BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SB 121
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 13, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 121 (Liu) - As Amended: June 6, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 26-12
SUBJECT : Pupils: foster children: special education
SUMMARY : Requires a written statement be provided to a local
educational agency (LEA) by a parent, guardian, or educational
rights holder if he or she makes a determination that it is in
the best interest of a foster pupil to be placed in an
educational program other than a program operated by the LEA, as
specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the written statement to include a declaration that
the parent, guardian, or educational rights holder is aware of
all of the following:
a) The pupil has a right to attend a regular public school
in the least restrictive environment;
b) The alternate education program is a special education
program, if applicable;
c) The decision to unilaterally remove the pupil from the
regular public school and to place the pupil in an
alternate education program may not be financed by the
local educational agency; and,
d) Any attempt to seek reimbursement for the alternate
program will be at the expense of the parent, guardian, or
educational rights holder.
2)Clarifies that a pupil with exceptional needs, including a
pupil residing in a licensed children's institution (LCI) or
foster family home shall not be referred to, or placed in, a
nonpublic, nonsectarian school (NPS) unless his or her
individualized education program (IEP) specifies that the
placement is appropriate.
3)Prohibits an LCI from referring a pupil to, or placing a pupil
in, an NPS.
4)Stipulates that a LCI shall not, instead of may not, require
that a child be identified as an individual with exceptional
needs as a condition of admission or residency.
SB 121
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Stipulates that before a LEA places an individual with
exceptional needs in, or refers such an individual to an NPS,
the school district, special education local plan area, or
county office of education shall initiate and conduct a
meeting to develop an IEP for the pupil. (Education Code (EC)
§ 56342.1)
2)Requires a pupil who is placed in an LCI or foster family home
to attend programs operated by the LEA unless the pupil is
entitled to remain in his or her school of origin, the pupil
has an IEP requiring placement elsewhere, or the pupil's
parent or guardian, or other person holding the right to make
educational decisions for the pupil, determines that it is in
the best interests of the pupil to be placed in another
educational program. (EC § 48853)
3)Provides that an LCI may not require that a child be
identified as an individual with exceptional needs as a
condition of admission or residency. (Education Code §
56155.7)
4)Specifies that in providing appropriate programs to
individuals with exceptional needs residing in LCIs or foster
family homes, the LEA shall first consider services in
programs operated by public education agencies for individuals
with exceptional needs, and if those programs are not
appropriate, special education and related services shall be
provided by contract with a NPS. (EC § 56157)
5)Prohibits an LCI from requiring as a condition of residential
placement that it provide the educational programs to
individuals with exceptional needs residing there through a
nonpublic, nonsectarian school or agency owned, operated by,
or associated with, it. (EC § 56366.9)
6)Defines "non-public school" (NPS) as a private, non-sectarian
school that enrolls pupils with exceptional needs pursuant to
an IEP and is certified by the California Department of
Education (CDE). (EC § 56034)
7)Requires a court to appoint a responsible adult to make
educational decisions for a child if the court limits the
SB 121
Page 3
right of a parent or guardian to make educational decisions
for the child. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 361)
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, on the previous version of this bill, potentially
significant reimbursable mandate General Fund costs for purposes
of notifications. Likely minor General Fund costs for the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to conduct investigations,
and possibly significant additional workload. This bill has
been substantially amended since it was heard by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
COMMENTS : Current law stipulates the conditions and the process
under which a pupil with exceptional needs may be placed in an
NPS or other non-LEA educational setting. Specifically, current
law allows placement in a NPS when an LEA is unable to provide
programs and services that are appropriate for a pupil and the
IEP team has met and made that determination. For foster youth
placed in an LCI (group home) or foster family home, current law
requires these pupils to attend programs operated by the LEA
unless the pupil is entitled to remain in his or her school of
origin, the pupil has an IEP requiring placement elsewhere, or
the pupil's parent or guardian, or the educational rights holder
determines that it is in the best interest of the pupil to be
placed in another educational program.
