monitoring procedures specifically for virtual or non-classroom-based schools.

The law requires each authorizer to identify at least one staff member as a contact person for each charter school under its oversight, visit each charter school at least annually, ensure that each charter school complies with all reports required by law, monitor the fiscal condition of each charter school, and provide timely notification to the state department of education concerning charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions, both before and after they occur.
The law requires an authorizer to notify a school of potential revocation and provide reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy identified problems. Such notification and opportunity to cure is a corrective action. The law also permits the state board of education to take corrective action with a locally-chartered school under certain circumstances.
The law requires charter schools to establish local policies and procedures to allow a complaint that a charter school has not complied with the requirements of the state-mandated local control accountability plan to be filed with a charter school pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.

California law describes generally the evidence basis on which authorizers must make renewal determinations, including “documented and clear and convincing data” and “information submitted by the charter school.” Although not explicit, the requirement of school-submitted information prior to renewal appears equivalent to a renewal application.
Recently enacted legislation reworked the renewal criteria and process for charter schools resulting in a three-tiered approach that provides a different process for high, low, and mid-range performing schools. It provided that high-performing charter schools (as defined in the law) shall be approved with streamlined renewal for five to seven years. It provided that low-performing charter schools (as defined in the law) shall not be renewed. It provided that other charter schools shall be renewed for five years.
Recently enacted legislation expanded the list of reasons for districts to deny charter school petitions. These reasons will now include the fiscal impact of the charter school on the district, although a district must also consider the academic needs of the students that a school is proposing to serve in its fiscal impact analysis. These new denial criteria would apply to all charter petitions for new charter schools as well as proposals by existing schools to add grade levels or school sites. Renewals of existing charters that do not propose grade levels or school sites would not be subject to these new denial criteria.
The law requires an authorizer to notify a charter school of potential revocation and provide reasonable opportunity for the school to remedy identified problems, except in case of severe and imminent threat to student health or safety. It requires a public hearing prior to any revocation decision. In cases of non-renewal or revocation, the law provides for appeals to the county or state board of education for schools chartered by districts or county offices of education. The law also authorizes the state board of education to revoke a locally-granted charter under certain circumstances.

The law requires authorizers to make all charter renewal, non-renewal, or revocation decisions in a public meeting and to state reasons for all such decisions in writing.

California regulations establish a protocol for closing a charter school, and state law requires that a school closure protocol is an element of a charter petition.

California law includes a small number of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers. According to the law, on and after July 1, 2019, a petitioner that submits a charter petition or a charter school that submits a charter renewal or material revision application shall not operate as, or be operated by, a for-profit corporation, a for-profit educational management organization, or a for-profit charter management organization. For purposes of this provision, a for-profit educational management organization and a for-profit charter management organization are entities that manage or operate a charter school.
According to the law, “operate as, or be operated by” means services provided by a for-profit corporation to a charter school that include any of the following:
* Nominating, appointing, or removing board members or officers of the charter school.
* Employing, supervising, or dismissing employees of the charter school, including certificated and noncertificated school personnel.
* Managing the charter school’s day-to-day operations as its administrative manager.
* Approving, denying, or managing the budget or any expenditures of the charter school that are not authorized by the governing body of the charter school.
* Providing services to a charter school before the governing body of the charter school has approved the contract for those services at a publicly noticed meeting.
The law also states that a charter school shall not enter into a subcontract to avoid these requirements.
While there are no explicit statutory provisions guiding any charter application requirements specifically for educational service providers, performance contracts between the school and service provider, authorizer approval of contracts, school governing boards operating completely independent of any educational service provider, and conflicts of interest, charter schools operated by educational service providers are subject to all of the laws in these areas that apply to all other charter schools in the state.
California law requires criminal background checks for employees of any entity contracted to provide services that may involve contact with pupils.

California law states that a charter authorizer is not liable for the debts, obligations, acts, errors or omissions of a charter school, if the authorizer has complied with its oversight responsibilities under the law. California law allows charter schools to elect to operate as nonprofit public benefit corporations. The law does not explicitly require a governing board for each school. It only requires that a charter petition describe the governance structure of the school, including, but not limited to, the process to be followed by the school to ensure parental involvement. The law also entitles a local school district board that has granted a charter to place a single representative on the charter school’s governing board.

California law requires charter schools to be open to all students in the state.
The law states a charter school shall not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or disability.

