BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 1575 (Lara) - Pupil Fees.
Amended: As Proposed to be AmendedPolicy Vote: Education 6-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 16, 2012
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: AB 1575 reinforces the constitutional prohibition
on the imposition of pupil fees; it defines pupil fees and
related terms and expressly prohibits pupil fees declarative of
existing law. This bill also establishes new complaint procedure
requirements, as well as state guidance activities related to
pupil fees.
Fiscal Impact:
Administration/Local support: The California Department of
Education (CDE) estimates costs of approximately $400,000
annually. See staff comments.
Uniform Complaint Process (UCP): Significant increase in
state costs to adjudicate fees, and provide local guidance.
Potential increase in local administrative costs to the
extent that a streamlined complaint process increases the
number of complaints filed. Potential local savings for a
likely small number of districts to the extent that the UCP
replaces litigation.
UCP Mandate: Substantial mandate on school districts and
country offices of education (COEs) to establish local
policies and procedures to implement an additional UCP
process, to train appropriate staff, and to administer the
filing process.
Fee Reimbursement Mandate: Vesting the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) with the authority to require fee
reimbursement from individual schools and COEs could result
in a reimbursable mandate on affected schools.
AB 1575 (Lara)
Page 1
Background: In September 2010, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court
on behalf of public school students against the State of
California and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. (The complaint
was later refiled against SPI Torlakson, the CDE, and the State
Board of Education (SBE)). The complaint alleged that:
?by allowing its public school districts to condition
access to educational services and the quality of
educational services offered to students dependent
upon payment of student fees, the State has failed to
perform its constitutional duty of ensuring basic
educational equality irrespective of economic status.
It thereby sanctions a dual school system which
deliberately favors students from families of means
over students from disadvantaged households. Although
the State may currently be operating under difficult
budgetary constraints, 'financial hardship is no
defense to a violation of the free school guarantee.'
Ý(Hartzell v. Connell (1984) 35 Cal.3d 899, 912.)] The
California Constitution's guarantee to a free and
equal public education is absolute and cannot be
qualified by the finances of either the State or the
students' families.
In December 2010, a tentative settlement agreement was reached
by the ACLU and the State of California (the Defendants). The
settlement agreement required:
A) The Defendants to send a letter (attached to the
settlement agreement) and guidance regarding student fees
to all County and District Superintendents and Charter
School Administrators within two weeks; (Governor
Schwarzenegger sent the letter, as agreed).
B) Both parties engage in good faith efforts to enact
legislation that implements the specific "Legislative
Proposals" attached to the settlement document. The
settlement further provided that the legislation
substantially conform to the Legislative Proposals.
C) Both parties engage in good faith efforts to adopt
regulations that implement the "Regulatory Proposals"
attached to the settlement document.
AB 1575 (Lara)
Page 2
AB 165 (Lara) was introduced in January 2011, and was
substantially similar to the both the Legislative Proposals and
Regulatory Proposals included in the settlement agreement. In
May 2011, the litigants submitted a Joint Status Statement to
the court stating: "Plaintiffs and the State Education
Defendants would agree to a temporary stay of all proceedings to
allow for movement of Assembly Bill 165 through the legislative
process. If AB 165 passes through the Assembly and Senate and is
signed by the Governor, it may provide the full relief sought in
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, and therefore this
litigation would no longer be necessary. In light of the
legislative timeline described above, Plaintiffs and the State
Education Defendants believe that extending the stay for, at
most, the several months necessary to ascertain the bill's
prospects for passage is appropriate." The Court subsequently
issued an order suspending all further briefing until the
outcome of AB 165 was determined.
AB 165 was a far-reaching bill that sought to implement the
Plaintiffs' interpretation of the settlement agreement. The bill
was amended throughout the process to reduce costs and burdens
on local education agencies (LEAs) and the CDE. The bill was,
however, ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown with the following
message:
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 Defendants; the case is pending
before the court. Unlike AB 165, this bill is not part of a
pending settlement agreement.
AB 1575 (Lara)
Page 3
Proposed Law: AB 1575 reinforces the constitutional prohibition
on the imposition of pupil fees, defines pupil fees, and
establishes new guidance and enforcement mechanisms related to
that prohibition. Specifically, this bill:
1) Specifies all supplies, materials, and equipment needed
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.
2) 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, as
specified.
3) Specifies that this legislation not be interpreted to
prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations of funds or
property or participation in fundraising activities.
4) Specifies that the prohibition against pupil fees
applies to all public schools, including, but not limited
to, charter schools and alternative schools.
5) Requires the 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 website.
6) Adds a complaint related to the imposition of pupil
fees for participation in educational activities to the
existing UCP established under the Williams v. State of
California settlement agreement, and requires school
districts to use the process to identify and resolve
deficiencies related to the imposition of pupil fees for
participation in educational activities.
7) 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 SPI, who shall provide, within 30
working days, a written report to the SBE and the
AB 1575 (Lara)
Page 4
complainant. If the report finds a school district or
charter school has unlawfully imposed a pupil fee, the SPI
must require the school to fully reimburse all affected
pupils, parents, or guardians.
