BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2444|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2444
Author: Furutani (D)
Amended: 8/18/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-0, 06/23/10
AYES: Huff, Alquist, Emmerson, Liu, Price, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Romero, Hancock, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 05/13/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School districts: interdistrict attendance
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : 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.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/18/10 allow school district to
enter into interdistrict transfer agreements that require
pupils to reapply for permits and stipulate terms and
conditions under which the permit may be revoked.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
CONTINUED
AB 2444
Page
2
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 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.
2.Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and
conditions under which interdistrict attendance is
permitted or denied.
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.
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.
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.
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). 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.
This bill provides that a pupil who has been granted an
interdistrict transfer does not have to reapply for that
transfer. Specifically, this bill:
CONTINUED
AB 2444
Page
3
1.Provides that, once a pupil is enrolled in a school
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, except if the
district of residence and district of enrollment agree
otherwise.
3.Provides an exception for this agreement authority for
pupils entering grade 11 or 12 in the subsequent school
year.
Comments
Studies of the effect 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 apply 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 district 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.
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 of attendance (receiving
school district) to stipulate the terms and conditions
under which the permit may be revoked. Therefore, this
bill prohibits a receiving district from denying or
revoking a transfer permit for reasons other than those
CONTINUED
AB 2444
Page
4
stipulated in the agreement between two or more school
districts.
Background
There are a number of options for students who wish to
transfer to a school outside of the district of residence
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
district or residence under any circumstances. However,
there is only a small pool of DOCs across the state and,
thus, this option may not be accessible to a significant
number of California's students. Students are also
entitled to transfer to a higher performing school under
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 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 1,000 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 district
of residence. Many parents may also seek educational
opportunities for their children outside of their district
of residence 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.
Prior Legislation . AB 1465 (Richardson), 2007-08 Session,
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:
CONTINUED
AB 2444
Page
5
"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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/19/10)
Association of California School Administrators (if
amended)
City of Lakewood
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"In many school districts, transfers granted via an
interdistrict transfer authorization are limited to one
year. Parents and students are forced to go 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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Charles Calderon,
Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre,
De Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gilmore, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,
CONTINUED
AB 2444
Page
6
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Smyth,
Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Buchanan, Caballero, Hagman, Skinner,
Vacancy
CPM:cm 8/19/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED