BILL ANALYSIS
AB 343
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 343 (Saldana) - As Amended: April 14, 2009
[This bill is double referred to the Assembly Judiciary
Committee and will be heard as it relates to the issues under
its jurisdiction]
SUBJECT : Pupils: military families
SUMMARY : Enacts the Interstate Compact on Educational
Opportunity for Military Children (the Compact). Specifically,
this bill :
1)States the intent and purpose of the Compact, and defines
terms specific to the Compact.
2)Requires that the provisions of the Compact apply only to the
children of:
a) Active duty members of the uniformed services, including
members of the National Guard and reserve on active duty
orders.
b) Members or veterans of the uniformed services who are
severely injured and medically discharged or retired for a
period of one year after medical discharge or retirement.
c) Members of the uniformed services who die on active duty
or as a result of injuries sustained on active duty for a
period of one year after death.
3)Requires that the provisions of the Compact apply to local
education agencies (LEAs).
4)Requires sending schools, the school in the state from which
an eligible pupil is sent or brought, to furnish:
a) Unofficial records, to the extent feasible, to parents
to give to receiving schools until official records can be
released.
b) Official records, to the extent practicable, within ten
AB 343
Page 2
days of a request from a receiving school.
5)Requires receiving schools, the school in the state to which
an eligible pupil is sent or brought, to:
a) Place eligible pupils on the basis of unofficial records
until the official records are obtained.
b) Request official records of an eligible pupil from the
sending school immediately upon enrollment of the pupil.
c) Allow 30 days for transferring students to obtain
necessary immunizations or to begin a required series of
immunizations.
d) Allow transferring students to continue their enrollment
at their grade level in the sending state, regardless of
age.
e) Allow a pupil who has completed a grade level at the
sending school to enroll in the next highest grade level at
the receiving school.
f) Accept and honor course. If such courses are offered and
space is available, and program placements made at the
sending school, including courses such as Honors, Advanced
Placement, International Baccalaureate, vocational,
technical and career pathways courses, and programs such as
gifted and talented, and English as a Second Language.
g) Initially provide comparable services to transferring
students with disabilities and make reasonable
accommodations and modifications to address the needs of
incoming students with disabilities.
h) Accept special power of attorney, relative to the
guardianship of a child of a military family and executed
under applicable law as sufficient for the purposes of
enrollment and all other actions requiring parental
participation and consent.
i) Grant extra excused absences for any student whose
parent has been called to duty for, is on leave from or has
immediately returned from deployment to a combat zone or
combat support posting, at the discretion of the
AB 343
Page 3
superintendent of the LEA.
j) Accept exit or end-of-course examinations for graduation
from the sending state, but requires passage of
California's high school exit examination in order to
receive a diploma issued by a California high school.
6)Requires state and local education agencies to facilitate the
opportunity for transitioning military children's inclusion in
extracurricular activities, regardless of application or
tryout deadlines, to the extent they are otherwise qualified
and space is available as determined by the school district.
7)Allows receiving schools to perform subsequent evaluations to
ensure appropriate placement.
8)Prohibits a LEA from charging local tuition to a transferring
student in the care of a non-custodial parent or other person
acting as the parent who lives in a jurisdiction other than
that of the custodial parent.
9)Allows a transferring student, who is placed in the care of a
non-custodial parent or other person acting as the parent who
lives in a jurisdiction other than that of the custodial
parent, to continue to attend the same school they previously
attended.
10)Requires LEA administrative officials to use best efforts to
waive courses required for graduation if a transferring
student has completed similar coursework. If a waiver is not
granted, the LEA is required to provide an alternative means
of acquiring required coursework in time to allow for an
on-time graduation.
11)Allows LEA administrative officials to waive pre-requisite
courses or other pre-conditions for course placement of
eligible pupils.
12)Allows a student to receive a diploma from the sending school
should that student meet the requirements for graduation at
the sending school, but not at the receiving school; also
requires both sending and receiving LEAs to make best efforts
to ensure this.
13)Requires a member state to facilitate the pupil's receipt of
AB 343
Page 4
the sending school diploma in time for on-time graduation if
the sending state has not adopted this Compact.
14)Requires each member state to create a state council to
provide for the coordination among its agencies of government,
local education agencies and military installations, and
specifies the membership of that state council.
15)Requires the state council to appoint a military family
education liaison to assist military families and the state.
