AB 1493 rewrites how charter renewals work in California by creating clear, performance‑based triggers for nonrenewal and higher documentary standards for any charter that seeks renewal despite poor results. The bill forces chartering authorities to treat chronically low performance as presumptively disqualifying, allows limited renewals for schools that can produce specified, verified gains or postsecondary outcomes, and prescribes shorter renewal terms for those renewals.
The bill also creates a statutory definition of “verified data” (nationally recognized, peer‑reviewed assessments listed by the state board), removes revisions to that list from the Administrative Procedure Act, and requires the state board to manage the list under open‑meeting rules. Those procedural choices change which assessments count for renewal and shift administrative burden to the state board while narrowing judicially reviewable rulemaking channels.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 1493 requires chartering authorities to refuse renewal when a charter shows chronically low performance over two consecutive years, permits renewal only if the charter produces a written improvement plan plus clear, verified evidence of sustained academic growth or strong postsecondary outcomes, and defines what counts as admissible evidence. It sets two‑year renewals for chronically low performers and five‑year renewals for other charters.
Who It Affects
Public school districts, county offices, and community college districts that authorize charters; charter school operators and their governing boards; the State Board of Education (which maintains the approved assessment list); and students and parents in charters assessed under the state rubrics.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the practical standard of proof for renewals toward data verified on a state‑approved list of assessments and raises the stakes for charter operators with weak subgroup performance. By exempting assessment list revisions from APA rulemaking, it centralizes technical control at the state board and changes how accountability will be operationalized across California charter renewals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1493 forces chartering authorities to give concrete weight to state and local evaluation rubrics when deciding renewals. For charters that hit the statutory definition of persistent low performance — including receiving the two lowest performance levels on state indicators or performing at or below state averages across measures for two straight years — the default is nonrenewal.
The statute does, however, permit a renewal in those cases if the authorizer makes two written factual findings: the charter adopted a concrete, board‑approved plan addressing causes of low performance; and there is clear and convincing verified evidence of either consistent year‑over‑year academic gains or postsecondary outcomes (college enrollment, persistence, completion) comparable to peers.
For charters that do not meet that worst‑performing threshold, authorizers must still weigh schoolwide and subgroup results on state and local indicators, but may grant five‑year renewals when performance warrants. In both tracks the bill gives greater weight to direct measurements of academic performance and requires authorizers to make written findings when denying renewal, explaining why closure is in pupils’ best interests and documenting the heavier emphasis on academic measurements when applicable.The bill defines “verified data” as measures drawn from an approved state list of nationally recognized, valid, peer‑reviewed, and reliable assessments and expressly includes postsecondary outcome measures.
Notably, the bill bars revisions to that approved list from the Administrative Procedure Act: the State Board keeps the list and must update it under the Bagley‑Keene open‑meeting rules instead of formal APA rulemaking. AB 1493 also contemplates a transition to a state board‑adopted student‑level growth model for ELA and mathematics; until that model produces two full years of data, authorizers rely on verified data from the approved list for renewal decisions.Operationally, renewals granted under the chronic low‑performance track are limited to two years, while renewals under the standard track run five years.
Across the board, the bill raises the evidentiary bar for charters seeking to survive a renewal fight: authorizers must point to verified, data‑driven improvements or postsecondary outcomes, and document the factual support for any discretionary decision.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A charter that receives the two lowest performance levels on all state indicators, or that performs at or below state averages schoolwide and for a majority of low‑performing subgroups, for two consecutive years becomes presumptively nonrenewable under the bill.
A charter meeting that chronic‑low standard can be renewed only if the authorizer makes two written factual findings: the school has a governing‑board adopted plan addressing causes of low performance, and there is clear and convincing verified evidence of either year‑over‑year academic gains or strong postsecondary outcomes.
The bill defines “verified data” as assessments on a State Board maintained list of nationally recognized, peer‑reviewed, reliable measures and explicitly includes postsecondary outcome metrics; those measures are mandatory evidence for the renewal exceptions.
Revisions to the State Board’s approved list of assessments are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act and instead must be adopted or revised in public under the Bagley‑Keene Open Meeting Act.
Renewals under the chronic low‑performance pathway are limited to two years; renewals under the standard pathway are five years, and authorizers must make written findings if they deny renewal, showing benefits to pupils and emphasis on academic performance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory nonrenewal threshold and conditional renewal exceptions
This cluster sets the strict trigger for presumptive nonrenewal: either two consecutive years where the charter receives the two lowest performance levels on state indicators it reports, or two consecutive years of schoolwide performance at or below state averages coupled with majority subgroup underperformance. If a charter reaches that threshold, the authorizer must presume nonrenewal but may override that presumption only after making two written factual findings specific to the petition: a concrete plan adopted by the charter governing body addressing root causes, and clear and convincing verified evidence of measurable academic gains or peer‑comparable postsecondary results. Practically, this raises the evidentiary and documentation burden on charters seeking to survive renewal when their metrics are clearly subpar.
