BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 320
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 15, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
SB
320 (Lara) - As Amended March 26, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: Pupil fees: complaint of noncompliance: regulations
SUMMARY: Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to ensure appeals regarding the assessment of pupil fees
are resolved in a timely manner and prohibits a school from
establishing a local policy that authorizes resolution of a
complaint by providing a remedy only to the complainant without
also providing a remedy to all affected students, parents, and
guardians. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a public school from establishing a local policy or
procedure to resolve a complaint filed regarding the
assessment of pupil fees, whether formally or informally, by
providing a remedy to the complainant without also providing a
remedy to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians.
2)Provides that the SPI shall have all power and authority
necessary to ensure that, when the California Department of
Education (CDE) finds merit in an appeal, the complaint is
resolved in a timely manner.
SB 320
Page 2
3)Requires the SPI, on or before June 30, 2016, to adopt
regulations to govern the use of this authority.
4)Requires the regulations to include, but not necessarily be
limited to, all of the following:
a) A specification that, if the CDE finds merit in an
appeal, the CDE's written decision shall identify with
specificity the corrective action that the public school
must take to confirm that it has provided a remedy to all
affected pupils, including, if applicable, specific
direction regarding the reasonable efforts the public
school shall take to ensure full reimbursement to all
affected pupils;
b) A specification that, if the public school failed to
address an issue raised in the complaint in the public
school's decision about that complaint, the CDE shall
require the public school to respond to the issue within 10
business days and, after providing this opportunity to
respond, the CDE shall make findings on the merit of the
appeal without remanding the complaint to the public school
for further consideration, regardless of whether the public
school provided the required response.
c) A specification that, if the complainant submits
evidence in conjunction with the appeal that is related to
an issue raised in the underlying complaint and that is
presented for the first time on appeal, the CDE shall
notify the public school of the new evidence and provide
the public school with 10 business days to respond to the
new evidence, and, after providing this opportunity to
respond, the CDE shall make findings on the merit of the
SB 320
Page 3
appeal without remanding the complaint to the public school
for further consideration, regardless of whether the public
school provided the required response.
d) A specification that, if the complainant raises one or
more issues on appeal that were not presented in the
underlying complaint, the CDE shall remand any new issue to
the public school to treat as a newly filed complaint, but
shall resolve the remainder of the appeal.
e) A requirement that the public school provide to the CDE,
within 60 days of the CDE's written decision, evidence
documenting that it has complied with any corrective action
specified in the written decision; and
f) A specification that, if the public school has not
satisfied the requirement to take corrective action within
60 days, the superintendent of the school district or the
county office of education or the principal of the charter
school, as appropriate based on the public school involved
in the underlying complaint, shall be required to appear at
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the State Board of
Education (SBE) to explain the public school's failure to
satisfy that requirement.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prohibits the assessment of pupil fees for participation in an
educational activity in public K-12 schools.
2)Permits complaints of noncompliance with the prohibition
against pupils fees to be filed anonymously with a school
principal if the complaint provides evidence or information
SB 320
Page 4
leading to evidence of noncompliance.
3)Provides that, if a complainant is not satisfied with the
decision of the school, he or she may appeal the decision to
the CDE and shall receive a written appeal decision with 60
days of the CDE's receipt of the appeal.
4)Requires that, if the public school finds merit in a
complaint, or the CDE finds merit in an appeal, the school
shall provide a remedy to all affected pupils, parents, and
guardians including, where applicable, reasonable by the
school to ensure full reimbursement to all affected parties.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)This bill results in unknown, but potentially significant,
costs for schools to comply with the additional requirements
related to student fee complaints.
2)The California Department of Education (CDE) indicates the
need for 1.5 additional positions and $192,000 General Fund to
implement the requirements of this bill. However, it appears
that the majority of the workload imposed by this bill may be
temporary in nature.
COMMENTS:
Background. The California Supreme Court ruled in Hartzell v.
Connell (1984; 35 Cal.3d 899, 201) that pupil fees violate the
SB 320
Page 5
constitutional right to a free education. Moreover, the court
ruled that extracurricular activities also must be free, because
they are an integral component of public education and a part of
the educational program. The issue of pupil fees has been
litigated many times since Hartzell, and in nearly all cases the
outcome has been a settlement or court decision favorable to the
plaintiffs.
In September 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
filed a class action lawsuit alleging the unconstitutional
assessment of pupil fees by school districts [Jane Doe, et al.
v. State of California, et al., (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County,
2010, BC445151)]. The lawsuit followed an August 2010 report
from the ACLU that documented more than 50 public school
districts that required pupils to pay fees for textbooks,
workbooks, science labs, physical education uniforms, classroom
materials, and extracurricular activities.
In December 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger and the ACLU announced
a tentative settlement that would have established a monitoring
and enforcement system, but the court did not finalize the
settlement. The following April the ACLU filed an amended
complaint that dropped the Governor as a defendant and added the
SPI, the California Department of Education, and the State Board
of Education (the "State Education Defendants"). In May 2011the
State Education Defendants and the ACLU agreed to a stay of
court proceedings to allow for a legislative solution. The
State of California did not agree to the stay and instead
suggested that the case be dismissed pending the outcome of the
legislative process.
The legislative solution, which was supported by the ACLU, was
AB 165 (Lara). After AB 165 was vetoed by the Governor, the
court case was reactivated. On January 26, 2012 the court
overruled demurrers filed by the State of California and the
State Education Defendants, allowing the legal case to move
forward. Subsequently, however, the Governor signed AB 1575
(Lara, Chapter 799, Statutes of 2012), which codified the
prohibition against pupil fees and provided for the resolution
SB 320
Page 6
of noncompliance through the UCP.
Reason for this bill. According to the author's office, some
districts continue to charge fees that are prohibited. Attempts
to resolve the complaints through the UCP have not always been
successful for a variety of reasons. For example, some
districts have reimbursed the family filing the complaint, but
not all of the families that were charged prohibited fees. Some
districts have simply refused to comply with the CDE's ruling or
refund the fees. This bill addresses these problems by (1)
prohibiting a public school from establishing a policy of
resolving a complaint by providing a remedy to the complainant
without also providing a remedy to all other affected parties;
(2) granting the SPI the power and authority to resolve the
complaint in a timely manner, as specified; (3) requiring the
school to provide documentation to the CDE of the corrective
action taken; and (4) requiring a school administrator to
appear before the SBE to explain the reasons for noncompliance
with a CDE decision if compliance does not occur within a
specified time period.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban Schools
SB 320
Page 7
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Orange County Department of Education
Public Advocates
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by:Rick Pratt / ED. / (916)
319-2087
SB 320
Page 8