16)Creates a compact commissioner, appointed by the governor or
as otherwise determined by each member state, responsible for
the administration and management of the state's participation
in the Compact.
17)Requires that the military family education liaison and the
compact commissioner be ex-officio, if not voting, members of
the State Council.
18)Requires that the Compact is dissolved when there is only one
member state.
19)States that the compact does not prevent the enforcement of
any other law of a member state. However, all other member
states' laws that conflict with the compact are superseded to
the extent of the conflict.
20)Requires the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
the member states to enforce the Compact and take all
necessary actions to carry out the rules promulgated as a
result of the Compact.
21)Creates the Interstate Commission on Educational Opportunity
for Military Children (the Commission) and specifies its
duties and powers.
22)Requires the Commission to:
a) Consist of one representative from each member state,
that representative being a state's compact commissioner,
who is entitled to one vote on the Commission.
b) Adopt bylaws to govern its conduct to carry out the
purposes of the compact including electing by a majority
AB 343
Page 5
vote a chairperson, a vice-chairperson and a treasurer and
specifies their duties.
c) Meet at least once during each calendar year, and
provide for open meetings and records.
d) Resolve disputes between member states and nonmember
states at the request of a member state.
e) Pay, or provide for the payment of, the reasonable
expense of its establishment, organization and ongoing
activities.
f) Keep accurate accounts of all receipts and disbursements
to be audited yearly by a certified or license public
accountant.
g) Create the Executive Committee of the Commission with
specific duties and authority.
h) Collect data related to the transition of military
families under this Compact.
i) Establish a process for the reporting of violations of
the provisions of this Compact.
j) Enforce the provisions and rules of the Compact.
23)Grants the Commission's executive director, employees, and
Commission representatives immunity from suit and liability
relating to the performance of their Commission duties.
24)Specifies the rule making authority and process of the
Commission.
25)Requires the Commission to promulgate rules to bring about
the goals of the Compact, and establishes that these rules
have the force of law over all member states unless overturned
by legislation approved individually by a majority of member
states.
26)Outlines the process the Commission must follow if it
determines a member state has defaulted in the performance of
its obligations and responsibilities under the Compact,
including, but not limited, to the use of judicial process.
AB 343
Page 6
27)Allows the Commission to levy and collect an annual
assessment from each member state to cover the cost of the
operations and activities of the Commission, but authorizes
the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to accept
nonstate funding to offset these costs.
28)Prohibits the Commission from incurring obligations of any
kind prior to securing the funds adequate to meet the same.
The Commission cannot pledge the credit of member states
without the member states' permission.
29)Allows the Commission to propose amendments to the compact
for enactment by unanimous consent of the member states.
30)Allows member states to withdraw from the compact by
repealing the statute and specifies the withdrawal process.
31)Contains a severability clause, requiring the remaining
provisions of the Compact to be enforceable, if any other
provision is deemed unenforceable.
32)Establishes an immediate effective date once 10 states have
enacted the Compact.
33)Authorizes the SPI to develop procedures for training LEA
employees on the implementation of the Compact.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides the Education Code that places requirements on
pupils, their families, local education agencies and the state
related to the provision of education in the state of
California, including as it relates to issues of enrollment,
attendance, pupil records, graduation requirements, and
transfer between school districts.
2)Allows, through permissive authority granted in the Education
Code, for the governing board of any school district to
initiate and carry on any program, activity, or otherwise act
in any manner which is not in conflict with or inconsistent
with, or preempted by, any law and which is not in conflict
with the purposes for which school districts are established.
3)Requires, in the state Constitution, that the state reimburse
AB 343
Page 7
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated
by the state.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown costs related to potential reimbursable
state-mandated local programs, and to the appointment and
maintenance of the State Council, the military family liaison
and the state compact commissioner. Unknown costs related to
the annual assessments levied on the member states to be
determined by the Interstate Commission.
COMMENTS : Interstate compacts are contracts between two or
more states creating agreements on how to address particular
policy issues, setting standards, or establishing cooperation on
regional or national matters; by their nature compacts deal with
public policy matters that extend beyond the boundaries of one
state. Most states are a party to a number of interstate
compacts. Most of these address corrections issues, such as
offender supervision and treatment of juveniles, natural
resource management, multi-state taxation, transportation, or
professional accreditation.
Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency
which is responsible for administering or improving some shared
resource such as a seaport or public transportation
infrastructure. Examples of agencies created by compacts in
which California is a participant are the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency , the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission, and the Education Commission of the States. In some
cases, a compact serves as a coordination mechanism between
independent authorities in the member states; an example of this
is the Colorado River Compact, that ws adopted by California.
Many of the earliest compacts, dating as far back as the late
1780s, were designed to settle boundary disputes.
Interstate compacts are authorized under Article I, Section 10
of the United States Constitution, which states:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay
any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in
time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage
in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent
Danger as will not admit of delay."
Individual states are free to adopt or decline to adopt any
AB 343
Page 8
compact; states ratifying compacts are bound to observe the
terms of the agreement until the compact is formally renounced
by the state. Compact provisions take precedence over
conflicting state laws and inconsistent provisions of existing
laws of a compact state.
Military families move between postings on a regular basis, and
these reassignments can be required and/or advantageous for
career personnel, they often create educational disadvantages
for the children of military families. While the armed services
has taken steps to ease the transition of personnel, their
spouses and children, the realities of frequently moving subject
these children to divergent policies, rules, and procedures at
both the state and local level. The intent of the Compact is to
ensure that the children of military families are afforded the
same opportunities for educational success as other children and
are not penalized or delayed in achieving their educational
goals by sometimes inflexible administrative and bureaucratic
practices as they move from state to state or within a state.
The average military student faces transition challenges more
than twice during high school, and most military children will
have six to nine different school systems in their lives from
kindergarten to 12th grade. With more than half of all military
personnel supporting families, the impacts of reassignment and
long deployments are a key consideration when making life and
career choices.
The Council of State Governments has worked with the U.S.
Department of Defense Office of Personnel and Readiness to draft
the Compact, addressing the educational transition issues of
children of military families. A variety of federal, state and
local officials as well as national organizations representing
interested education groups and military families worked from
July 2006 through early 2008 to develop the Compact that the
Legislature is requested to adopt in this bill. While the
Compact is not exhaustive in its coverage, it does address the
key issues encountered by military families: eligibility,
enrollment, placement and graduation. In addition, the Compact
provides for a detailed governance structure at both the state
and national levels with built-in enforcement and compliance
mechanisms.
To date, the Compact has been enacted by 14 states, including
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas,
AB 343
Page 9
Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Compact became operable, and thus
obligated those adopting states, once its language was adopted
by 10 states. Bills proposing that the state enact the Compact
are currently pending in 16 additional states; this includes
California where this bill is that vehicle. Four states,
including California, have chosen to create a task force
examining the issues related to enacting the Compact; California
and Washington have completed the task force process and have
bills pending in their respective legislatures, Illinois will be
introducing an enactment bill, and North Dakota is beginning the
task force process. Two additional states, New York and Ohio,
may be introducing bills in the near future. In all 34 states
are engaged at some point in the process of enacting or
considering enactment of the Compact. The U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD) expects 26 or 27 states to introduce bills for
Compact adoption in 2009.
According to the author, "There are about 60,000 school-age
military dependents between the ages of 5 and 18 years old in
California. Unfortunately, military families encounter
significant school challenges when dealing with enrollment,
eligibility, placement, and graduation of their children.
Twenty-five percent of the students lose their course credits
due to multiple school transfers from out-of-state and
out-of-country DOD schools to California schools." Based on
2008 counts, over 582,000 children of military families would be
covered by the provisions of this compact; slightly over 61,000
of those school-aged children reside in California.
The author introduced a bill in the prior legislative session
that was substantially similar to this bill; AB 1809 (Saldana)
was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2008. When
that bill was heard in the Assembly Education Committee, the
Committee staff recommended that the Committee consider an
alternative approach to immediate ratification of the Compact,
an approach that had been suggested in other states and that
would lead to the formation of a task force to comprehensively
examine the potential impacts and costs stemming from the
adoption of the Compact. Given the potential impacts on
legislative authority and the fiscal impacts, particularly in a
year in which the state was facing a poor financial picture, the
proposed analyses that the task force would bring seemed to be a
prudent course. The author later amended another bill, AB 2049
(Saldana), Chapter 589, Statutes of 2008, to require the SPI to
AB 343
Page 10
convene and support a task force to review and make
recommendations regarding the Compact.
