BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1572
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1572
(Campos) - As Amended April 5, 2016
SUBJECT: School transportation
SUMMARY: Requires a public, noncharter school to provide free
transportation to a pupil attending a school that is eligible
for Title 1 federal funding. Specifically, this bill:
1)Revises the provision authorizing a school district to
contract and pay for the transportation of all pupils by
specifying that that form of transportation may be provided
only to middle and high school pupils and the vehicle for this
type of transportation must be driven by a public employee of
a municipally owned transit system.
2)Provides that a pupil attending a public, noncharter school
that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding shall be entitled
to free transportation to and from school if either of the
following conditions are met:
a) The pupil resides more than one-half mile from the
school; or,
AB 1572
Page 2
b) The neighborhood through which the pupil must travel to
get to school is unsafe, as established by the plan
required to be developed by this bill, which may include,
but not be limited to, stray dogs, lack of sidewalks, known
gang activity, presence of environmental problems and
hazards, required crossings of freeways or busy
intersections, or other reasons documented by stakeholders.
3)Requires a school district not currently providing
transportation to all pupils attending schools that are
eligible for Title 1 federal funding to implement a plan to
ensure that all pupils entitled to free transportation receive
the transportation.
4)Requires the plan to be developed in consultation with
teachers, school administrators, regional local transit
authorities, local air districts, the Department of
Transportation, parents, pupils, and other stakeholders, and
requires the plan to identify and accommodate the special
rights of homeless youth.
5)Specifies that if free, dependable and timely transportation
is not available for pupils entitled to transportation
services, the school district shall ensure that free
transportation is provided.
6)Authorizes a school district to partner with a transit
authority to provide the transportation to middle school and
high school pupils if all of the following conditions are met:
a) All drivers are public employees of a municipality owned
transit agency.
AB 1572
Page 3
b) The transit agency can certify that the public transit
system can ensure consistent, adequate routes and schedules
to enable pupils to get home, to school and back, and does
not charge the school district more than marginal cost for
each transit pass.
c) Specifies that this bill does not prevent a local
transportation agency from providing no-cost transit passes
to pupils attending Title 1 schools.
7)Establishes the Transportation Access to Public School fund to
be administered by the California Department of Education
(CDE) and requires the following:
a) All transportation required by this bill to be
reimbursed by the Transportation and Access to Public
School Fund.
b) Funds to be allocated to the CDE for allocation to local
educational agencies, upon appropriation by the
Legislature.
c) The Superintendent of Public Instruction to allocate
funds from the Transportation and Access to Public School
Fund to school district, county office of education, entity
providing services under a school transportation joint
powers agreement, or regional occupational center or
program that provides pupil transportation an amount equal
to the actual costs of the entitled transportation.
Specifies that the allocation shall be in addition to any
amount apportioned to home-to-school transportation.
AB 1572
Page 4
8)Specifies that this bill shall become operative only to the
extent that funding is provided in the annual Budget Act or
another statute for this purpose.
9)Finds and declares that independent academic studies indicate
increase in school participation and graduate rates among
children who were guaranteed transportation to and from school
and expresses the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation that would support school participation and high
school attainment among low-income youth.
EXISTING LAW: Provides state funding for school district and
county office of education transportation costs based on the
amount received for that purpose in the prior year, or the
agencies' actual transportation costs, whichever is less.
Existing law also requires school districts to provide
transportation services for special education students if the
students' individualized education plans specify such need.
(Education Code Section 41850)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. The Legislative Counsel has keyed this
bill as a state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS: This bill requires a public, noncharter school to
provide all students attending a school that is eligible for
Title 1 federal funding free transportation to and from school
if the pupil lives more than half a mile from school, or if the
neighborhood the pupil must travel to get to and from school is
unsafe, as identified by a plan, which may include the presence
of stray dogs, lack of sidewalks, known gang activity, lack of
sidewalks, known gang activity, presence of environmental
problems and hazards, required crossings of freeways or busy
intersections, or other reasons documented by stakeholders.
AB 1572
Page 5
The bill requires a school district not currently providing
transportation to all pupils attending schools that are eligible
for Title 1 federal funding to implement a plan to ensure that
all pupils entitled to free transportation receive the
transportation. The bill requires the plan to be developed in
consultation with stakeholders, including teachers, school
administrators, regional local transit authorities, local air
districts, the Department of Transportation, parents, pupils,
and others.
This bill is substantially similar to AB 891 (Campos), which was
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file last
year. AB 891 contained three proposals to address the needs of
homeless and other low-income youth. This year, the author
separated AB 891 into two bills, AB 1567 and AB 1572.
One of the major differences between AB 891 and this bill is the
trigger. AB 891 requires a school district to provide free
transportation to and from school for all pupils eligible for
free and reduced-price meals. This bill makes the requirement
based on whether a pupil is enrolled in a school that is
eligible for federal Title 1 funds. Title I provides
supplemental funding to schools with the highest percentage of
low-income children. According to the CDE, in 2014-15, there
were 3.9 million students in 6,457 schools that received Title 1
funds. In contrast, there are 3.7 million pupils (almost 60% of
pupils) eligible for free and reduced-price meals. The other
component that is different in this bill is the funding source.
AB 891 required local educational agencies to use existing funds
to provide transportation. This bill intends to provide funds,
to the extent funds are provided in the annual Budget Act, for
transportation that is provided by public employees, either
hired by the district or a transit authority.
AB 891 required transportation to be provided based on distance
and if the area the student must travel is unsafe due to stray
AB 1572
Page 6
dogs, no sidewalks or gang activity. This bill expands the
conditions that may be considered unsafe but makes the
determination of what is considered unsafe based on a plan,
developed in consultation with specified stakeholders.
