BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1101
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1101
(Bonilla) - As Amended May 5, 2015
SUBJECT: Pupil school enrollment: residency requirements:
investigation
SUMMARY: Requires a school district that elects to undertake an
investigation to determine whether a pupil meets residency
requirements to adopt a policy regarding the investigation of
the pupil before investigating any pupils. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires the policy to identify the circumstances upon which
the school district may initiate an investigation, which
shall, at a minimum, require the school district employee to
be able to identify specific, articulable facts supporting the
belief that the parent or legal guardian of the pupil has
provided false or unreliable evidence of residency.
2)Requires the policy to provide for written notification of a
pupil's parent or legal guardian when a pupil is identified as
being subject to investigation under this bill. Specifies that
the policy shall provide that notification of a pupil's parent
or legal guardian shall occur at least five business days
before the start of the investigation, and shall describe the
investigatory methods that may be used by the school district
AB 1101
Page 2
in the conduct of the investigation.
3)Requires the written notice to include school district's
contact information, which a pupil's parent or legal guardian
may use to request information from or provide information to
the school district regarding the investigation.
4)Requires the policy to prohibit the surreptitious
photographing of pupils who are being investigated.
5)Specifies that the policy shall require that employees and
contractors of the school district engaged in the
investigation must identify themselves truthfully as such to
individuals contacted or interviewed during the course of the
investigation.
6)Requires the policy to provide a process whereby the
determination of a school district as to whether a pupil meets
the residency requirements for school attendance in the school
district may be appealed, and specify the basis for that
determination. Specifies that if an appeal is made, the burden
shall be on the appealing party to show why the decision of
the school district should be overruled.
7)Requires the policy required pursuant to this bill to be
adopted at a public meeting of the governing board of the
school district.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies that each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years,
AB 1101
Page 3
unless otherwise exempted, is subject to compulsory full-time
education. Requires each person subject to compulsory
full-time education and each person subject to compulsory
continuation education to attend the public full-time day
school or continuation school or classes and for the full time
designated as the length of the schoolday by the governing
board of the school district in which the residency of either
the parent or legal guardian is located, and requires each
parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of
the pupil to send the pupil to the public full-time day school
or continuation school or classes and for the full time
designated as the length of the schoolday by the governing
board of the school district in which the residence of either
the parent or legal guardian is located. (Education Code (EC)
Section 48200)
2)Provides that a student complies with the residency
requirements for school attendance in a school district if the
student:
a) Is placed within the boundaries of the school district
in a licensed children's institution, licensed foster home,
or a foster family home.
b) Is a foster child who remains in his or her school of
origin.
c) Has been approved for interdistrict attendance.
d) Resides within the boundaries of the school districts
and whose parent or legal guardian is relieved of
responsibility, control, and authority through
emancipation.
e) Lives in the home of a caregiving adult that is located
within the boundaries of that school district.
f) Resides in a state hospital located within the
boundaries of the school district. (EC Section 48204)
3)Authorizes, until July 1, 2017, school districts to deem a
student to have complied with the residency requirements for
school attendance in a school district if at least one parent
or the legal guardian is physically employed within the
AB 1101
Page 4
boundaries of that district for a minimum of 10 hours during
the school week. (EC Section 48204)
4)Requires a school district to accept from the parent or legal
guardian reasonable evidence that the student meets the
residency requirements for school attendance in the district.
Requires reasonable evidence of residency to be established by
documentation showing the name and address of the parent or
legal guardian within the school district, including but not
limited to, the following:
a) Property tax payment receipts.
b) Rental property contract, lease, or payment receipts.
c) Utility service contract, statement, or payment
receipts.
d) Pay stubs.
e) Voter registration.
f) Correspondence from a government agency.
g) Declaration of residency executed by the parent or legal
guardian. (EC Section 48204.1)
5)Authorizes a school district to make reasonable efforts to
determine that the student actually meets the residency
requirements if an employee of the district reasonably
believes that the parent or legal guardian has provided false
or unreliable evidence of residency. (EC Section 48204.1)
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: Under current law, compulsory education begins at age
6 until age 18. Any person subject to compulsory education
found away from home without a valid excuse for not attending
school can be arrested by school officials or peace or probation
officers. A pupil is required to attend school in the district
in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is
located. Documentation or residency includes property tax
payment receipts; rental property contract, lease, or payment
AB 1101
Page 5
receipts; utility service contract, statement, or payment
receipts; pay stubs; voter registration; correspondence from a
government agency; or declaration of residency executed by the
parent or legal guardian. If an employee of a school district
reasonably believes that the parent or legal guardian of a pupil
has provided false or unreliable evidence of residency, the
school district is authorized to make reasonable efforts to
determine whether the pupil meets residency requirements.
What does this bill do? This bill requires a school district
that elects to investigate a pupil's residency to adopt a policy
regarding such investigations. The bill requires the policy to
be adopted at a governing board meeting and to contain the
following:
a) Identify the circumstances upon which the school
district may initiate an investigation, which shall, at a
minimum, require the school district employee to be able to
identify specific, articulable facts supporting the belief
that the parent or legal guardian of the pupil has provided
false or unreliable evidence of residency. The policy must
also describe the investigatory method to be used by the
school district to conduct the investigation.
b) Provide a written notification at least five days before
the start of an investigation to the pupil's parent or
legal guardian. The notification must also provide school
district contact information that the parent or legal
guardian may use to request or to provide information
regarding the investigation.
c) Prohibit photographing of a pupil involved in the
investigation.
d) Require that employees and contractors of the school
district must identify themselves truthfully when
contacting or interviewing individuals during the
investigation.