The 15-member task force that was established by AB 2049
(Saldana) included individuals representing four legislators,
DOD, Navy Region Southwest, Marine Corps Installations West,
California Secretary of Education, Office of Planning and
Research, State Board of Education, one county office of
education, two school districts, one school board, and the SPI.
The task force met three times between November 2008 and
February 2009. During the meetings, the task force heard
testimony from the military representatives about the
educational issues faced by military dependents and from school
representatives about issues faced by their organizations with
respect to student transfers, reviewed and discussed state and
federal laws that correspond to the Compact provisions,
discussed potential issues that may arise if the Compact were
adopted, and discussed other issues that arose during the task
force's deliberations. The preliminary findings of the task
force are summarized in the two tables below taken from the
preliminary report of the task force. The first table notes
issues of general concern that cut across numerous articles of
the Compact. The second table addresses specific articles and
sections of the Compact, and provides a recommendation with
respect to that issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Table I. General Concerns Identified |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|---------------+-------------------------------------------------|
| Concern | |
| | Review Finding |
| | |
|---------------+-------------------------------------------------|
|State | |
|Sovereignty |The Compact does not "divest" local school |
| |boards and school administrators of their |
| |authority. A closer examination of the text of |
| |the Compact, as has been conducted by the 11 |
| |states which have enacted it and many of those |
| |states considering the legislation, will reveal |
| |that the Compact provisions have been broadly |
| |drafted with the intent to avoid conflict with |
| |existing state education codes as far as |
AB 343
Page 11
| |possible. The Compact language in the four (4) |
| |substantive areas in which uniformity is sought |
| |(enrollment, placement, eligibility, and |
| |graduation) does not seek to abrogate state |
| |control over education policy or procedure, but |
| |only to impose a duty of reasonable |
| |accommodation of the unique needs of children of |
| |military members in these four (4) areas. |
| | |
|---------------+-------------------------------------------------|
|Application to | |
|Only Military |The experiences gained in administering this |
|Dependents |Compact would be instrumental to creating a |
| |later program applicable to other transfer |
| |students, if the Legislature wished to do so. |
| | |
|---------------+-------------------------------------------------|
|Data | |
|Requirements |Data collection is the Interstate Commission's |
| |responsibility (Article IX, I). The Interstate |
| |Commission would need to obtain a unanimous vote |
| |from the member states to establish new data |
| |collection requirements or to increase fees for |
| |data collection. The first commission meeting |
| |did not discuss and took no action on this |
| |issue. |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Table II. Specific Issues Identified |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Compact | Review Finding | Recommendation |
| Provision | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article |Current state law |Make a non-material |
|IV, |delegates to local school |amendment to Article IV, |
|Section A |districts procedures for |Section A, by adding the |
| |the release of |phrase "to the extent |
| |educational records. EC |feasible" after |
AB 343
Page 12
|Unofficial |49069 and California Code |"Interstate Commission" |
|or |of Regulations, Title 5, |in the first sentence. |
|"hand-carri|Section 431 (c)(1) | |
|ed" |specify that parents | |
|education |currently have the right | |
|records. |to review and copy | |
| |student records within | |
| |five days of their | |
| |request. EC 49065 allows | |
| |districts to charge | |
| |parents for the cost of | |
| |copying student records. | |
| |This language seems to | |
| |complement the language | |
| |in the Compact, therefore | |
| |the Compact would not be | |
| |creating a new mandate. | |
| |Also note that EC 49069.5 | |
| |(d) requires that schools | |
| |provide records for | |
| |transferring foster youth | |
| |within two business days, | |
| |supporting the precedent | |
| |of districts providing | |
| |records rapidly for | |
| |certain students. | |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article |Current state law is |Make a non-material |
|IV, |similar but not identical |amendment to Article IV, |
|Section B |to the Compact provision. |Section B, by adding the |
| |The Compact requires that |phrase "to the extent |
| |the school in the sending |practicable in each |
|Official |state process and furnish |case." |
|education |the official education | |
|records/ |records to the school in | |
|transcripts|the receiving state | |
|. |within ten days. However, | |
| |this timeframe could be | |
| |changed by the Interstate | |
| |Commission. | |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
AB 343
Page 13
|Article V, |Course placement is at |Make a non-material |
|Section A |local school district |amendment to Article V, |
| |decision. |Section A, by adding "and |
| | |there is space available, |
|Course | |as determined by the |
|placement | |school district" at the |
| | |end of the first |
| | |sentence, after "if the |