This bill restates and clarifies in various sections throughout
the Education Code the restrictions for placing a foster youth
in an NPS, and ensures that proper documentation is submitted in
cases in which the parent, guardian, or educational rights
holder decides to place a pupil in an NPS or other alternative
educational setting.
Need for the bill : According to the author, "Despite current
law that requires foster youth to attend a public school unless
the pupil's individualized education program (IEP) calls for
another placement, or if the pupil's education rights holder
makes that decision, some foster youth are being placed in a
non-public school (NPS) before the determination is made by
either the education rights holder or the IEP team."
Several laws are indeed in effect regarding the requirements of
LEAs, LCIs, and placing agencies to ensure the education of
youth in foster care. Current law provides that foster youth
must attend programs operated by the LEA and that all
SB 121
Page 4
educational and school placement decisions should be made to
ensure that the pupil is placed in the least restrictive
environment. These provisions were put in place to afford all
foster youth equal educational opportunities. However, despite
these various protections, there are still cases in which foster
youth are placed in inappropriate educational settings. The
author notes that, "Foster youth are moved and change schools
sometimes without the knowledge of the parent or other person
holding the education rights. There have been situations where
a foster youth is placed by a group home into a NPS operated by
the group home, citing parental placement statutes."
In fact, complaints have been filed with the CDE in years past
based on alleged violations with respect to children residing in
LCIs being improperly placed in NPSs without the benefit of a
determination of eligibility for special education. In some
cases, it appears that the agency that places the child in an
LCI or group home fails to notify the LEA as soon as a child is
placed in the LCI or group home, as is required by current law.
This bill seeks to make clarifications and restatements in
current law relative to these protections, and to ensure there
is documentation that affirms the decision of parent, guardian
or educational rights holder to place a foster youth in an
educational program other than a LEA program. No additional
authority for parents or educational rights holders to place
youth in alternative programs is provided in this bill, as that
authority already exists.
Recommended amendments : This bill requires the written
notification to include a declaration that the parent, guardian
or educational rights holder is aware of specified information,
including that the decision to unilaterally remove the pupil
from an LEA program and to place the pupil in an alternate
education program may not be financed by the LEA. While this is
important information for a parent, guardian or educational
rights holder to have, this bill does not specify how these
individuals will obtain that information. It is not certain
that a LEA will provide that information voluntarily. Staff
recommends an amendment to stipulate that for purposes of
ensuring the parent, guardian or educational rights holder is
aware of this information, an LEA may provide this information.
Section 4 of the bill adds language specifying that an IEP
meeting shall be conducted pursuant to an entire chapter,
SB 121
Page 5
however that same section already includes references to
specific code sections relative to IEP meetings. The language
"pursuant to this chapter," appears to be redundant and may add
confusion. Staff recommends deleting "pursuant to this chapter"
on page 6, line 2.
Arguments in support : The California School Boards Association
writes, "This bill addresses situations which are unfortunately
not uncommon, where a foster youth is enrolled in a NPS without
the proper decisions being made by either the pupil's IEP team
or the educational rights holder. Senate Bill 121 clarifies
current law regarding the enrollment of foster youth in a
non-public school (NPS) to specify that these pupils may be
referred to or placed in a NPS only by a public school pursuant
to the pupil's IEP or by the parent or other person who holds
the right to make educational decisions for the pupil."
Previous legislation : AB 490 (Steinberg), Chapter 862, Statutes
of 2003, made several comprehensive changes to the law related
to the education of foster youth in the areas of educational
placement, coursework credit, records transfer, and educational
programs offered to foster youth, including the requirements
that pupils placed in LCIs or foster family homes attend
programs operated by the LEA and that educational programs for
foster youth are provided in the least restrictive environment.
AB 1858 (Steinberg), Chapter 914, Statutes of 2004, placed new
requirements on nonpublic schools (NPS), which provide special
education to foster youth who reside in licensed children's
institutions and foster family homes.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California School Boards Association
San Francisco Unified School District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Aviņa / ED. / (916) 319-2087
SB 121
Page 6