BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1851
AUTHOR: Bradford
AMENDED: May 14, 2014
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 18, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : School attendance: interdistrict attendance.
SUMMARY
This bill extends the sunset date, from July 1, 2015 to July
1, 2018, that 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.
BACKGROUND
Current law provides for several means to authorize
interdistrict attendance of a pupil who resides in one school
district but wishes to attend public school in another school
district. The main authorization provides for interdistrict
attendance when both the district of residence and district of
proposed attendance agree. This process allows the parent or
guardian of a pupil requesting interdistrict attendance to
appeal to the county board of education (CBE) in the event
that either district refuses the requested transfer. In
addition, current law allows the governing board of a school
district for a period not to exceed two school months to
provisionally admit to their schools a pupil who resides in
another district, pending a decision of the two boards, or by
the CBE upon appeal, regarding the interdistrict attendance.
The provisional attendance may be counted by the district of
attendance for revenue limit and state apportionment purposes.
(Education Code § 46600 et. seq.)
Current law, 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
AB 1851
Page 2
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, 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
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.
(EC § 46601)
Current law defines "Class 1 County" to mean a county with
1994-95 countywide average daily attendance (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 ADA. (EC § 48919.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill extends the sunset date, from July 1, 2015 to July
1, 2018, that 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.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
this bill would extend the sunset to July 1, 2018, the
law that 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
Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) handles
AB 1851
Page 3
more transfer appeals than any other county in the state.
The original sunset is scheduled for July 1, 2015, and
to-date it has been successful. LACOE has maintained its
internal goal of continuing to process each case in a
timely, expeditious manner, with the 30 calendar days
being the goal. Parents have also experienced more time
to process their appeals packets, resulting in fewer
parents missing the timelines than before. When there
are a large number of cases, and when there are vacation
days, family emergencies or other issues, the extra time
can make it easier on everyone. The original sunset date
was inserted with the belief that this law would no
longer be necessary at some point. Unfortunately, this
has not been the case, and the appeals have not
decreased, but rather increased to over 1,100 in 2012-13.
Number of interdistrict appeal cases the LACOE has
processed since 2007-08:
-----------------------------------------------------------
| |2007-0|2008-0|2009-1|2010-1|2011-1|2012-1|2013-1|
| | 8 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|----------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|Processed | 198 | 199 | 481 | 554 | 696 | 1109 | 841 |
|----------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|Heard by | | | | | | | |
|Board | 36 | 22 | 112 | 276 | 197 | 83 | 94 |
|----------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|% | 82% | 89% | 77% | 50% | 72% | 93% |88% |
|Resolved | | | | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Source: LACOE)
2) Continued need for 40 schooldays : LACOE has stated that
due to their increased interdistrict appeal workload,
they are unable to resolve all the cases within the
previous 30-calendar day timeline; though much progress
has been made. In 2011, this deadline was extended to
40-schooldays. The data below shows that in 2012-13
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
AB 1851
Page 4
and decided by the board, approximately 37% of cases were
resolved during the extended 40-schoolday deadline.
Partial year data from 2013-14, indicates 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 | 1109| 841|
|transfers requested | | |
|----------------------------------+--------+--------|
|Total number of appeals resolved | 1026| 747|
|prior to Board action | | |
|----------------------------------+--------+--------|
| Total number of appeals | 1015| 726|
| 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 | 83| 94|
|by Board action | | |
|----------------------------------+--------+--------|
| Total number of appeals | 52| 42|
| resolved by Board action | | |
| within 30 calendar days | | |
|----------------------------------+--------+--------|
| Total number of appeals | 31|52 |
| resolved by Board action | | |
| within 40 schooldays | | |
----------------------------------------------------
(Source: LACOE)
1) According to LACOE , the following are reasons why cases
AB 1851
Page 5
were resolved during the extended 40-schoolday deadline
instead of the original 30-calendar day deadline:
a) 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.
b) Postponement requested by the Board per
Education Code Section 46601.
c) Postponement requested by the Board due to
an overload of other agenda items.
1) 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 the Los Angeles County
Office of Education (LACOE) has experienced.
2) Previous legislation : AB 1085 (Davis), Chapter 87,
Statutes 2011, authorized 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. This authorization will sunset as of July 1,
2015.
SUPPORT
Fresno County Office of Education
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Orange County Department of Education
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
San Diego Office of Education
Santa Clara Office of Education
AB 1851
Page 6
OPPOSITION
None on file.