| | |courses are offered." |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article V, |Program placement is at a |Make a non-material |
|Section B |local school district |amendment to Article V, |
| |decision. |Section B, by adding |
| | |"provided that the |
|Educational| |program exists in the |
| program | |school and there is space |
|placement | |available, as determined |
| | |by the school district" |
| | |at the end of the first |
| | |sentence, after "in like |
| | |programs in the sending |
| | |state." |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article |The California |Make a non-material |
|VI, |Interscholastic |amendment to Article VI, |
|Section B |Federation (CIF) rules |Section B, by adding "and |
| |pertaining to transfer |space is available, as |
| |students who want to |determined by the school |
|Eligibility|participate in sports are |district" at the end of |
| for |largely consistent with |the sentence, after "to |
|extracurric|this Compact provision. |the extent they are |
|ular |However, the LEA |otherwise qualified." |
|participati|application deadlines for | |
|on |sports or activities may | |
| |be more restrictive than | |
| |the Compact. | |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article |School districts do not |Make a non-material |
|VII, |have the authority to |amendment to Article VII, |
AB 343
Page 14
|Section A |waive state course |Section A (2), by adding |
| |requirements for |"use best efforts to" |
| |graduation. Districts do |after "shall." |
|Graduation |have discretion to | |
|- Waiver |analyze course content | |
|requirement|and determine if it meets | |
|s |graduation requirements. | |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article |California law requires |Make a non-material |
|VII, |passage of the California |amendment to Article VII, |
|Section B |High School Exit Exam |Section B, by adding " |
| |(CAHSEE) in order to |(4) In California, the |
| |graduate. |passage of the CAHSEE is |
|Exit exams | |required to graduate if |
| | |the diploma is to be |
| | |issued by a California |
| | |public school, as long as |
| | |it is a requirement in |
| | |California." |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article |School districts |Make a non-material |
|VII, |currently have discretion |amendment to Article VII, |
|Section C |regarding whether or not |Section C, by adding |
| |they work with the |"make best effort to" |
| |out-of-state district to |between "shall" and |
|Transfers |obtain a diploma from the |"ensure." |
|during |sending district and | |
|senior |whether they work with | |
|year |districts to which | |
| |California students have | |
| |transferred. | |
| | | |
|-----------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| | | |
|Article |The Interstate Commission |At its first meeting, the |
|XIV, B |may levy on and collect |Interstate Commission |
| |an annual assessment from |established the state fee |
| |each member state to |at $1 per military child |
|Financing |cover the cost of the |per year. In California, |
|of the |operations and activities |there are currently 61, |
|Interstate |of the Interstate |552 military children. |
AB 343
Page 15
|Commission |Commission and its staff | |
| |which must be in a total | |
| |amount sufficient to |Should the state be |
| |cover the Interstate |unable to appropriate |
| |Commission's annual |these funds, the task |
| |budget as approved each |force recommends that |
| |year. The aggregate |provision be made in |
| |annual assessment amount |legislation for the state |
| |shall be allocated based |to accept outside funding |
| |upon a formula to be |to offset the cost of the |
| |determined by the |annual assessment and/or |
| |Interstate Commission, |delegate the authority to |
| |which shall promulgate a |accept outside funding to |
| |rule binding upon all |a local educational |
| |member states. |agency (LEA), with the |
| | |agreement of the LEA. |
| | |Such delegation would not |
| | |imply that the LEA |
| | |accrues liability to meet |
| | |the annual assessment |
| | |requirements or is |
| | |required to use district |
| | |funds to pay the fees. |
| | | |
| | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The task force has done a commendable job with its comprehensive
discussion of the Compact and of many of the issues raised by
Committee staff in its 2008 analysis of AB 1809 (Saldana). The
task force has also made recommendations on many of those
issues, and all of those recommendations have been amended into
this bill. However, the task force (as would have been the case
with any other group) was placed in the position of forecasting
the future impacts of a complex, comprehensive statutory
agreement and its interactions with state law. Unfortunately,
forecasts do not always become reality, even for the ablest and
most diligent forecasters; for this reason, a number of concerns
must still be raised about the proposal in this bill:
1)It remains unclear what the impact of the Compact and its
trumping of state law will be on the enforcement of statute
currently in the state's Education Code or on existing legal
obligations. The breadth of the areas across which the
Compact provides mandates, as well as the unknown nature of
AB 343
Page 16
any rulemaking that follows enactment of the Compact, puts the
scope of this proposal beyond any other piece of legislation
in front of this Committee. This raises a concern that too
little is known about that part of state law related to these
students' educations that will be set aside by this Compact
and any associated agreements coming out of the Interstate
Commission.