California law requires enrollment preferences for conversions and students residing in the school district. It also requires enrollment preferences for prior year students within chartered schools.

California law specifically permits one optional enrollment preference: A charter school located in the attendance area of a district elementary school in which at least 50% of the enrollment qualifies for free and reduced price lunch may give preference to pupils currently enrolled in that school and to pupils who reside in the elementary school attendance area where the charter school is located.

California law also allows other preferences as permitted by the authorizer on an individual school basis and only if consistent with the law.
California law requires charter schools to use a public random drawing if demand exceeds capacity.

California law provides that charter schools are automatically exempt from most laws governing school districts.
California law requires charter school teachers to hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to that required for any other public school teacher. Up until recently, the law provided charter schools with some flexibility with regard to teacher credentialing for non-core, non-college preparatory courses. However, recently enacted legislation deleted a provision in current law allowing non-credentialed teachers to teach non-core and non-college preparatory courses, thereby presumably requiring credentialed teachers in all settings. The legislation gave charter schools until July 1, 2025 to comply with these changes.

California requires that non-charter public school teachers collectively bargain. State statute requires that collective bargaining address 10 topics: wages, fringe benefits, hours, terms and conditions of employment, class load or size, leave, transfers and reassignment, layoffs, evaluation process or instruments, and grievance procedures. No items are expressly excluded from bargaining.California law provides a charter school with the ability to opt out of the district’s collective bargaining agreement during the application process.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, California allowed mandatory agency fees. The Supreme Court decision renders that state law unconstitutional. The state has since enacted several pieces of legislation in response to this decision, including a bill to prohibit public employers from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization and a bill authorizing an employee organization to make an offer to settle a dispute with an employer, with the employer covering the costs if the offer is not accepted and a more favorable award is not obtained.
Employees must submit a petition to the state’s Public Employment Relations Board indicating a desire to be represented by a petitioning organization, or to rescind current representation, with at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit showing initial proof of support. Unless otherwise directed by the board, to be eligible to vote in an election, employees must be employed in the voting unit at the cutoff date for eligibility and still employed on the day they cast their ballot.

California law allows a charter school to propose to operate at multiple sites within the school district, as long as each site is identified in the charter petition. Regulations provide for independent academic and compliance accountability for individual schools or campuses that make up a multi-site “statewide benefit” school authorized by the state. However, a multi-site school authorized by a local school or county school board is treated as a single school for all funding and accountability purposes.
California law does not explicitly address whether a single charter governing board may hold multiple charter contracts. However, under the state’s statutorily defined “permissive” Education Code, such a practice is permitted unless expressly prohibited, and such arrangements do occur in California.

California law does not explicitly address these matters. However, under the state’s statutorily defined “permissive” Education Code, these practices are permitted unless expressly prohibited. In practice, the California Interscholastic Federation’s policies tend to make it difficult for charter students to participate in activities in a local high school, even if the local district is amenable. As such, unless the charter school creates its own athletic programs, such activities are usually not an option for charter students.

California law provides that a charter school must either receive special education services from an LEA or become its own LEA, joining a Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) and providing special education according to that SELPA's plan. Unless a charter school specifically assumes the obligation to become an LEA and join a SELPA, the charter school is deemed to be part of its authorizer’s LEA for special education purposes.
California law provides that a charter school that is deemed part of its authorizer’s LEA for special education must receive state and federal special education funding in the same manner as any other public school of that LEA. It requires the LEA to ensure that each charter school receives an equitable share of special education funding and services, including those for low-incidence, high-cost needs. It also requires any SELPA plan that includes charter schools to address funding for low-incidence, high-cost services.

California law allows for the formation of all-charter SELPAs. In addition, the law allows charter schools to join SELPAs out of their geographic region and allows SELPAs to design service structures specifically for charters. Despite such policies, it is reported that actual practice for these policies is mixed in that many SELPAs do not provide extra funding for low-incidence, high-cost services and simply allocate funding on a per-student basis.

