BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 121|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 121
Author: Liu (D)
Amended: 6/20/12
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/13/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Runner, Alquist, Hancock, Huff, Liu,
Price, Simitian, Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-2, 5/26/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson
SENATE FLOOR : 26-12, 6/1/11
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, De León,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, Leno,
Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley,
Price, Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright,
Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Dutton, Fuller,
Gaines, Harman, La Malfa, Runner, Strickland, Walters,
Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Emmerson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 80-0, 8/27/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Foster youth: special education: non-public
schools
CONTINUED
SB 121
Page
2
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires a written statement be
provided to a local educational agency (LEA) by a parent,
guardian, or educational rights holder if he/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.
Assembly Amendments (1) delete all additional
responsibilities specified in the bill for the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); (2) delete
language that specifies the entity holding the right to
make decisions for the pupil provide a written statement to
the juvenile court; and (3) make various technical changes.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Requires a pupil who is placed in a licensed children's
institution (LCI) of foster family home to attend
programs operated by the LEA unless the pupil is
entitled to remain in his/her school of origin, the
pupils has an individualized education program (IEP)
requiring placement elsewhere, or the pupil's parent or
guardian, or other person holding the right to make
education decisions for the pupil, determines that it is
in the best interest of the pupil to be placed in
another educational program.
2.Existing law prohibits a LCI or nonpublic, nonsectarian
school (NPS) or agency from requiring as a condition of
placement that educational authority for a child be
designated to that institution, school, or agency.
3.Provides that no LEA shall refer an individual with
exceptional needs residing in a LCI or foster family
home to a NPS unless the services required by the IEP of
the pupil can be ensured, and that before a LEA places
an individual with exceptional needs in, or refers such
an individual to, a NPS, the school district, special
education local plan area, or county office of education
SB 121
Page
3
shall initiate and conduct a meeting to develop an IEP
for the pupil.
4.Requires that the master contract for NPS or agency
services, in the case of a NPS that is owned by,
operated by, or associated with, a LCI, include a method
for evaluating whether the school is in compliance with
specified statutory mandates.
5.Prohibits a LCI from requiring as condition of
residential placement that it provide the appropriate
educational programs to individuals with exceptional
needs residing there through a NPS or agency owned,
operated by, or associated with it.
6.Requires a NPS that provides special education and
related services to an individual with exceptional needs
to certify in writing to the SPI that it meets specified
requirements.
7. Authorizes a LEA to appoint a surrogate parent, as
specified, who shall serve as the child's parent and
shall have the rights relative to the child's education
of a parent, may represent the child in matters relating
to special education and related services, and may
provide written consent to an IEP including nonemergency
medical services, mental health treatment services, and
occupational or physical therapy services, as specified.
8. Authorizes the court to limit the right of the parent or
guardian to make educational decisions for a child and
at the same time appoint a responsible adult to make
educational decisions for the child if a minor is
adjudged to be a ward or dependent child of the court.
However, existing law also provides that an individual
who would have a conflict of interest representing the
child may not be appointed to make educational
decisions.
This bill requires a written statement be provided to a LEA
by a parent, guardian, or educational rights holder if
he/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
SB 121
Page
4
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 LEA; 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. States that for purposes of ensuring a parent, guardian,
or other person holding the right to make educational
decisions for the pupil is aware of the information
described in #1 above, the LEA may provide him/her with
that information in writing.
3. Clarifies that a pupil with exceptional needs, including
a pupil residing in a LCI or foster family home shall
not be referred to, or placed in, a NPS unless his/her
IEP specifies that the placement is appropriate.
4. Prohibits an LCI from referring a pupil to, or placing a
pupil in, an NPS.
5. Stipulates that an 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.
Comments
Existing law stipulates the conditions and the process
under which a pupil with exceptional needs may be placed in
SB 121
Page
5
an NPS or other non-LEA educational setting. Specifically,
existing 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, existing law requires
these pupils to attend programs operated by the LEA unless
the pupil is entitled to remain in his/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 this bill . According to the author, "Despite
current law that requires foster youth to attend a public
school unless the pupil's 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. Existing law
provides that foster youth must attend programs operated by
the LEA and that all 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
SB 121
Page
6
placement statutes."
In fact, complaints have been filed with the California
Department of Education 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.
Prior Legislation
AB 709 (Brownley), Chapter 463, Statutes of 2011, clarified
that a foster youth who changes schools has the right to be
immediately enrolled in the new school even if the medical
records including immunization records are not provided at
the time of enrollment.
AB 1933 (Brownley), Chapter 563, Statutes of 2010, expands
the requirement that a LEA to allow a pupil in foster care
to remain in his/her school of origin for the duration of
the court's jurisdiction including in the school feeder
pattern as long as it is in the child's best interest.
Passed the Senate with a vote of 35-0 on August 24, 2010.
SB 1353 (Wright), Chapter 557, Statutes of 2010, among
other things, provides that consideration of the best
interests of a foster child shall include educational
stability and the opportunity to be educated in the least
restrictive educational setting necessary to achieve
academic progress. Passed the Senate with a vote of 34-0
on August 11, 2010.
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
SB 121
Page
7
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor
General Fund/Proposition 98 costs, likely less than
$75,000, to implement this bill.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/28/12)
California PTA
California School Boards Association
AFSCME
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/28/12)
California Association of Parent-Child Advocacy
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"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 non-public
school operated by the group home. 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 before the determination is
made by either the education rights holder or the IEP team.
This bill ensures that the actual holder of educational
rights in fact makes the decision to place the pupil in a
NPS and explicitly prohibits placements outside of the IEP
process or without the knowledge of the education rights
holder."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Association of
Parent-Child Advocacy is opposed due to a concern that this
bill will create obstacles for parents to place his/her
SB 121
Page
8
child in a non-public school.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 80-0, 8/27/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell,
Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
PQ:k 8/28/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****