2)This Compact may require the state to relinquish legislative
authority over some requirements in the Education Code that
have been relatively high legislative priorities, such as age
of entry, inter-district transfers, and graduation
requirements.
3)States' experiences with other interstate Compacts indicate
that there will be unintended and unanticipated consequences
to the state from entering into this Compact.
4)The Compact may create new programs or an expansion of
existing activities mandated by the state, and could thus
generate costs associated with the reimbursement of
state-mandated local costs as required by the California
Constitution. Since this Compact does not stem from a federal
requirement and is enacted through state law, any costs
associated with these new or different activities would be
reimbursable.
5)The Compact will generate direct costs to the state in an
unknown amount equal to the annual assessments levied on the
member states as determined by the Interstate Commission
(though the bill authorizes the SPI to accept nonstate funding
to offset these costs). The Compact will also generate direct
costs to the state in an unknown amount related to the
appointment and maintenance of the State Council, the military
family liaison and the state Compact commissioner, and to the
activities and duties that each must perform.
6)The Compact provisions do not apply to private schools.
7)Every requirement or authorization in this bill, excluding the
governance and policing structure and requirements that bear
on other states, could be placed in California statute through
Legislative action and without encountering the issue of the
Legislature granting power to an outside Commission to
override California law.
AB 343
Page 17
The benefits that adoption of the Compact will provide to
school-age military dependents that are enrolled or will enroll
in California schools are clear and will accrue immediately; the
costs - fiscal, administrative, and programmatic - of adopting
the Compact are less clear, even though the task force has gone
far in providing additional review and information to the
Legislature, and will not become clear until after the Compact
has been adopted. For this reason Committee staff recommends
that the Committee, if it passes this bill, consider returning
to the task force process at some point in the future as a
safeguard against unforeseen costs or impacts. If that later
retrospective analysis points out substantive concerns to the
Legislature, then it could take action to repeal this statute
and thus act to withdraw the state from the compact.
Committee amendments: Committee staff recommends that the
Committee approve the following amendments; due to the double
referral of this bill and the impending Legislative deadlines,
these amendments should be provided to the Assembly Judiciary
Committee for adoption in that Committee.
1)Direct the SPI after June 30, 2012 to reconvene, with its
original membership to the extent possible, the task force
that was convened pursuant to AB 2049 (Saldana); the
reconvened task force would review the impacts of the compact
on California, its school districts and its students, and
issue a final report regarding these impacts, including any
recommendations for legislative action, by December 1, 2012.
2)Add the phrase "use best efforts to" to the waiver process
related to required coursework for graduation; this task force
recommendation was inadvertently omitted during the drafting
process.
3)Replace a reference amended into the Compact to the
"California High School Exit Examination" with the "exit
examination adopted pursuant to Section 60850"; the California
High School Exit Examination is the test so adopted, but as a
specific test does not exist in statute. Thus if the name of
the exit examination were changed or a new test adopted, this
clause of the Compact would lose meaning.
4)Specify the membership of and the appointing authority for
members of the State Council that is charged with coordinating
AB 343
Page 18
efforts across all federal, state, and local agencies involved
in the state's participation in the Compact.
5)Specify that the appointing authority for the state's Compact
Commissioner, who is responsible for the administration and
management of the state's participation in the compact, be the
SPI.
Previous legislation: AB 2049 (Saldana), Chapter 589, Statutes
of 2008, creates an urgency statute that requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to convene and
support a task force to review and make recommendations
regarding the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for
Military Children. AB 1809 (Saldana), held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee in 2008, was substantially similar to
this bill. AB 2102 (Saldana), Chapter 608, Statutes of 2006,
establishes procedures, including requiring the CDE to establish
a formal liaison with the United States Department of Defense
and school districts that enroll military dependents, to
facilitate and smooth the transfer of school-age military
dependents and their school records
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Legion, Department of California
Lincoln Military Housing
Military Child Education Coalition
San Diego Military Advisory Council
San Diego Unified School District
Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council
Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force; Donald C. Winter,
Secretary of the Navy; and Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army
(1 letter)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087