8) Adds to the existing notice requirements of the UCP
(which requires a notice to be posted in each classroom in
each school) 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.
9) 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, as specified.
10) Requires school districts, COEs, 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.
11) Provides for local educational agencies to be
reimbursed for costs associated with compliance if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that the act
contains mandated costs.
Related Legislation: AB 165 (Lara) 2011 was a more extensive
bill which sought to address the same issue of illegal pupil
fees. That bill was vetoed.
Staff Comments: This bill clarifies in state law the existing
constitutional prohibition against pupil fees, and establishes
requirements and procedures for investigating and enforcing the
prohibition. These requirements impose state reimbursable
mandates on LEAs and significant new workload on the CDE,
especially in the first year of implementation.
This bill adds a complaint procedure related to the imposition
of pupil fees for participation in educational activities to the
existing Williams UCP, established under the Williams v. State
of California settlement agreement. It requires LEAs to use the
AB 1575 (Lara)
Page 5
UCP to identify and resolve any deficiencies related to the
imposition of pupil fees, as specified, and provides for an
appeals process. In so doing, this bill expands the likely
number of reimbursable activities under this state mandate.
Schools will have to modify their policies and processes on
coordination with their governing LEAs (e.g. school boards), and
establish the appeals process for pupil fee complaints. The CDE
will also incur additional costs to address appeals, as well as
to amend existing UCP regulations and related documents.
This provision would also expand an existing state mandate by
adding information to the Williams notifications currently
required in classrooms. Schools would have to update
notifications and post them in every classroom. Any costs to
print and post notices would be reimbursable for schools, but
would likely be one-time, minor additional costs. However, staff
notes that school districts can aggregate their mandate claims
to meet the minimum threshold of $1,000, and thus qualify for
reimbursement even for minor costs.
While LEAs are already responsible for compliance with existing
protections, implementing the formal UCP to improve pupil fee
compliance is a new requirement.
Initial implementation activities and ongoing administration
will all be reimbursable state mandates. Currently, the only
formal remedy for individuals who believe they have been charged
illegal pupil fees is to initiate litigation against an LEA
(though it is more likely that complaints are handled at a
school-site level). To the extent that these new procedures
reduce litigation, there would be cost savings to some
individual LEAs. Making the complaint and adjudication process
easier, however, is likely to drive additional complaints and
related workload, which becomes a direct state cost through the
mandate reimbursement process.
This bill also creates new responsibilities for the CDE to both
provide guidance to LEAs, and to adjudicate their disputes with
parents and pupils. The CDE would have an increased role in
monitoring LEAs, adjudicating fees, and providing guidance on
the new procedures. In order to meet the additional workload
created by this bill, the CDE estimates that it would need an
additional $402,291 annually for 3 full-time Education Programs
Consultants. The anticipated workload is as follows:
AB 1575 (Lara)
Page 6
Commencing with the 2014-15 school year, develop and
distribute written guidance for LEAs regarding pupil fees;
update every three years.
Amend the current Williams regulations to include
language for student fee complaints/procedures in the UCP.
Update UCP documents.
Increase CDE's monitoring role and responsibilities
including training of LEAs on compliance with the new
requirements for fees. Increased staff time to review and
correct any identified fees.
Increase in telephone contact, for the first year of
implementation.
Fee investigation and reimbursement management.
This bill may create an additional reimbursable mandate, to the
extent that the SPI ultimately orders LEAs to reimburse
individuals for fees that the SPI has judged to be illegal. An
LEA may not believe that it has charged illegal pupil fees, but
if the SPI disagrees, the LEA can be forced to reimburse the
pupil or parent anyway. If a court were to rule against an LEA,
it could order the repayment of fees without direct impact to
state funds; if this bill gives the authority to order payments
to the SPI, it could create a state reimbursable mandate by
authorizing a state entity to order LEA payments.
This particular mandate gets more complicated when an LEA's
administration is not the party accused of charging illegal
fees. This bill sets up a process for individuals to file
complaints against a school for any illegal fees charged by any
actor or entity under its jurisdiction; the LEA may not have
received the money collected, which makes a "reimbursement"
actually a new cost to the LEA. For example, it is improper for
an athletics coach to require pupils to purchase team uniforms.
In this instance, however, the LEA will never receive any money
or uniforms from the fee (and may be unaware of the practice
altogether). The SPI could order the LEA to reimburse the pupils
for their expenses. LEAs will bear the cost of making pupils
whole, regardless of what happened to the actual illegal fee
revenue. This, in turn, could constitute an additional
reimbursable mandate.
Proposed Author Amendments: Amend uniform complaint procedures
to separate pupil fee complaints from Williams
settlement-related complaints, set out complaint requirements,
AB 1575 (Lara)
Page 7
and specify that LEAs shall establish local policies and
procedures to implement complaint provisions by March 1, 2013.