Transition to growth model and renewal lengths
Both tracks of the statute refer to a state board‑adopted student‑level growth model for ELA and math: the bill treats verified data as the operative evidence until that growth model is fully implemented and yields two years of student‑level growth data. This creates an interim reliance on approved assessments and postsecondary measures. The renewal periods differ by track: a charter renewed under the chronic low‑performance pathway gets a two‑year renewal, whereas charters under the regular track get five years. Those shorter renewals compress accountability cycles for struggling schools and increase administrative churn for authorizers tracking progress.
Standard renewal considerations and denial requirements
For charters not meeting the worst‑performing threshold, the authorizer must evaluate schoolwide and subgroup performance on state and local indicators, giving greater weight to academic measurements. The authorizer can deny renewal only after a written finding showing that the school failed or failed to make sufficient progress toward standards that benefit pupils, and that closure is in pupils’ best interests. When applicable, the denial must document that academic measures received greater weight. This provision formalizes an expectation that authorizers base renewal decisions on objective performance data and explain denials in a way that can be reviewed against the statutory standards.
Definition of 'verified data' and rulemaking procedure for approved assessments
Section (c) defines verified data narrowly: assessment instruments must be nationally recognized, valid, peer‑reviewed, reliable, and listed on the State Board’s approved assessments list; postsecondary outcome measures must be included. Crucially, the bill removes revisions to that list from APA rulemaking, instead requiring the State Board to adopt and revise the list under Bagley‑Keene open meeting procedures. That choice concentrates technical control in the State Board and alters the administrative pathway for changing which assessments count for renewals, with implications for transparency, stakeholder input, and judicial review.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- District and county chartering authorities — gain a clearer statutory framework and stronger legal footing to deny renewals when charters display sustained poor performance, and clearer standards for what evidence counts when making exceptions.
- Students and families in districts with chronically low‑performing charters — benefit from a pathway that makes school closure or nonrenewal more likely where objective measures show persistent underperformance, and from requirements that operators adopt concrete improvement plans before renewal.
- State Board of Education — receives centralized control over which assessments qualify as verified data, increasing its influence over accountability metrics and postsecondary outcome measurement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Charter school operators — face higher documentation burdens, a higher evidentiary standard (clear and convincing verified data) to avoid nonrenewal, shorter two‑year renewals if they qualify under the chronic low track, and increased risk of closure based on subgroup metrics.
- Smaller or newer charters and those serving small subgroups — may struggle to produce peer‑reviewed, validated assessment data or robust postsecondary outcome samples, making it harder to meet the verified‑data standard and increasing compliance costs.
- State Board staff and authorizers — must maintain and defend the approved assessment list (outside APA), manage the transition to a student‑level growth model, and absorb the operational workload of evaluating and verifying submitted evidence.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to square two legitimate aims — protecting pupils from chronically low‑performing charter schools and preserving local educational autonomy — by elevating standardized, state‑approved evidence at the expense of local flexibility; the result is a trade‑off between stronger, data‑driven accountability and increased centralization of technical control, which may unfairly penalize small, specialized, or resource‑constrained charter operators.
Two implementation choices create practical and legal frictions. First, the bill’s heavy reliance on an approved assessment list advantages assessments that meet academic validation criteria and disadvantages local measures or novel, low‑cost assessment tools; small charters or those serving unique populations may lack compatible instruments.
Second, removing the list’s revisions from the APA narrows formal notice‑and‑comment and judicial review channels. The State Board must use open meeting rules, but Bagley‑Keene is not a substitute for the transparency and procedural safeguards of APA rulemaking; stakeholders may have fewer formal avenues to contest the criteria that govern renewal evidence.
Measurement and subgroup‑size issues also matter. The statute uses subgroup comparisons and majority counts across subgroups, which can create noisy signals in small schools where year‑to‑year swings reflect small cohorts rather than systemic problems.
The clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard raises the bar for charters to show improvement, but the bill gives limited guidance on what constitutes admissible postsecondary evidence (data sources, attribution to the charter). Finally, the phased reliance on a student‑level growth model leaves an interim period where authorizers must reconcile different assessment sources and handling of missing or noncomparable metrics, increasing legal and administrative risk during the transition.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.