BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 381
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 381 (Pavley) - As Amended: April 6, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 37-0
SUBJECT : School attendance: residency requirements.
SUMMARY : Extends, until July 1, 2017, the authorization to
enroll a student in a district where a parent is employed, if a
parent is employed a majority of the hours a student is in
school. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends the authorization for a district to deem a pupil to be
a resident of the district if at least one parent or the legal
guardian of the pupil is physically employed within the
boundaries of the district.
2)Requires a parent or legal guardian of a pupil who is
physically employed within the boundaries of that district to
work within those boundaries for a majority of the hours that
the pupil is scheduled to be in school, as determined by the
governing board of a school district.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a pupil to attend school in a district where the
pupil's parent physically works, rather than where the pupil
and parent reside, however, the district is not required to
admit the pupil to its schools. Either the sending district
or receiving district may prevent a transfer under this law if
the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. Once
established on the basis of parental employment, this
authorization allows a parent to maintain a pupil's enrollment
through the 12th grade. This section is scheduled to sunset on
July 1, 2012. (Education Code Section 48204(b))
2)The governing board of each school district shall fix the
length of the schoolday for the grades and classes of the
schools maintained by the district. (Education Code Section
46100)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
SB 381
Page 2
COMMENTS : Current law provides several means to authorize a
pupil who resides in one school district to attend public school
in another district. This bill extends the sunset date for
existing law that authorizes a parent to enroll their child in
the district where they are physically employed rather than
where they live. The extension of this enrollment option may
give more opportunity for parent involvement by continuing to
allow a pupil with a parent or legal guardian physically
employed within the district area to attend a school in that
district. This bill also requires a parent or legal guardian of
a pupil that is physically employed within the boundaries of
that district to work a majority of the hours that a pupil is
scheduled to be in school, in order to use this authorization.
Existing law requires that the parent or legal guardian only be
physically employed within the boundaries of the district and
does not specify a time requirement.
According to the author, continuing to provide parents and legal
guardians with the flexibility of enrolling their children in
school near their workplaces, gives them an opportunity to
participate in their children's education. The author supports
this argument with the example that parents and guardians who
must commute long distances to work have the opportunity to
attend school events or parent-teacher meetings and remain
involved in the educational community. This measure simply
extends an option that has been available to working parents.
This option has proven to be invaluable to families and should
be continued.
Hour Requirement is Unclear : The bill specifies that a parent
or guardian must be employed for a majority of the hours that
the student is scheduled to be in school, as prescribed by the
school board. The author has indicated that the intent is to
require parents to work for a minimum of 10 hours over the
course of a school week, however, the language in the bill does
not reflect this intent. One could argue that the bill, as
currently drafted, requires a parent to work for the majority of
hours each school day that a student is scheduled to be in
school, rather than the majority of hours over the course of a
school week. In other words, if a school day is four hours of
instruction (240 minutes), is a parent required to work at least
two hours each day of the week? Or must they work 10 hours over
the course of the five day school week? Also, it is unclear
SB 381
Page 3
whether these hours have to be completed evenly throughout the
week? For example, if the parent or legal guardian works the
minimum number of hours on a single school day, is this
employment considered to have met the hour requirement?
Committee Amendment : Staff recommends the bill be amended to
clarify that a parent or legal guardian must be employed within
the boundaries of a school district for a minimum of 10 hours
during the school week.
Arguments in Support : According to the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD), this bill "would extend the option of
parents to seek an inter-district permit based on their
employment location." LAUSD also states that requiring
employment to "occur during the majority of the hours that a
pupil is scheduled to be in school," "prevents parents who only
work on weekends from seeking a permit based on employment."
Previous Legislation : SB 170 (Denham) Chapter 33, Statutes of
2007, extended, until July 1, 2011, the authorization to enroll
a student in a district where a parent is employed.
SB 136 (Denham) which was held by the author in the Assembly
Education Committee in 2005, would have required the parent(s)
or legal guardian(s) of a pupil to be employed within the
boundaries of the district and for employment to include a
minimum of 20 hours per week within the boundaries of that
school district.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Clovis Unified School District
Conejo Valley Unified School District
Las Virgenes Unified School District
Long Beach Unified School District
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
Oak Park Unified School District
An Individual
Opposition
None on file.
SB 381
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Tania Herrera and Chelsea Kelley / ED.
/ (916) 319-2087