California law funds all public schools, including charter schools, via the Local Control Funding Formula, which is a weighted student funding formula that funds schools based on pupil needs.California law requires all special education funds to flow through an intermediate unit (SELPA) that receives special education funds for all LEAs in that SELPA.
A national study of charter school funding (University of Arkansas, Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands, 2014) found that California charter schools were receiving on average $7,821 per pupil in public funds, while districts would have received an estimated $10,446 per pupil to educate those same students – a gap of $2,625 per pupil, or 25.1%. This comparison includes all sources of funding. However, this gap is expected to decrease as new data is gathered that reflects the state's new funding system for all public schools.
The assessment of funding equity for California’s charter schools is largely based on data from the 2010-11 school year – one of the worst for school funding in California. Since the enactment of the Local Control Funding Formula and new school revenues as a result of Proposition 30, California charter schools have made significant gains in their level of funding and in funding equity compared to school districts serving similar student populations. While we acknowledge this change in this report, the recent impact of these changes is not fully reflected in the score or ranking.

California law created the Charter School Facility Grant Program (via SB 740) that provides up to $1,117 per pupil in lease reimbursement for charter schools where 55% of students qualify for free and reduced price lunch either at the charter school or its local elementary school attendance area; payments may not exceed 75% of total annual facilities rent costs.
Under California law, the Charter School Facilities Program authorizes the State Allocation Board to provide per-pupil facilities grant funding for 50% of the total project cost for new construction or renovation of charter facilities. This program is subject to available statewide school bonds passed to support charter school facilities. Proposition 47, Proposition 55, and Proposition 1D have placed more than $800 million in a fund for charter school facility development. In addition, in November 2016, California voters passed Proposition 51, a statewide school bond that provided $500 million specifically for charter schools under the same program used for Proposition 1D.

The law requires districts to provide charter schools with facilities that are sufficient to accommodate charter school needs for their in-district students and reasonably equivalent to other district facilities, through an annual application process. It allows a district to charge a charter school only a proportionate share of its facilities costs that are paid from the general fund.
Under California law, the Charter School Revolving Loan Program provides below-market loans of up to $250,000 for new-start charter schools, allowing up to five years for repayment. A school may use these loans for any start-up costs, including facilities.

California law provides that charter schools are eligible to access tax-exempt bond financing through the state and eligible to access public borrowing through county boards of education and county treasuries.
Legislation passed in 2020 now requires charter schools to pay "prevailing wages" when they contract for construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work and pay for in part or whole with the proceeds of conduit revenue bonds.
California law also provides that the state treasurer's office offers a limited credit enhancement program.

California law allows all charter school employees to choose to participate in the State Teachers Retirement System and the Public Employees Retirement System.

California law imposes a moratorium on the establishment of new, nonclassroom-based charter schools until January 1, 2025.

California law allows virtual instruction to occur for charter and traditional school via provisions for nonclassroom-based instruction, including independent study provisions.

Funding amounts are determined via a funding request from the school, as approved by the state board of education, based on the nonclassroom-based daily average attendance, as well as expenditure data on instruction and related services, school site operations and facilities, administration, and all other activities. In addition, the school must provide data to affirm compliance with the maximum student-to-teacher ratios (unless certain academic standards are met), and other law and policy affirmations including that all transactions, contracts, and agreements are in the best interest of the school and reflect a reasonable market rate. The amount approved shall be 70% of total, unless a greater or lesser percentage is determined appropriate by the state board (based upon the recommendation of the California Advisory Commission on Charter Schools, which also has the power to request additional information as needed when reviewing the funding request).

Beyond accountability measures for all schools, the law requires additional items for those schools engaged in independent study (which is a form of nonclassroom-based instruction), whereby each student must have a written agreement (signed by the student, parent – if student under 18 - and school personnel), including, but not limited to: (1) the manner, time, frequency, and place for submitting a pupil’s assignments and for reporting his or her progress; (2) the objectives and methods of study for the pupil’s work, and the methods utilized to evaluate that work; (3) the specific resources, including materials and personnel that will be made available to the pupil; and (4) a statement of the policies adopted regarding the maximum length of time allowed between the assignment and the completion of a pupil’s assigned work, and the number of missed assignments allowed before an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be allowed to continue in independent study. Law requires that certificated employees and each pupil shall communicate in person, by telephone, or by any other live visual or audio connection no less than twice per calendar month to assess whether each pupil is making satisfactory educational progress. If satisfactory educational progress is not being made, certificated employees providing instruction shall notify the pupil and, if the pupil is less than 18 years of age, the pupil’s parent or legal guardian, and conduct an evaluation to determine whether it is in the best interest of the pupil to remain in the course or whether he or she should be referred to an alternative program, which may include, but is not limited to, a regular school program.