BILL ANALYSIS AB 2444 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Julia Brownley, Chair AB 2444 (Furutani) - As Amended: April 05, 2010 SUBJECT : Interdistrict transfers. SUMMARY : Precludes a pupil who is enrolled in a school pursuant to interdistrict transfer provisions under current law from having to reapply for an interdistrict transfer and requires that a district allow a pupil to continue to attend the school in which he or she is enrolled. EXISTING STATE LAW : 1)Authorizes the governing boards of two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed five school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils. The agreement may also provide for the admission and enrollment of a pupil in a district other than that pupil's district of residence (DOR) if the district of enrollment is a party to the agreement, and requires that the district of enrollment maintain schools and classes in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12. (Education Code 46600) 2)Authorizes a school board to declare the district to be a District of Choice (DOC) that is willing to accept a specified number of students from outside of the DOC, as determined by the DOC. A DOC is not required to admit pupils but is required to select those pupils that it does elect to admit through a random process that does not choose pupils based upon academic or athletic talent. (Education Code 48300) 3)Establishes the Open Enrollment Program, which authorizes a pupil enrolled in the 1000 lowest achieving schools, as defined, to attend any higher achieving school in the state. (Education Code 48350 - 48361) 4)Provides that a school district may deem a pupil to have complied with the residency requirements for school attendance in the district if at least one parent or the legal guardian of the pupil is physically employed within the boundaries of that district. (Education Code 48204) AB 2444 Page 2 EXISTING FEDERAL LAW: 1)Provides that when a Title I school fails to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals for two or more consecutive years, parents of children in that school have the choice to transfer their children to schools which are (1) not identified for Program Improvement (PI) and (2) not identified by the state as persistently dangerous schools. (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)) 2)Provides that if all public schools served by the district are identified for PI, the district should try to establish a cooperative agreement with other districts in order to provide school choice. (NCLB) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. COMMENTS : Current law authorizes the governing board of two or more school districts to enter into an agreement for the interdistrict transfer of students. Students may then submit an application for an interdistrict transfer for approval by the DOR and desired district of enrollment. Districts may establish their own policies pertaining to the length of time for which an interdistrict transfer is valid, and many require that an interdistrict transfer permit be renewed each year. As such, many students must reapply for an interdistrict transfer each year they attend a school outside of their DOR, creating the potential for unstable educational environments if students are forced to return to their districts of residence. Studies of the effects of educational instability on student learning have revealed a number of adverse impacts on students. Research has demonstrated that instability is associated with lower student achievement regardless of the quality of a school's instructional programs. This bill seeks to enhance student stability by providing that a student granted an interdistrict transfer will not be required to reapply for an interdistrict transfer until the completion of his or her tenure at a single school. A district must, accordingly, allow the continued enrollment of a student at a school should the student be granted an interdistrict transfer. This bill does not alter the interdistrict transfer application process or the current authorities under which a transfer may be granted. There are a number of options for students who wish to transfer AB 2444 Page 3 to a school outside of their DOR in addition to the interdistrict transfer process. Under the DOC program, students may transfer to a DOC, and are not required to reapply and may not be sent back to their DOR under any circumstances. However, there is only a small pool of DOCs across the state and, thus, this option may not be accessible to students. Students are also entitled to transfer to a higher performing school under NCLB, though this entitlement is limited to students in schools designated as Title 1 under Federal law who fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years. Lastly, California law also authorizes an open enrollment option for students enrolled only in the 1000 lowest performing schools. Due to various limitations on these various transfer processes, the interdistrict transfer process is the most viable and accessible for most of California's students. Factors that may influence a family's decision to apply for an interdistrict transfer include, but are not limited to, divorce, loss of job, or other financial factors that force students to relocate to schools outside of their DOR. Many parents may also seek educational opportunities for their children outside of their DOR in order to access specialized curriculum, strong academic or extracurricular programs, or due to greater geographical convenience for the student or family members. Under such circumstances, many families seek interdistrict transfers. The provisions of this bill may impact districts during financially challenging times. Under current law, districts that send or receive a number of students under the interdistrict transfer process may choose to restrict the number of students granted interdistrict transfers in the event that districts face significant budget deficits. Districts that allow a number of students to transfer outside to another district may seek to limit or even retract the number of interdistrict transfers granted in order to generate increased average daily attendance (ADA) funding. In the 2009-2010 school year, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) granted interdistrict transfers to over 12 thousand students. However, LAUSD-facing a $640 million budget deficit-later retracted approximately 80% of these interdistrict transfers. This bill would potentially limit districts' ability to generate additional ADA and revenue in this way during a fiscal crisis. In addition, Basic Aid districts that receive a number of interdistrict transfer students may wish to reject or rescind interdistrict transfers into the district under similar circumstances in order to preserve educational resources for resident students only. The AB 2444 Page 4 Beverly Hills Unified School District recently rescinded interdistrict transfers granted to a number of students who had previously transferred into the district. This bill would eliminate a district's ability to take these actions and, thus, may create a disincentive against districts granting interdistrict transfers. In order to mediate this problem, Staff recommends amending this bill to include a provision that would allow districts to rescind interdistrict transfers in the event that they face significant budget deficits during a school year. This amendment is consistent with provisions under the DOC program which would authorize a DOR to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent budget certification. This bill may also potentially create inequities pertaining to the interdistrict transfer process between districts for students across the state. Schools significantly vary in their grade-level configuration, as detailed below: ------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ | Elementary | | Schools | | | | | ------------------ |--------+---------| | | | | Grade | Number | |--------+---------| | | | | K | 28 | |--------+---------| | | | | K-1 | 21 | |--------+---------| | | | | K-2 | 48 | |--------+---------| | | | | K-3 | 86 | |--------+---------| | | | AB 2444 Page 5 | K-4 | 89 | |--------+---------| | | | | K-5 | 2,477 | |--------+---------| | | | | K-6 | 1,928 | |--------+---------| | | | | K-7 | 42 | |--------+---------| | | | | K-8 | 658 | ------------------ ------------------- |Kindergarten-Grade | | 12 Schools | | | | | ------------------- ------------------- | | | | Grade | Number | ------------------- | | | | K-8 | 11 | |---------+---------| | | | | K-12 |69 | | | | ------------------- In the instance that a student attends a K-1 school, the family will be required to reapply for an interdistrict transfer after just two years of attendance in a school, thus undermining the author's intent of this bill. A student in a K-12 school, conversely, will not be required to reapply at any point during their 13 years of attendance in a school. The committee may consider the implications of these inequities and whether expanding the scope of AB 2444 to include a student's entire tenure within a district or specifying the number of school years a transfer may be valid is appropriate. However, expanding an interdistrict transfer to be inclusive of a AB 2444 Page 6 student's entire tenure within a school system may produce additional financial and other disincentives for districts to offer interdistrict transfers under such permanent agreements. School administrators have also raised concerns over granting extended or permanent interdistrict transfers in situations where educators or families discover a student's special education needs later during a student's tenure in a single school. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a district must provide a "free and appropriate public education" (FAPE) that meets a child's educational needs, regardless of special needs. However, the author may wish to consider whether language clarifying the assignment of the costs of providing special education services to special needs students should be included in interdistrict transfer agreements. In 2007, the Governor vetoed AB 1465 (Richardson)-a bill pertaining only to the Compton Unified School District (CUSD) and LAUSD that prohibited a transfer from being required to resubmit a new application annually in order to remain enrolled in the school district-issuing the following veto message: "This bill merely reiterates in statute that the Compton Unified School District (CUSD) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) must abide by the terms of their existing mutually adopted agreement, including the provision that pupils shall not be required to annually resubmit a new transfer application. Therefore, this bill is unnecessary." This bill, however, is inclusive of districts across the state, including those that may not provide for such terms in their existing agreements. Accordingly, this bill would override any provisions, or lack thereof, in interdistrict transfer agreements pertaining to the length an interdistrict transfer remains valid, though it does not alter any other interdistrict transfer granting procedures. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support City of Lakewood AB 2444 Page 7 Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Pilar Whitaker and Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087