BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1851
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1851 (Bradford)
As Amended May 14, 2014
Majority vote
EDUCATION 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Buchanan, Olsen, Chávez, | | |
| |Gonzalez, Nazarian, | | |
| |Weber, Williams | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the sunset date which authorizes county boards
of education (COEs), with countywide average daily attendance
(ADA) greater than 180,000, to determine whether a pupil who has
filed an interdistrict appeal should be permitted to attend in
the district in which the pupil desires to attend, within 40
schooldays to July 1, 2018; and, declares legislative intent
that school districts and county boards of education make best
efforts to process interdistrict attendance appeals in an
expeditious fashion.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the governing boards of two or more school
districts to enter into an agreement for the interdistrict
attendance of pupils who are residents of the districts;
specifies if either district fails to approve the
interdistrict attendance of a pupil, or in the case of the
failure or refusal of the districts to enter into an
agreement, the person having legal custody of the pupil may
appeal to the county board of education; requires the county
board of education to determine, within 30 calendar days,
whether the pupil should be permitted to attend in the
district in which the pupil desires; and, specifies that the
county board of education in a Class 1 or Class 2 county
shall, within 40 schooldays after the appeal is filed,
determine whether the pupil should be permitted to attend in
the district in which the pupil desires to attend and the
applicable period of time. Specifies, in the event that
compliance by the county board within the time requirement for
determining whether the pupil should be permitted to attend in
AB 1851
Page 2
the district in which the pupil desires to attend is
impractical, the county board or the county superintendent of
schools, for good cause, may extend the time period for up to
an additional five schooldays. (Education Code Section 46601)
2)Defines "Class 1 county" to mean a county with 1994/95
countywide ADA of more than 500,000; and, defines "Class 2
county" to mean a county with 1994/95 countywide ADA of at
least 180,000 but less than 500,000. (Education Code Section
48919.5)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : This bill extends the sunset date for the
authorization for counties with ADA greater than 180,000 to
decide interdistrict transfer appeal requests within 40 school
days to July 1, 2018. This timeline was extended in 2011, from
30 calendar days to 40 school days for large counties.
Class 1 and Class 2 Counties: The following counties are
considered Class 1 or Class 2 counties and would qualify for the
timeline extension: Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin,
and Santa Clara. It is unclear whether any of these counties
have experienced the same type of increase in appeals that Los
Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) has experienced.
According to the author, "AB 1851 would repeal the sunset in
Education Code Section 46601(b)(1) which increased the timeline
for county boards of education in Class 1 and Class 2 counties
to determine, on appeal, whether a pupil should be permitted to
attend school in the district in which the pupil desires. The
LACOE handles more transfer appeals than any other county in the
state. In 2010-11 schoolyear, LACOE processed 554 interdistrict
attendance appeals (147 appeals were processed in 2006-07). The
dramatic increase seems to coincide with the 2009 expansion of
the District of Choice program. Due to the increase in the
number of interdistrict appeals heard by LACOE, it had become an
increasing challenge to meet the existing statutory timelines
established under Education Code Section 46601(b)(1). Also, at
the time, due to the budget climate, school districts became
reluctant to release students due to the potential loss of
attendance-based state funding."
AB 1851
Page 3
Further, the author states, "In 2011, prior to AB 1085's
[(Davis), Chapter 87] passage, existing law authorized the
governing boards of two or more school districts to enter into
an agreement for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are
residents of the district. If either district fails to approve
the interdistrict attendance of a pupil, or in the case of the
failure or refusal of the districts to enter into an agreement,
the person having legal custody of the pupil may appeal to the
county board of education; and, requires the county board of
education to determine, within 30 calendar days (20 schooldays),
whether the pupil should be permitted to attend in the district
in which the pupil desires (Education Code Section 46601). The
prior timeline that county boards of education, in class one or
class two counties (counties with more than 180,000 countywide
Average Daily Attendance), must follow in making interdistrict
transfer appeal rulings, was 30 calendar days."
Number of interdistrict appeal cases LACOE has process since
2006-07
--------------------------------------------------------------
| |2006-0|2007-0|2008-0|2009-1|2010-1|2011-1|2012-|2013-1|
| | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 4 |
|-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------|
|Process| 147 | 198 | 199 | 481 | 554 | 696 |1109 |837 |
|ed | | | | | | | | |
|-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------|
|Heard | 19 | 36 | 22 | 112 | 276 | 197 | 83 | 93 |
|by | | | | | | | | |
|Board | | | | | | | | |
|-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------|
|% | 87% | 82% | 89% | 77% | 50% | 61% | 88% |80% |
|Resolved| | | | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: LACOE)
Need for 40 schooldays: LACOE has stated that due to their
increased interdistrict appeal workload, that they are unable to
resolve the cases within the previous 30-calendar day timeline.
In 2011, this deadline was extended to 40-schooldays. The data
below shows that in 2012-2013 approximately 1% of cases resolved
by LACOE staff prior to board action, were resolved during the
extended 40-schoolday deadline. Of those cases that were heard
and decided by the board, approximately 37% of cases were
AB 1851
Page 4
resolved during the extended 40-schoolday deadline. In the
partial year data from 2013-2014, nearly 55% of cases heard and
decided by the board were decided during the extended
40-schoolday deadline and 3% of cases resolved by staff were
resolved during the extended 40-schoolday deadline.
Number of cases resolved by the LACOE board or staff and length
of resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
| |2012-13 |2013-14* |
|-------------------------------------------+---------+----------|
|Total number of interdistrict transfers |1109 |837 |
|requested | | |
|-------------------------------------------+---------+----------|
|Total number of appeals resolved prior to |1026 |744 |
|Board action | | |
|-------------------------------------------+---------+----------|
| Total number of appeals |1015 |723 |
|resolved prior to Board | | |
| action within 30 calendar days | | |
|-------------------------------------------+---------+----------|
| Total number of appeals |11 |21 |
|resolved prior to Board | | |
| action within 40 schooldays | | |
|-------------------------------------------+---------+----------|
|Total number of appeals resolved by Board |83 |93 |
|action | | |
|-------------------------------------------+---------+----------|
| Total number of appeals |52 |42 |
|resolved by Board action | | |
| within 30 calendar days | | |
|-------------------------------------------+---------+----------|
| Total number of appeals |31 |51 |
|resolved by Board action | | |
| within 40 schooldays | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: LACOE) *Data as of 4/21/14, as appeals are still coming
in during current school year.
According to LACOE, the following are reasons why cases were
resolved during the extended 40-schoolday deadline instead of
AB 1851
Page 5
the original 30-calendar day deadline:
1) LACOE Board (Board) Meetings are scheduled the first
three Tuesdays of the month. Whenever there are months
with five Tuesdays, there is a two-week gap where no
appeals can be heard by the Board, contributing to the
delay.
2) Postponement requested by the Board per Education Code
Section 46601.
3) Postponement requested by the Board due to an overload
of other agenda items.
Previous Legislation: AB 1085, authorizes county boards of
education, with countywide ADA greater than 180,000, to
determine whether a pupil who has filed an interdistrict appeal
should be permitted to attend in the district in which the pupil
desires to attend, within 40-schooldays; and, specifies that it
is the intent of the Legislature that school districts and COEs
make best efforts to process interdistrict attendance appeals in
an expeditious fashion.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003489