Charter schools need reform. This proposal could kneecap them – CalMatters

Report on California’s Legislative Conflict Over Charter Schools and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Legislative Dynamics and Educational Governance

The California Legislature consistently addresses recurring legislative conflicts stemming from deep-seated economic and cultural divisions. A prominent and long-standing issue involves the governance and funding of public education, specifically the three-decade-long political struggle between the traditional public education establishment and the charter school sector. This conflict directly impacts the state’s progress toward several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

2.0 The Charter School Debate in the Context of SDG 4 and SDG 10

The core of the debate centers on the most effective model for delivering quality, equitable, and inclusive education for all, a primary objective of SDG 4.

• Charter School Profile: Charter schools are publicly funded institutions that operate with exemptions from many regulations governing conventional schools. They currently enroll approximately 11% of California’s nearly 6 million students and receive a proportional share of the state’s public education budget.
• Advocates’ Position: Proponents argue that charter schools advance SDG 4 by providing innovative educational alternatives for families dissatisfied with traditional school performance, thereby promoting choice and quality.
• Critics’ Position: Opponents contend that charter schools may undermine SDG 10 by diverting critical financial resources from the traditional public school system and potentially enrolling a less diverse student body, which could exacerbate educational inequalities.

The conflict frequently manifests at the local level, such as within the Los Angeles Unified School District, where control of the school board dictates policy direction regarding charter school authorization and oversight.

3.0 Institutional Integrity and Legislative Responses: A Focus on SDG 16

Recent legislative efforts have been framed as a response to significant failures in institutional accountability, directly addressing the targets of SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions and a substantial reduction in corruption.

3.1 Financial Scandals and the Need for Reform

The debate has been intensified by high-profile cases of financial mismanagement and fraud within the charter sector, which represent a direct threat to the principles of SDG 16.

1. The A3 Education Case: A network of 19 online charter schools was found to have fraudulently obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding.
2. Institutional Response: The state prosecuted the individuals involved, recovered over $200 million, and implemented a moratorium on new non-classroom-based charter schools pending a review.
3. Commissioned Study: A study by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team was commissioned to recommend reforms to prevent future fraud, aligning with SDG 16’s goal of strengthening institutions.

3.2 Assembly Bill 84: A Legislative Proposal for Enhanced Oversight

The current legislative session features Assembly Bill 84 (AB 84), a measure designed to enhance accountability and prevent corruption, though its broader implications are a subject of debate.

• Stated Purpose: The bill, backed by school unions and school boards, incorporates many recommendations from the state-commissioned study to prevent fraud and allow the moratorium on non-classroom charters to be lifted.
• Key Provisions and SDG 16 Alignment:
  • Implements new accounting and operational processes to increase transparency.
  • Proposes the creation of a new Inspector General position within the Department of Education, appointed by the governor, with broad powers to investigate and ensure institutional integrity.
• Contention and Broader Impact: While the bill’s authors present it as a necessary step toward fulfilling the anti-corruption targets of SDG 16, critics argue that its provisions go beyond fraud prevention. They suggest the bill could be used as a political tool to impose restrictive, conventional-school regulations on all charters, potentially hindering their operational flexibility and their ability to contribute to the diverse educational landscape envisioned by SDG 4.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

   • SDG 4: Quality Education

     The entire article revolves around the conflict in California’s public education system between traditional schools and charter schools. It discusses the provision of education to nearly 6 million students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, the allocation of over $100 billion in state funds for education, and the core debate about the quality and accessibility of education, as evidenced by parents’ dissatisfaction with traditional schools.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     The article details a “political war” and “long-running…conflicts” within the legislative and educational systems. It highlights issues of governance, institutional accountability, and corruption. The discussion of legislative battles (Assembly Bill 84), lobbying by “warring interests,” and a major financial scandal (the A3 Education fraud) directly relates to the need for effective, transparent, and accountable institutions and the fight against corruption.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

   • Under SDG 4: Quality Education

     • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article’s focus on the K-12 school system, the debate over the quality of education provided by traditional versus charter schools, and the fact that they serve “nearly 6 million public school kids” directly connect to this target.
     • Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education. The article explicitly mentions that the schools in question serve students ranging from “pre-kindergarten to 12th grade,” which links the discussion to this target.

   • Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     • Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. The article provides a clear example of this issue with the “notorious” A3 Education scandal, where founders “fraudulently obtained hundreds of millions of dollars.” The legislative response, AB 84, is a direct attempt to address this type of corruption.
     • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article discusses the ongoing legislative efforts to reform the charter school system. The creation of Assembly Bill 84, the commissioning of a study for reforms, and the proposal for a new “inspector general with very broad powers” are all measures aimed at making the educational governance system more effective and accountable.
     • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article describes the “political war” between the public education establishment (unions, school boards) and charter advocates. This conflict, which plays out in local school board elections and at the state Capitol, illustrates the challenges of achieving responsive and inclusive decision-making among competing stakeholders.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators:

   • Indicators for SDG 4 Targets

     • Proportion of student enrollment: The article states that charter schools “enroll about 11% of California’s nearly 6 million public school kids.” This statistic can be used as an indicator to measure participation in different types of educational institutions.
     • Public funding for education: The mention of “more than $100 billion that the state spends on public education each year” is a financial indicator of the resources allocated to achieving quality education.
     • Parental satisfaction: The article implies this as a qualitative indicator by noting that charter advocates “respond to parents dissatisfied with the educations their children receive in traditional schools.”

   • Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

     • Incidence and scale of corruption: The A3 Education scandal, involving “hundreds of millions of dollars” in fraudulent funds and the recovery of “more than $200 million,” serves as a direct indicator of corruption.
     • Implementation of anti-corruption policies: The introduction and passage of “Assembly Bill 84” and the “moratorium on new non-classroom charters” are indicators of institutional responses to combat corruption.
     • Establishment of oversight bodies: The proposal within AB 84 to “create an entirely new position of inspector general” is a specific indicator of efforts to build accountable institutions (Target 16.6).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
   SDG 4: Quality Education	4.1: Ensure free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education. 4.2: Ensure access to quality early childhood development and pre-primary education.	– Total number of public school students (nearly 6 million). – Percentage of students enrolled in charter schools (11%). – Scope of education provided (pre-kindergarten to 12th grade). – Level of parental satisfaction with education (implied through dissatisfaction with traditional schools). – Amount of state spending on public education (over $100 billion annually).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery. 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making.	– Financial scale of corruption (A3 Education scandal involving “hundreds of millions of dollars”). – Amount of illicit funds recovered (“more than $200 million”). – Enactment of anti-corruption legislation (Assembly Bill 84). – Creation of new oversight positions (proposed inspector general). – Existence of institutional conflict (“political war” between unions and charter advocates).

Source: calmatters.org