BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1575
AUTHOR: Lara
AMENDED: May 30, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 27, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT :Pupil fees.
SUMMARY
This bill codifies the Constitutional prohibition on the
imposition of pupil fees and establishes policies to ensure
compliance with the prohibition.
BACKGROUND
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to
provide for a system of common schools by which a free school
shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six
months in every year, after the first year in which a school
has been established. (California Constitution, Article IX,
Section 5)
Existing law establishes that state-supported educational
opportunities are a right to be enjoyed without regard to
economic status and prohibits school officials from requiring
any pupil, except for pupils in classes for adults, to
purchase any instructional material for the pupils' use in
the school.
(Education Code § 51004 and § 60070)
Existing law specifies that a pupil enrolled in a school
shall not be required to pay any fee, deposit, or other
charge not specifically authorized by law.
(California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 350)
Existing law, through the California Code of Regulations,
requires school districts to adopt Uniform Complaint
Procedures (UCP) that provide a process by which the public
can file written statements alleging discrimination or a
violation of a federal or state law and that delineate the
responsibilities of the complainant, the local educational
AB 1575
Page 2
agency, and the California Department of Education (CDE).
Existing law, through statute, establishes a UCP for
complaints regarding instructional materials, emergency or
urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health
and safety of pupils, and teacher vacancy or misassignment.
(California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600 and EC
§ 35186)
ANALYSIS
1) Specifies a pupil enrolled in a public school shall not
be required to pay a pupil fee for participation in an
educational activity
2) Defines "pupil fee" as a fee, deposit, or other charge
imposed on pupils, or a pupil's parents or guardians in
violation of Section 49011 and the California
Constitution which require educational activities to be
provided free of charge to all pupils without regard to
their families' ability or willingness to pay fees or
request special waivers, as specified. Further
specifies that a fee includes but is not limited to:
a) A fee charged to a pupil as a condition for
registering for school or classes or as a condition
for participation in a class or an extracurricular
activity, regardless of whether the class or
activity is elective or compulsory, or is for
credit.
b) A security deposit or other payment that a
pupil is required to make to obtain a lock, locker,
book, class apparatus, musical instrument, uniform,
or other materials or equipment.
c) A purchase that a pupil is required to make to
obtain materials, supplies, equipment, or uniforms
associated with educational activities.
3) Defines educational activity to mean an activity offered
by a school, school district, charter school or county
office of education that constitutes an integral
fundamental part of elementary and secondary education,
including, but not limited to, curricular and
extracurricular activities.
4) Requires all supplies, materials, and equipment needed
AB 1575
Page 3
to participate in educational activities to be provided
to pupils free of charge and specifies that a fee-waiver
policy shall not make a pupil fee permissible.
5) Prohibits school districts and schools from establishing
a two-tier educational system or offering course credit
or privileges related to educational activities in
exchange for money or donations of goods or services
from a pupil or a pupil's parents or guardians.
6) Prohibits a school district or school from offering
course credit or privileges related to educational
activities in exchange for money or donations of goods
or services from a pupil or pupil's parents or
guardians, and prohibits a school district or school
from removing course credit or privileges related to
educational activities, or otherwise discriminate
against a pupil because the pupil or the pupil's parents
or guardians did not or will not provide money or
donations of goods or services to the school district or
school.
7) Specifies that this legislation not be interpreted to
prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations of funds or
property, voluntary participation in fundraising
activities, or school districts and schools from
providing pupils prizes or other recognition for
voluntarily participating in fundraising activities.
8) Specifies that the prohibition against pupil fees
applies to all public schools, including, but not
limited to, charter schools and alternative schools.
9) Requires the California Department of Education (CDE)
commencing in the 2014-15 fiscal year and every three
years thereafter, to develop and distribute guidance
regarding pupil fees and make it available on its
Internet Web site. Provides that the guidance shall not
constitute a regulation.
10) Adds a complaint related to the imposition of pupil fees
for participation in educational activities to the
existing Uniform Complaint Process (UCP) established
under the Williams v. State of California settlement
agreement and requires school districts to use the
process to identify and resolve any deficiencies related
to the imposition of pupil fees for participation in
educational activities. Requires a charter school to
AB 1575
Page 4
use the uniform complaint process it has adopted with
modifications as necessary.
11) Specifies that a complainant not satisfied with the
resolution offered by a school principal or the designee
of the district superintendent or charter school has the
right to file an appeal to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, who shall provide, within 30 working days,
a written report to the State Board of Education and the
complainant. If the report finds a school district or
charter school has unlawfully imposed a pupil fee, the
Superintendent must require the district, charter
school, or school to fully reimburse all affected
pupils, parents, or guardians.
