BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 379
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
379 (Gordon)
As Amended September 4, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | 78-0 | (June 2, |SENATE: |40-0 | (September 10, |
| | |2015) | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY: Makes complaints alleging violations of certain
educational rights afforded to students in foster care and
students who are homeless subject to the Uniform Complaint
Procedures (UCP).
The Senate amendments:
1)Delete the proposed five day limitation on the period during
which educational services may be provided to homeless
students in emergency shelters.
2)Incorporate changes made by AB 1166 (Bloom), Chapter 171,
Statutes of 2015.
AB 379
Page 2
3)Add chaptering out amendments.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Grants certain educational rights (many of which are described
above) to students in foster care and those who are homeless.
In addition, current law deems students in foster care whose
residential placement has been changed, and those who are
homeless, to have met residency requirements for the purpose
of participation in interscholastic sports and other
extracurricular activities, grants certain rights in expulsion
proceedings, guarantees equal access to extracurricular
activities, and requires education in the least restrictive
environment. Existing law also requires all local educational
agencies (LEAs) to designate a staff person to be the
educational liaison for students in foster care.
2)Through regulation, requires LEAs to adopt uniform complaint
procedures through which the public can register complaints
regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of
Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600).
3)Authorizes a modified complaint process known as "Williams
Complaints" through statute (Education Code Section 35186) for
complaints regarding instructional materials, emergency or
urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health
and safety of pupils, teacher vacancy or misassignment, and
instructional services provided to students who have not
passed the High School Exit Examination. Existing law also
authorizes complaints through the UCP for harassment,
intimidation, bullying, discrimination, unlawful pupil fees,
and violations of the law regarding Local Control
Accountability Plans (LCAPs).
4)Establishes, in the Welfare and Institutions Code Sections
16160 to 16167, the Office of the State Foster Care
Ombudsperson within the California Department of Social
AB 379
Page 3
Services. The Ombudsperson is responsible, among other
things, for accepting and resolving complaints relating to the
rights (primarily non-educational) of foster youth.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill could drive a significant increase in state
costs, depending on how many complaints and appeals are filed.
1)Mandate: Unknown, potentially significant ongoing
reimbursable state mandate costs for LEAs to investigate and
resolve complaints. LEAs would also incur one-time costs to
update the annual UCP notice. See staff comments.
2)The California Department of Education (CDE) indicates that
this bill requires 1.5 positions and $192,000 General Fund.
Actual workload would depend on the number of appeals
received. The CDE currently receives between 45 and 50
appeals per year related to pupil fees but the Department
experienced an initial surge in appeals when pupil fees was
first added.
Assuming 10% of school districts receive complaints for
noncompliance and submit a reimbursable state mandate claim,
costs could be between $47,000 and $1.8 million based on the
range of costs incurred by school districts for the existing UCP
mandate. If the Commission on State Mandates determines the
requirements of this bill to be a state reimbursable mandate,
this could create pressure for the state to increase funding in
the K-12 mandate block grant to reflect its inclusion.
COMMENTS:
The "Invisible Achievement Gap." A 2013 report by the Center
for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd, titled "The
AB 379
Page 4
Invisible Achievement Gap," for the first time linked education
and child welfare data to identify the achievement gap for
students in foster care relative to their peers. It found,
based on 2009-10 educational data, that students in foster care
represented a subgroup distinct in many ways from other
low-income students. Among the findings in this report were
that foster youth:
1)Have among the lowest scores in English-language arts.
2)Have the lowest scores in mathematics of any subgroup.
3)Have the highest dropout rate, nearly three times the rate of
other students.
4)Have the lowest high school graduation rate of any subgroup.
The report also found that students in foster care are more
likely to change schools during the school year, more likely to
be enrolled in low-performing schools, less likely to
participate in state assessments, and significantly more likely
to be enrolled in nontraditional schools.
The 2013 legislation establishing Local Control Funding Formula
[AB 97 (Budget Committee) Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013]
recognized foster youth as a special population of students
requiring more attention, and required LEAs to identify ways in
which they will improve the educational outcomes of these
students in their LCAPs. A recent report commissioned by the
National Youth Law Center on the implementation of these
requirements noted that while "LCFF has begun to shine a bright
light on the needs of foster youth," problems persist in the
areas of data sharing, the shortage of educational rights
holders, and compliance with the law regarding records transfer
and school enrollment, among others. The report found that "on
balance, initial LCAPs did not recognize the needs of foster
AB 379
Page 5
youth."
The UCP, Williams Complaints, and fee, bullying, and LCAP
complaints. Required by federal law, the UCP was established in
1991 as a means of creating a "uniform system of complaint
processing" for educational programs. The authority for this
process is located in regulations, not state statute.
These regulations require the adoption of the UCP by school
districts, county offices of education, charter schools
receiving federal funds, and local public or private agencies
which receive direct or indirect state funding to provide school
programs or special education or related services. The UCP is
used for complaints regarding a number of state and federal
programs, including adult education, child care and development,
regional occupational centers and programs, state preschool,
child nutrition, and numerous federal education programs.
In addition, complaints may be filed under the UCP regarding
discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, unlawful
pupil fees, certain charter school requirements, and violations
of the law establishing LCAPs.
Complaints made under the UCP may be filed by an individual,
public agency, or organization. Not all matters of educational
law are covered by the UCP (complaints regarding the federal
school lunch program, for example, are filed with the United
States Department of Agriculture), but LEAs may use the UCP if
they so choose to process some other complaints. CDE monitors
for compliance with the UCP through its compliance monitoring
activities.
Complaints regarding pupil fees, harassment, discrimination,
bullying, intimidation, LCAPs and some charter school
requirements generally follow the UCP, but differ slightly in
terms of timelines, anonymity of complainants, confidentiality,
AB 379
Page 6
and with whom a complaint can be filed.
Analysis Prepared by:
Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0002393