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