12) Adds to the existing notice requirements of the UCP
(which requires a notice to be posted in each classroom
in each school in the school district) notice that
pupils shall not be charged fees, including security
deposits, or be required to purchase materials or
equipment, to participate in a class or an
extracurricular activity.
13) Requires a notice to be posted in each classroom of a
charter school notifying parents/guardians, pupils, and
teachers of the following: (a) pupils are not to be
charged fees and (b) the location in which to obtain a
form to file a complaint in case there is a shortage of
complaint forms. States a notice to be downloaded from
the CDE's Internet Website satisfies the posting
requirement.
14) Requires school districts, county offices of education,
and charter schools to establish local policies and
procedures, post notices and implement the provisions of
AB 1575 regarding pupil fees on or before March 1, 2013.
15) Provides for local educational agencies to be reimbursed
for costs associated with complying with this measure if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that the act
contains mandated costs.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Background . The California Constitution entitles public
school pupils to a free and equal education and current
AB 1575
Page 5
law specifies that state-supported educational
opportunities are a right to be enjoyed without regard
to economic status. Additionally, the California Code
of Regulations prohibits schools from charging pupils
fees, deposits, or other charges not specifically
authorized by law. In 1984, the California Supreme
Court ruled in Hartzell v. Connell that public schools
cannot charge students or families fees as a condition
for participating in educational programs, including
extracurricular activities. The Court opined that
because extracurricular activities are an integral
component of public education and are therefore part of
the educational program, they must be free. The opinion
further stated that "imposition of fees as a
precondition for participation in non-statutory
educational programs offered by public high school
districts on a non-credit basis violates the free school
guarantee."
In August 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
released a report that detailed the results of an
investigation that found more than 50 public school
districts that charge pupil fees for participating in
educational programs. The types of fees ranged from
charges for text books, workbooks, science lab fees,
material fees for fine arts classes, and required
purchases of physical education uniforms. The study
found that charges for participation in extracurricular
activities were often in the hundreds, and in some
cases, thousands of dollars.
In September 2010, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit
against the state (Jane Doe, et al. v. State of
California, et al., Super. Court, Los Angeles County,
2010, BC445151) claiming that many of the fees charged
for school activities and supplies violate the
California Constitution and various provisions of the
Education Code and seeking an injunction directing the
State of California to develop a monitoring and
enforcement system to prevent the imposition of
unconstitutional fees.
In December 2010, former Governor Schwarzenegger and the ACLU
announced a tentative settlement in Doe v. California.
The Settlement would have established a monitoring and
enforcement system, but the court did not finalize the
settlement. The following April, the ACLU filed an
AB 1575
Page 6
amended complaint that dropped the Governor as a
defendant and added the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, the CDE, and the State Board of Education
(State Defendants). In May 2011, the State Defendants
and the ACLU agreed to a stay of court proceedings to
allow for a legislative solution. The State of
California did not agree to the stay and suggested that
the action be dismissed, pending movement of AB 165
through the legislative process. However, AB 165, which
was passed by this Committee on a 6-1 vote, was
subsequently vetoed by Governor Brown. The veto message
read:
This bill responds to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU
against the state, alleging that some local school
districts are denying students their right to a
free public education by charging improper fees for
classes and extracurricular activities. Local
district compliance with this right is essential,
and those who fail should be held accountable. But
this bill takes the wrong approach to getting
there. The bill would mandate that every single
classroom in California post a detailed notice and
that all 1,042 school districts and over 1,200
charter schools follow specific complaint, hearing,
and audit procedures, even where there have been no
complaints, let alone evidence of any violation.
This goes too far.
On January 26, 2012, the court overruled demurrers filed
by the State of California and the State Education
defendants, allowing the legal case to move forward.
The case is pending before the court.
2) Administrative and fiscal impact . The administrative
requirements of
AB 1575 are substantially reduced from those proposed by
AB 165. While this bill would still require notices
posted in classrooms to include information about how to
file a complaint about the imposition of fees for
participation in educational activities, supporters
maintain that the uniform complaint procedure is an
appropriate enforcement mechanism and one that works
well for local educational agencies.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee
analysis, this bill has potential General
AB 1575
Page 7
Fund/Proposition 98 cost pressure, of at least $1
million to county superintendents of schools to monitor
complain process provisions of this measure.
SUPPORT
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Association of American Publishers
Association of California School Administrators
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California Catholic Conference
California Federation of Teachers
Californian's Together
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
OPPOSITION
None received.