BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1085
AUTHOR: Davis
AMENDED: April 26, 2011
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 8, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : School attendance appeals.
SUMMARY
This bill extends the period of time a county office of
education (COE), in a Class 1 or Class 2 county, has for
determining whether a pupil, who has filed an interdistrict
attendance appeal, can attend the district the pupil
desires. The period of time would be extended from 30
calendar days to 40 school days and only applicable for
COEs with a countywide average daily attendance greater
than 180,000.
BACKGROUND
Current law provides for several means to authorize
interdistrict attendance of a pupil who resides in one
school district but wishes to attend public school in
another school district. The main authorization provides
for interdistrict attendance when both the district of
residence and district of proposed attendance agree. This
process allows the parent or guardian of a pupil requesting
interdistrict attendance to appeal to the county board of
education (CBE) in the event that either district refuses
the requested transfer. In addition, current law allows the
governing board of a school district for a period not to
exceed two school months to provisionally admit to their
schools a pupil who resides in another district, pending a
decision of the two boards, or by the CBE upon appeal,
regarding the interdistrict attendance. The provisional
attendance may be counted by the district of attendance for
revenue limit and state apportionment purposes. (Education
Code § 46600 et. seq.)
Current law, specifies if either district fails to approve
AB 1085
Page 2
the interdistrict attendance of a pupil, or in the case of
the failure or refusal of the districts to enter into an
agreement, the person having legal custody of the pupil may
appeal to the county board of education; and, requires the
county board of education to determine, within 30 calendar
days, whether the pupil should be permitted to attend in
the district in which the pupil desires. (EC § 46601)
Current law defines "Class 1 county" to mean a county with
1994-95 countywide average daily attendance (ADA) of more
than 500,000; and defines "Class 2 county" to mean a county
with 1994-95 countywide ADA of at least 180,000 but less
than 500,000 ADA. (EC § 48919.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill extends the period of time a county office of
education, in a Class 1 or Class 2 county, has for
determining whether a pupil, who has filed an interdistrict
attendance appeal, can attend the district the pupil
desires. The period of time would be extended from 30
calendar days to 40 school days and only applicable for
COEs with a countywide average daily attendance greater
than 180,000.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill. According to the author's office,
LA County Office of Education (LACOE) has been
experiencing a heavy volume of interdistrict appeals
in 2010-11. As of April 27, 554 appeals have been
filed. This measure would provide additional time to
process appeals by excluding weekends and holidays
2) Is this a short or long-term trend ? The bill provides
that only very large counties (180,000 average daily
attendance or higher) would be authorized to take
advantage of the extended period of time for dealing
with interdistrict attendance appeals. Although it is
obvious that very large counties are likely to have
more appeals that can be very time consuming, that
does not mean that convenience and practicality are
the only good reasons to provide such an alternative
option. Smaller counties may very well wish to take
advantage of such an alternative, particularly in
complicated and controversial cases that require much
more analysis and time. Otherwise, there is no
AB 1085
Page 3
analytical basis to only allow very large counties to
avail themselves of this option.
In addition, over the past few years there has been an
erosion of school funding at all levels (school
district and county offices) and the implications of
having less resources impacts all aspects of education
- direct instructional programs and supplemental and
ancillary services; couple this with an increased
policy emphasis on providing greater parental choice
on the schools pupils can attend, and there is a
general convergence to create an environment for a
greater number of appeals that are elevated for
resolution by COEs. Finally, since data is limited on
the number of interdistrict attendance appeals that
require a formal hearing of the COE board, with the
exception of LACOE, the need for a permanent change
may dissipate over time. Therefore, staff recommends
an amendment that the appeal extension, include a
reasonable sunset date, of July 1, 2015. This date of
sunset is consistent with other types of flexibility
provided school districts and COEs for categorical
programs. The rationale for extension is to provide a
modicum of appeal review flexibility, but maintaining
the underlying goal of timely response for pupils and
their families.
3) Class 1 and Class 2 counties . The following counties
are considered class one or class two counties and
would qualify for the timeline extension: Alameda,
Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, and Santa
Clara. It is unclear whether any of these counties
have experienced the same type of increase in appeals
that LACOE has experienced.
4) Related legislation. SB 268 (Wright) specifies the
scope of review by a county board of education (CBE)
when an appeal of interdistrict pupil attendance
occurs, and requires that a hearing be held within 30
calendar days after the appeal is filed, as specified.
This measure passed this committee on a 7-3 vote;
however, was subsequently held under submission in
Senate Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
AB 1085
Page 4
Hawthorne School District
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools
Wiseburn School District
OPPOSITION
None on file.