BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 47
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 30, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 47 (Huffman) - As Introduced: December 6, 2010
SUBJECT : Schools: open enrollment.
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the Open Enrollment (OE) Act, as
specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
annually create a list of up to 1,000 schools that are
eligible for open enrollment.
2)Deletes the requirement that a local educational agency (LEA)
shall not have more than 10% of its schools on the OE list;
and, deletes the specification that the number of schools
identified within a LEA for the OE program be divisible by 10.
3)Requires schools on the open enrollment list to be ranked in
decile one of the most current year's growth Academic
Performance Index (API).
4)Specifies that county offices of education operating a special
education program and state special schools shall not be
included on the open enrollment list.
EXISTING STATE LAW :
1)Open Enrollment Act : The Open Enrollment program allows any
pupil enrolled in one of 1000 schools identified by the SPI as
low achieving to enroll in a higher performing school anywhere
in the state. The list of 1000 schools is established by
ranking schools based on the academic performance index (API),
making the following exclusions from the list: county
community schools, community day schools, juvenile court
schools, charter schools, any school that would make a school
district have more than 10% of its schools in the program, and
any school that would disrupt the balance of elementary,
middle and high schools ranked in decile one based on the API
in the 2008-09 school year. Districts of enrollment (DOE) are
required to ensure that communications to parents do not
target individual families or neighborhoods. DOEs are
authorized to adopt written standards for acceptance and
AB 47
Page 2
rejection of applications, including consideration of adverse
financial impact pupil transfers may have on a school
district; and, requires that the standards adopted by the DOE
for accepting or rejecting student transfers not include
consideration of a pupil's family income, or any of the
individual characteristics set forth in Education Code Section
200, and encourages districts to keep records on the personal
characteristics of students that transfer under this program.
The SPI is required to contract for an independent evaluation
of the program, and provide the final report of the evaluation
to the Legislature, Governor, and state board of education
(SBE) on or before October 1, 2014. (Education Code
48350-48361)
2)District of Choice : Under the District of Choice (DOC)
program, a school board may declare the district to be a DOC
willing to accept a specified number of inter-district
transfers. The DOC program provides protections against
districts targeting students in specific residential
neighborhoods, on the basis of a child's actual or perceived
academic or athletic performance or any other personal
characteristic. A DOC may reject the transfer of a pupil if
the transfer of that pupil would require the district to
create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a DOC
shall not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil,
including an individual with exceptional needs, and an English
learner. DOCs are required to collect specific data about the
students who transfer to their district and report that data
to surrounding districts and to the state. This data is
required to be reported annually to the Legislature and the
Governor, and the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is
required to prepare a comprehensive evaluation of the program.
(Education Code 48300-48316)
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW :
1)Requires schools identified under program improvement (PI) to
provide pupils the option to transfer to another school within
the district that has not been identified for PI. Requires
school districts, where schools within the district have been
identified for PI, to provide transportation for pupils who
transfer to other schools within the school district.
2)Requires school districts identified for corrective action to
authorize pupils to transfer from a school operated by the
AB 47
Page 3
school district to another higher performing school operated
by another school district, and provide transportation for the
pupil to that school. The obligation of the school district
to provide transportation for the pupil ends at the end of the
school year if a school district determines that the school
from which a pupil transferred is no longer identified for PI.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal, however, the
Assembly Appropriations Committee has requested to hear this
bill. If this bill is passed by the Assembly
Education Committee, it will be referred to the Committee on
Appropriations to consider the fiscal implications.
COMMENTS : This bill makes changes to the Open Enrollment
program by: specifying that the SPI shall identify up to 1000
schools for OE; deleting the 10% cap on the number of schools
identified in any individual school district; specifying that
schools on the OE list shall be ranked in decile one of the most
current year's growth API; and, specifying that county offices
of education operating a special education program and state
special schools shall not be included on the OE list.
Higher Achieving Schools on the Open Enrollment List : Since the
implementation of the OE program began, many schools and
districts have come forward expressing frustration with their
identification as a "low performing school" despite their
success in achieving API scores in the 700-800+ range. The
committee should consider whether it is appropriate to identify
schools with API scores in the 700-800+ range as "low achieving"
for purposes of the OE program. The committee should also
consider whether to implement an API cutoff, so that schools
with an API over a certain number cannot be identified for the
OE program. In addition, the committee may wish to consider
adding a growth component to the identification criteria, for
example, if the school is below the an API cutoff score of 700,
but has achieved growth of 50 points on their API in the prior
year, perhaps the school should not be identified on the OE
list. Also, the committee should consider limiting the schools
identified to those that fall below these criteria for two
consecutive years, in order to account for fluctuations in a
school's API score.
The 10% Cap : Existing law limits the number of schools that can
be identified for the OE program within a district to 10% of the
AB 47
Page 4
total number of schools in the district. Existing law also
specifies that if the number of schools in a school district is
not evenly divisible by 10, then the number of schools shall be
rounded to the next whole number of schools. This means that if
a district has between one and 10 schools, a maximum of one
school can be identified on the OE list; and, if a district has
between 11-20 schools then a maximum of two schools can be
identified, etc. Since these provisions of current law provide
basic protections for school districts from having a majority,
or even all, of their schools identified for OE at one time, the
committee should consider reinstating these sections.