AB 1101
Page 6
e) Provide an appeals process. If a parent or legal
guardian appeals the decision of a school district, the
burden for showing why the decision should be overruled
falls on the appealing party.
Purpose of the bill. The author states, "Schools should have
tools available to investigate residency issues, but we need to
ensure safeguards are in place to protect those students being
investigated especially elementary school-aged children." The
author cites, as an example, a Contra Costa Times report of the
investigatory tactics undertaken by investigators hired by the
Orinda Union School District to investigate a seven-year-old
girl the school district disenrolled last fall. According to
the article, the investigator told the mother of the child named
Vivian and neighbors at the family's old neighborhood that he
was a car insurance investigator. The school district later
reversed the decision to remove the child from the school
district when it learned that the mother was a live-in nanny for
a couple residing in the Orinda Union School District that was
her primary residence. The little girl was in the other
neighborhood spending time with her great-grandmother, who was
ill. The article reports that hiring investigators to
investigate residency issues is not uncommon, especially for
smaller school districts that are unable to dedicate staff for
this purpose. Investigators interviewed acknowledge that they
do hide their identity in hopes that people will "rat the kids
out" unwittingly.
Current law simply says that a school district may make
"reasonable efforts" to determine a pupil's residency. The law
does not specify how that is to be done.
It is unclear how many districts hire private investigators to
conduct residency checks. School districts are funded through
the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) based on an average
AB 1101
Page 7
daily attendance basis. Increasing enrollment increases funding
for schools, except for those deemed basic aid districts. Basic
aid districts do not receive LCFF because their local property
taxes provide higher levels of funding than they would receive
through LCFF. These districts would not benefit from increased
enrollment. A basic aid status can fluctuate from year to year.
In 2014-15, there were 144 basic aid districts in the state.
Issues to consider:
1)Should districts be required to notify parents or legal
guardians? This bill requires a school district to provide
written notification to a parent or a legal guardian five
business days prior to starting an investigation and provide
the basis for the reasonable belief supporting the need for
the investigation. The notice must also include school
district contact information. The author states that in the
Orinda Union School District case, the parent was never
informed of the reason the pupil was being investigated. The
California School Boards Association (CSBA) opposes the bill
and expresses concerns that this provision of the bill
undermines the investigatory process. If parents or legal
guardians are aware of a pending investigation, they may
change their behavior and take actions that will prevent a
school district from getting an accurate portrayal of the
situation. Staff recommends striking this provision of the
bill.
Alternatively, the Committee may wish to consider requiring a
school district to make an attempt to reconcile any questions
or problems (e.g., two documents containing two different
addresses), prior to hiring an investigator. A parent or
legal guardian may be able to clear up any discrepancy, or the
parent or legal guardian may tell the truth, which could avoid
the employment of a private investigator.
AB 1101
Page 8
2)Should photographing of pupils be prohibited? Photographing
of pupils raises privacy concerns. The American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) supports the bill and states, "The ACLU
is deeply concerned about the surveillance of young children
and the potentiality that investigations of student residency
may be inappropriately motivated and inadequately conducted."
School districts will argue that photographs are an effective
way of documenting where pupils may reside. The CSBA states
that "photography provides a great level of detail without
requiring investigators to come into direct contact with
children. Absent this tool, district investigators may need
to approach and speak with students instead."
Arguments in support. The author states, "AB 1101 protects
student safety and privacy by requiring school boards to adopt a
policy when a private investigator is hired to conduct an
investigation to determine whether a student resides within the
school district boundaries. AB 1101 protects children, like
Vivian, from questionable investigatory techniques such as lying
to family members and neighbors and taking surreptitious photos
of young students. This bill creates more transparency and
disclosure in student residency investigations and provides for
due process in challenging a student's home residency."
Arguments in opposition. The California School Boards
Association states that the bill "enables those looking to evade
a school district's efforts to implement statutory residency
criteria by requiring governing boards to adopt board policies
containing details about the procedures and parameters of these
investigations. The requirement that districts 'identify
specific, articulable facts' supporting their findings could
force districts to compromise the confidentiality of those who
provide information in connection to investigations. The latter
AB 1101
Page 9
would have a detrimental effect on the willingness of school
district employees and community members to provide true and
accurate information to investigators."
Related legislation. SB 200 (Lara), pending in the Assembly,
provides that a student meets residency requirements for school
attendance if the student's parent or legal guardian is employed
and lives with the student at the place of employment within the
boundaries of the school district for at least three days during
the school week.
SB 445 (Liu), pending in the Senate, extends to homeless youth
the right to remain in the school of origin, as is currently
provided to foster youth.
Prior related legislation. AB 207 (Ammiano), Chapter 435,
Statutes of 2011, requires school districts to accept reasonable
evidence that a pupil meets residency requirements for school
attendance within the district; and, specifies certain types of
documents that shall be considered reasonable evidence for a
pupil living with his or her parent or legal guardian.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California Immigrant Policy Center
AB 1101
Page 10
California Teachers Association
Common Sense Kids Action
Pleasanton Unified School District
Social Justice Learning Institute
Opposition
California School Boards Association
Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087