BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1101| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1101 Author: Bonilla (D), et al. Amended: 7/1/15 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/24/15 AYES: Liu, Runner, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/22/15 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Pupil school enrollment: residency requirements: policy on investigations SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill requires a school district that elects to investigate the residency of a student to first adopt a policy regarding such investigations. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Requires students to attend the public full-time day school or continuation school or classes in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located. (Education Code § 48200) 2)Provides that a student complies with the residency requirements for school attendance in a school district if the student: AB 1101 Page 2 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) If 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 § 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 boundaries of that district for a minimum of 10 hours during the school week. a) School districts are not required to admit a student with at least one parent or legal guardian who is physically employed in the district. b) A school district may prohibit the transfer of a student if the district determines that the transfer would negatively impact the court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the district, or if the district determines that the additional cost of educating the student would exceed the amount of additional state aid received as a result of the transfer. (EC § 48204) 4)Requires school districts to accept from the parent or legal guardian reasonable evidence that the student meets the residency requirements for school attendance in the district. Existing law requires reasonable evidence of residency to be AB 1101 Page 3 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 § 48204.1) 5)Authorizes school districts 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 § 48204.1) This bill requires a school district that elects to investigate the residency of a student to first adopt a policy regarding such investigations. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the governing board of a school district, if the district elects to undertake an investigation to determine if a student meets residency requirements, to adopt a policy regarding the investigation of a student to determine residency for school attendance before investigating any students. 2)Requires the policy to do all of the following: a) Identify the circumstances upon which the school district may initiate an investigation, which must, at a minimum, require the school district employee to be able to identify specific, articulable facts supporting the belief AB 1101 Page 4 that the parent or legal guardian has provided false or unreliable evidence of residency. b) Describe the investigatory methods that may be used by the school district in the conduct of the investigation, including whether the school district will be employing the services of a private investigator. c) Require the school district to make reasonable efforts to determine whether the student resides in the school district before hiring a private investigator. d) Prohibit the surreptitious photographing or video-recording of students who are being investigated, provides that "surreptitious photographing or video-recording" means the covert collection of photographic or videographic images of people or places subject to an investigation, and provides that the collection of images is not covert if the technology is used in open and public view. e) Require that employees and contractors of the school district engaged in the investigation identify themselves truthfully as such to individuals contacted or interviewed during the course of the investigation. f) Provide a process whereby the determination of a school district as to whether a student meets residency requirements may be appealed, and specify the basis for that determination. Provide that the burden is on the appealing party to show why the decision of the school district should be overruled. 3)Requires the policy to be adopted at a public meeting of the school district governing board. Comments Investigative tools. Existing law authorizes school districts 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. Statutes do not define "reasonable efforts" nor provide examples AB 1101 Page 5 of what constitutes reasonable efforts. This bill requires school districts' policies to require schools to make reasonable efforts to determine whether a student resides in the district before hiring a private investigator. It appears that reasonable efforts may range from a discussion with parents about the belief that false or unreliable evidence of residency was provided, to hiring a private investigator. This bill requires school districts' policies to prohibit the surreptitious photographing or video-recording of students, and provides some guidance as to what is considered "surreptitious." This bill does not prohibit all photographing or video-recording of students. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified6/30/15) California Federation of Teachers California State PTA California Teachers Association Pittsburg Unified School District Public Advocates OPPOSITION: (Verified6/30/15) California Association of Licensed Investigators, Inc. California School Boards Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Public Advocates, "if districts believe the documentation is false, current law authorizes them to make reasonable efforts to determine whether a student has met the district residency requirement. This bill will provide notice to the public that investigations may occur and how they will be conducted. It will also require investigators to identify themselves when interviewing or making contact and specifically prohibit surreptitious photography of students being investigated." AB 1101 Page 6 ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California School Boards Association, "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. It is unclear what the rationale is for the prohibition against the use of photography. There is no harm to children by the use of photography in these investigations, and photos are not distributed. Photography provides a great level of detail without requiring investigators to come into direct contact with children." ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/22/15 AYES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Hadley, O'Donnell, Olsen, Waldron, Weber Prepared by:Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105 7/1/15 14:55:58 **** END ****