Ongoing Open Enrollment Program Concerns : When the Assembly
Education Committee heard SB 4 X5 (Romero), which established
the OE program, the following concerns were expressed and
continue to persist:
1)The DOC program, on which the OE program is modeled, includes
several safeguards that are not included in the OE program.
The committee should consider whether to include the same
safeguards in the OE program that exist for the DOC program,
which include:
a) Including a sunset date for the program, so the
Legislature can consider the results of the evaluation and
decide whether to continue the program based on those
results.
b) Specifying explicitly that a district of enrollment may
not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, and an
English learner.
c) Requiring each district of enrollment to keep records
of: 1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn
as well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of
pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The number of
pupils transferred into the district; and, 4) The race,
ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, and
the school district of residence of each of the pupils
described above.
d) Requiring the information listed above to be reported to
the governing board of the district of enrollment and to
each school district that is geographically adjacent to the
district of enrollment, the county office of education in
which the district is located, the SPI, and the Department
of Finance (DOF).
e) Requiring the information listed above to be annually
reported to the Legislature and the Governor.
2)It is unclear whether the OE program requires districts of
AB 47
Page 5
enrollment to accept any transfers under this program. The
program specifies that a district can create standards for
accepting and rejecting students, and provides protections for
discrimination against individual students, but the program
may not prohibit a school district from rejecting all
transfers under this program. For example, could a district
create a policy that says they will not accept any transfers
and/or could a district create a policy that rejects all
students from a specific district or school?
3)Existing law excludes charter schools from the list of schools
required to participate in the open enrollment program. Of
the 945 schools ranked in decile one based on the API in
2008-09, there were 103 charter schools. This means that 103
of California's lowest achieving charter schools are be
excluded from the open enrollment program and an equal number
of higher achieving traditional public schools are required to
participate in this program. Since charter school pupils who
leave a charter school only have enrollment rights in their
district of residence, this exclusion will limit the
opportunity for charter school students to move to a
higher-performing school if they choose to leave their low
performing (charter) school. There is no clear rationale for
limiting the opportunity for charter school pupils to leave a
low-performing school, and treating charter pupils differently
than non-charter pupils in this respect.
Arguments in Support : According to the Association of
California School Administrators (ACSA), "On behalf of more than
15,000 school, district and county office education leaders ACSA
is pleased to co-sponsor and support AB 47 which makes changes
to the methodology for identifying what are considered "low
performing schools" for the purpose of the new Open Enrollment
Act. The unintended consequence of this law is that many higher
performing schools are currently labeled as "failing" when they
are not. In the rush to create a political compromise during
last year's Race to the Top discussions the Open Enrollment Act
was created with significant flaws. AB 47 intends to remedy
those flaws keeping intact the basic premise of the statute."
Previous Legislation : SB 4 X5 (Romero) created the Open
Enrollment program, which allows any pupil enrolled in one of
1000 schools identified by the SPI as low achieving to enroll in
a higher performing school anywhere in the state, as specified.
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the following
AB 47
Page 6
amendments:
1)Include a sunset date of June 30, 2015 for the program.
2)Specify explicitly that a district of enrollment may not
reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an
individual with exceptional needs as defined in Education Code
56026, and an English learner.
3)Require each district of enrollment to keep transfer records
and require the records to be reported to the governing board
of the district of enrollment and to each school district that
is geographically adjacent to the district of enrollment, the
county office of education in which the district is located,
the SPI, and DOF; and, require the information listed above to
be annually reported to the Legislature and the Governor.
4)Require districts of enrollment to create standards for
accepting and rejecting students that includes a process for
accepting some number of students according to capacity.
5)Include charter schools on the OE list.
6)Delete the requirement that schools on the open enrollment
list be identified in decile one and instead specify that
schools with an API score of more than 700 and schools with a
prior year API growth of 50 points or more shall not be
included on the list. Also specify that schools shall only be
eligible for OE if they are identified on the OE list for two
consecutive years.
7)Reinstate the 10% cap on the number of schools that can be
identified for OE in a school district and clarify the process
for calculating the 10% cap for school districts for which the
number of schools in the district is not evenly divisible by
10. This language will clarify that school districts with
between one and 10 schools shall have a maximum of one school
identified on the OE list, districts with 11-20 schools shall
have a maximum of two schools identified, etc.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alhambra Unified School District
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California State PTA
Central Unified School District
Clovis Unified School District
Eastside Union School District
Fremont Unified School District
AB 47
Page 7
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Moorpark Unified School District
Newhall School District
Ocean View School District
Park Middle School
Pasadena Unified School District
Plumas Unified School District
Public Advocates, Inc.
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
San Jose Unified School District
San Rafael City Schools
San Ysidro School District
Silver Valley Unified School District
Small School Districts' Association
Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators
Upland Unified School District
Several Individuals
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087