BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Gloria Romero, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session BILL NO: AB 2444 AUTHOR: Furutani AMENDED: May 11, 2010 FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 23, 2010 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber SUBJECT : Interdistrict Transfer KEY POLICY ISSUES Should school districts that accept a pupil on an interdistrict transfer be required to allow that pupil to continue to attend the school without having to ever reapply for the interdistrict transfer? Should school districts of residence be authorized to rescind existing interdistrict transfer permits if the district receives a qualified or negative fiscal certification? Should a school district of residence be prohibited from rescinding the transfer permit for any pupil entering grades 11 or 12 in the subsequent school year? Should statute supersede local agreements? SUMMARY This bill provides that a pupil who has been granted an interdistrict transfer does not have to reapply for that transfer, and authorizes a school district of residence to rescind existing transfer permits if it receives a qualified or negative fiscal certification. BACKGROUND Current law: 1) Authorizes two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed five school years, for the interdistrict transfer of pupils who are residents of the districts. This process allows a AB 2444 Page 2 parent to request a permit to attend a school district that is a party to the agreement, and provides for an appeal process if either of the districts denies the transfer request. (Education Code 46600) 2) Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance is permitted or denied. (EC 46600) 3) Provides that it is the responsibility of the district of attendance (receiving school district) to stipulate the terms and conditions under which the permit may be revoked. (EC 46600) 4) Requires the supervisor of attendance of the district of residence to issue an individual permit verifying the district's approval, pursuant to policies of the governing board and terms of the transfer agreement, for the transfer and for the applicable period of time. A permit is valid upon concurring endorsement by the receiving school district. (EC 46600) 5) Establishes a process whereby a parent may appeal to the county board of education the decision of either district that fails to approve the transfer request, or fails to enter into an agreement. (EC 46601) In contrast, the District of Choice option does not require the agreement of the district of residence before a pupil may transfer (it does require a district to choose to be designated as a district of choice in order to enroll these transfer pupils). (EC 48301) A district of residence that has a negative fiscal certification may limit the number of pupils who transfer out of that district into a district of choice. (EC 48307) ANALYSIS This bill provides that a pupil who has been granted an interdistrict transfer does not have to reapply for that transfer, and authorizes a school district of residence to rescind existing transfer permits if it receives a qualified or negative fiscal certification. Specifically, this bill: 1) Provides that, once a pupil is enrolled in a school AB 2444 Page 3 pursuant to an interdistrict transfer, the pupil shall not have to reapply for an interdistrict transfer. 2) Requires the governing board of the school district of enrollment to allow the pupil to continue to attend the school in which he or she is enrolled. 3) Authorizes a school district of residence to rescind existing transfer permits for the subsequent school year if it is determined to not meet the standards and criteria for fiscal stability and it receives a qualified or negative certification in that fiscal year. 4) Prohibits a school district of residence from rescinding existing transfer permits for pupils entering grades 11 or 12 in the subsequent school year. STAFF COMMENTS 1) Need for the bill : According to the author, "In many school districts, transfers granted via an interdistrict transfer authorization are limited to one year. Parents and students are forced to got through the transfer process every year, even if the student already ahs been granted the transfer for previous years. This limitation creates uncertainty and instability for students and parents. The requirement to reapply annually for the interdistrict transfer produces situations where students are uprooted - from their established relationships with their teachers and counselors, from their extracurricular activities such as sports and student organizations, or from educational curriculums such as the International Baccalaureate program or magnet programs that are only offered at select schools." 2) Will this tie the hands of the receiving district ? This bill requires a receiving school district to allow a pupil who has been granted an interdistrict transfer permit to continue to attend the school in which he or she is enrolled without having to reapply for the permit. Current law requires the transfer agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance may be permitted or denied, and provides that it is the responsibility of the district AB 2444 Page 4 of attendance (receiving school district) to stipulate the terms and conditions under which the permit may be revoked. Therefore, this bill would prohibit a receiving district from denying or revoking a transfer permit for reasons other than those stipulated in the agreement between two or more school districts. Does this provide adequate protections for receiving school districts that choose to enter into interdistrict transfer agreements? Will this discourage districts from entering into interdistrict transfer agreements? 3) Link back to agreement between districts . This bill diminishes local control by requiring the receiving school to allow a pupil to continue to attend the school without having to reapply for a transfer. This could lead to situations where the transfer agreement stipulates that the receiving district will allow transfers for three years, but statute would require the pupil to be allowed to attend indefinitely. Staff believes that statute would trump a transfer agreement under this scenario. Therefore, staff recommends amendments to require the school district of enrollment to allow the pupil to continue to attend the school in which he or she is enrolled only to the extent it is consistent with the terms and conditions stipulated in the interdistrict transfer agreement between the districts. 4) Prior legislation . AB 1465 (Richardson, 2007) would have required the Compton Unified School District and the Los Angeles Unified School District to abide by their interdistrict transfer agreement, specifically with regards to the provision that a transfer shall not be required to resubmit a new application annually in order to remain enrolled in the school district. AB 1465 was vetoed by the Governor, whose message read: 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. AB 2444 Page 5 SUPPORT City of Lakewood An individual OPPOSITION None received.