BILL ANALYSIS AB 1933 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES Jim Beall, Jr., Chair AB 1933 (Brownley) - As Amended: April 5, 2010 SUBJECT : Foster children: education SUMMARY : Modifies requirements for local educational agencies to allow wards and dependents to stay in their school of origin for the duration of the court's jurisdiction. Specifically, this bill : 1)Specifies that when a child becomes a ward or dependent of the court, or their residential placement changes, the local educational agency (LEA) shall allow the child to continue in his or her school of origin for the duration of the court's jurisdiction. 2)Provides that when court jurisdiction ends before the end of the school year, the child shall be allowed to stay at the school of origin until the end of the school year. 3)Requires the LEA to allow a foster child to matriculate with his or her peers between grade levels, and from one school to another through high school for the duration of the court's jurisdiction. EXISTING LAW 1)Requires that all educational and school placement decisions for foster children be based on the best interests of the child, ensuring the child is placed in the least restrictive educational programs. Education Code (EDC) 48850, 48853. 2)Requires proximity to the child's school be considered, as one of several criteria, including proximity to the parent's home, and whether the selected setting is the least restrictive, most family-like, and appropriate setting, when out-of-home placement is considered in a child's case plan. Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) 16501.1. 3)Requires the LEA to allow a foster child to continue in his or her school of origin for the duration of the school year when AB 1933 Page 2 placed in foster care, or whenever the child's residential placement changes. EDC 48853.5. 4)Provides that the LEA's educational liaison for foster children (liaison), in consultation with, and the agreement of, the foster child and the foster child's educational rights holder, may recommend that the child's right to attend their school of origin be waived if in the child's best interests. EDC 48853.5. 5)Requires that, when a foster child is to be best served by transferring to a new school, rather than the school of origin, the foster child shall be immediately enrolled in the new school, regardless of whether the foster child has outstanding fees, fines, or textbooks or the last school is unable to provide the documents necessary for student enrollment. EDC 48853.5. 6)Requires a foster child remain in his or her school of origin should a dispute arise regarding the child's request to remain in the school of origin. EDC 48853.5. 7)Defines "school of origin" as the school the foster child attended when he or she was permanently housed or the last school the foster child was enrolled in. EDC 48853.5. 8)Defines "local educational agency" as a school district, county office of education, charter school participating as a member of a special education local plan area, or special education local plan area. EDC 48859. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : Need for this bill: According to the author, this bill is an attempt to ensure educational stability by allowing foster children to remain in their school of origin throughout the time they are under the court's jurisdiction. Educational stability is an important way to ensure the overall well-being of foster youth and helps to ensure a successful transition to adulthood. As the Institute for Higher Education Policy pointed out in their 2005 primer, "Higher Education Opportunities for Foster Youth": AB 1933 Page 3 The most important barrier to educational attainment and high school graduation that is unique to foster youth is the frequent disruptions of their education by changes in school placement. Foster youth change schools about once every six months, and some research suggests that they lose an average of four to six months of educational attainment each time they change schools. California made significant progress toward educational stability through the framework provided by AB 490 (Steinberg), Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003, which, in addition to requiring immediate enrollment of foster children, also required that when a child is placed in foster care, or the child's placement changes, LEAs must allow the child to remain in his or her school of origin until the end of the school year. AB 490 also attempted to improve educational stability by including it as one of several factors considered when making residential placement decisions for foster children. This bill would require the LEA to allow a child to continue his or her education in the child's school of origin, and to change schools with his or her classmates as the child matriculates from elementary to middle and high school, for as long as the child remains in foster care, and that educational placement is in his or her best interests. It does not require the student to be placed in the school of origin, nor does it add requirements to how residential placement decisions are made. According to the author, this bill would extend the length of time afforded to foster youth in their school of origin, to align with provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Fostering Connections Act) (H.R. 6893, P.L. 110-351), which seek to improve educational stability for foster youth. Arguments in support: According to the California Youth Connection: For foster youth, the transience of out-of-home placement means that school placement may be the one place where they can develop positive, lasting relationships and legitimately depend on adult AB 1933 Page 4 consistency. Unfortunately, frequent changes in residential placement lead to frequent changes in school placement; it is estimated that California's foster youth attend an average of nine different schools by age 18. The California Court Appointed Special Advocates Association writes in support of this bill: AB 1933 gives children- and those that care about them- the option to keep the child in the school of origin until the case stabilizes, and therefore not mandating a change in schools until it makes sense to do so . This will give the child a chance to make and maintain lasting connections with peers, teachers, coaches, counselors, and others met through school. It is these connections to caring individuals that really makes the difference. Arguments in opposition: According to the Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators (SELPAs): This bill would require a local educational agency to allow the foster child to continue at the school of origin at the foster child's initial detention, placement, or any subsequent change in placement for the duration of the jurisdiction of the court. The SELPA administrators oppose this legislation for the following reasons: Current law allows for pupils to continue placement to the end of the school year. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) process has provisions for successful transition from one school to the new school. No provision for transportation across LEA/SELPA agreements is included. Inconsistencies with IDEA may arise regarding provision of FAPE, as the IEP team is required to recommend the appropriate placement. For LCI pupils, on the on-grounds Non-Public School (NPS) would severely limit the pupil access to other options, including college preparatory classes and inclusion. AB 1933 Page 5 Prior and related legislation: SB 1353 (Wright) of 2010 provides that proximity to the school of origin is an indicator of the "best interests" of a foster child with respect to educational stability. SB 1353 passed out of Senate Education Committee 7-0 and is pending a hearing in the Senate Human Services Committee. AB 1067 (Brownley) of 2009, held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, sought to increase educational stability for foster children by requiring transportation to the school of origin to conform with federal law. AB 490 (Steinberg) Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003 made numerous changes to the education code in order to improve the educational stability and outcomes of foster youth. SECOND COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE . This bill was previously heard in the Assembly Education Committee on March 24, 2009, and was approved on a 9 - 0 vote. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Public Counsel Law Center (co-sponsor) Youth Law Center (co-sponsor) Alliance for Children's Rights Angel's Flight At Risk Youth Services California Alliance of Child and Family Services California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) California State PTA California Youth Connection Children's Advocacy Institute Children's Law Center of Los Angeles Common Ground Compton Unified School District Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Families in Schools (FIS) Learning Rights Law Center Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc. My Friend's Place National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter AB 1933 Page 6 (NASW-CA) National Center for Youth Law The Alliance For Children's Rights United Friends of Children (UFC) 3 Individuals Opposition Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators Analysis Prepared by : Michelle Doty Cabrera / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089