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 ****