Impact on attendance. The author states that the inability to
afford transportation to and from school is one of the most
frequently cited barriers that low-income youth face in
attending school. According to the author, a survey of Oakland
youth found that 61% of students reported they sometimes use
their lunch money to ride the bus. The author further states
that other states, including New Jersey, New York and Missouri,
guarantee transportation for students who live beyond a certain
distance from their school.
Research of kindergarteners conducted by a professor at the
University of California, Santa Barbara, found that students who
rode a school bus to school had less absences and were less
likely to be chronically truant. The professor hypothesizes
that taking a bus provides structure for a regular schedule and
therefore establishes a routine for regular school attendance.
Transportation funds. Until the enactment of the Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF), home-to-school transportation was a
categorical program that reimbursed school districts and county
offices of education (COEs) for prior year approved
transportation costs. Funding for transportation is one of the
few funding streams that did not get rolled into the LCFF.
Instead, districts and COEs continue to receive, outside of
their LCFF funding, the same amount of transportation funding
they received in the year immediately preceding the enactment of
the LCFF, 2012-13. Districts and COEs receiving those funds
must continue to spend them on transportation.
AB 1572
Page 7
The amount received by districts and COEs varies widely. Some
get more than 90% of their approved costs reimbursed with state
funding. Others get no state funding at all, even though they
have approved costs. The statewide average reimbursement is
about 35% of approved costs.
Because the amount received by districts is held flat,
transportation funding does not keep pace with inflation and,
over time, becomes less related to actual workload. Some urban
districts provide home-to-school transportation. Others do not,
and rely instead on public transit.
Can transportation issues be addressed through the Local Control
and Accountability Plan (LCAP)? The Committee may wish to
consider whether transportation issues can be addressed through
a school district's LCAP. LCFF funds can be used for any
purpose in accordance with the LCAP, which is developed locally
to meet the needs of each district. The LCAP is required to
meet eight state priorities. One of the priorities is "pupil
engagement," as measured by factors such as school attendance
rate and chronic absenteeism rate. School districts have an
incentive to ensure that students are not absent in order to get
average daily attendance (ADA). If transportation is identified
as the barrier to attendance and the cause of chronic
absenteeism, it could be funded through a district's LCFF
allocation. The author may wish to consider strategies to
encourage school districts to consider transportation barriers
in the development of their LCAP.
Committee amendments.
1)Staff recommends an amendment clarifying that the reference to
middle and high school pupils in Section 2 of the bill is
specific to the provision of transportation provided by a
municipally owned transit system contracted by the school
AB 1572
Page 8
district.
2)According to the CDE, it may be difficult to identify schools
that are eligible for but do not receive Title 1 funds. Staff
recommends changing the requirement to provide transportation
to schools that receive, rather than schools that are eligible
for, Title 1.
Arguments in support. The sponsors state, "According to a
recent report by California Attorney General Kamala Harris,
poverty and financial instability are a significant cause of
student absenteeism in the state, and over 75% of students with
chronic attendance problems are low-income?.Providing free
transportation, such as free public transit passes and school
bus transportation in rural communities, to low-income students
will enable them to attend school and take advantage of
after-school programming proven to improve educational
outcomes."
Arguments in opposition. The Orange County Department of
Education (OCDE) opposes the bill and states, "OCDE is concerned
about two significant problems that this bill raises. First,
the breadth of this bill is significant and will result in large
transportation-related costs to districts all over the state.
As an example, the Santa Ana Unified School District in Central
Orange County currently has enrollment of 56,000 students. At
least of these students (42,000) would qualify for free
transportation under the criteria of the bill. Santa Ana USD
estimates that its ongoing costs would be approximately $238
million to comply with all of the requirements of the bill which
includes the need to acquire additional buses, house the
expanded bus fleet and hire additional bus drivers and
mechanics."
AB 1572
Page 9
Related legislation. AB 891 (Campos), substantially similar to
this bill, was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
suspense file in 2015.
AB 379 (Gordon), Chapter 772, Statutes of 2015, makes complaints
alleging violations of certain educational rights afforded to
students who are homeless subject to the Uniform Complaint
Procedures.
AB 1166 (Bloom), Chapter 171, Statutes of 2015, allows students
in foster care and those who are homeless to be eligible for the
exemption from local graduation requirements even if they are
not notified of this right within 30 days of enrollment, and
allows homeless students to be exempt even if they are no longer
homeless or if they transfer to another school or district.
AB 1567 (Campos), also scheduled for today's hearing, prohibits
an after school program from charging a fee to a family with a
child identified as a homeless youth or a foster care youth and
gives homeless and foster care youth priority for enrollment in
state funded after school programs.
SB 445 (Liu), Chapter 289, Statutes of 2015, provides students
who are homeless the right to remain in their schools of origin
and the right to immediate enrollment.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1572
Page 10
Support
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Civil Liberties Union
California Catholic Conference
California Equity Leaders Network
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California School-Based Health Alliance
Children's Advocacy Institute
Children's Defense Fund (co-sponsor)
Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations
Comite Civico del Valle
AB 1572
Page 11
Community Asset Development Redefining Education
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Greater Inglewood Reintegration Council
InnerCity Struggle
Larkin Street Youth Services
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
9to5, National Association of Working Women (co-sponsor)
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Our Family Coalition
Rural County Representatives of California
Southbay Packers Youth Football and Cheer, Inc.
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
AB 1572
Page 12
United Ways of California
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-sponsor)
Women's Foundation of California
Youth Justice Coalition (co-sponsor)
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Orange County Department of Education
Santa Ana Unified School District
Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 1572
Page 13