Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Authorization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board briefed on AB 1505 renewal tiers; low‑performing charters may receive two‑year terms under new law
Summary
San Bernardino County officials explained the state’s post‑AB 1505 renewal tiers (high/middle/low) to the board and described how oversight and monitoring will change for charters designated low performing; Norton Charter was cited as an early example.
County charter‑school staff briefed the San Bernardino County Board of Education on changes to charter renewal and oversight that followed enactment of AB 1505 and related statutory provisions in Education Code section 47607.
Counsel and charter staff described how renewal “tiers” — high, middle and low — are assigned using California School Dashboard indicators from the two years before a renewal. High‑tier charters may be eligible for longer renewals (up to seven years in statute), middle tier for standard renewals (commonly up to five years) and low tier for shorter renewals; under the law a low‑performing charter can be renewed for as little as two years if the authorizer approves that shorter term.
County counsel emphasized that the tiering method is data driven but can be complex. The statutory rules look first at whether a charter’s academic indicators meet “high” or “low” thresholds (blue/green versus red/orange on the Dashboard). If a charter lacks the exact pattern required for the first criterion, the statute directs authorizers to alternative criteria that consider subgroup results and other measures; staff described that many charters fall into the middle tier because they do not meet the strict high or low thresholds.
Staff described the practical implications of two‑year renewals: the shorter renewal gives authorizers less time to view year‑over‑year progress and requires active oversight during the limited term. Norton (a county‑authorized charter discussed at earlier meetings) was used as an example of a charter now operating under a two‑year renewal and therefore subject to more intensive monitoring. County staff said that oversight protocols are necessarily being developed as authorizers implement the new law.
Trustees asked for clarity and expressed a preference for objective, consistent monitoring criteria to avoid perceptions of subjectivity. Counsel and staff said county offices across California are still developing “best practices” for oversight, that this is the first full year of implementation for low‑tier two‑year renewals, and that the county office would continue to refine its monitoring framework in consultation with academic and legal staff.
No board vote was taken; the item was informational. Staff said the Norton example and the first cycle of two‑year renewals are expected to return for renewal decisions and ongoing oversight reports.
