BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 320


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          320 (Lara)


          As Amended  June 30, 2015


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  39-0


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Education       |7-0  |O'Donnell, Chávez,    |                    |
          |                |     |Kim, McCarty,         |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago, Thurmond,   |                    |
          |                |     |Weber                 |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonta,         |                    |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang,      |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, Eggman,     |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, |                    |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 









                                                                     SB 320


                                                                    Page  2






          SUMMARY: Prohibits a public school from establishing a local  
          policy or procedure that authorizes the public school to resolve  
          a complaint regarding 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.  Specifically, this bill: 


          1)Provides the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) all  
            power and authority necessary to ensure that, when the  
            California Department of Education (CDE) finds merit in an  
            appeal filed relative to pupil fee complaints, the complaint  
            is resolved in a timely manner. Requires the SPI, on or before  
            June 30, 2016, to adopt regulations to govern the use of this  
            authority. 


          2)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, CDE's written decision shall identify the  
               corrective action that the public school shall 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 of the public  
               school's decision about that complaint, the CDE will  
               require the public school to respond to the issue within 10  
               business days and, after providing this opportunity to  
               respond, the CDE is required to make findings on the merit  
               of the appeal without remanding the complaint to the public  
               school for further consideration, regardless of whether the  








                                                                     SB 320


                                                                    Page  3





               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 is required  
               to 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 is required to 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.


             d)   A specification that, if the complainant raises one or  
               more issues on appeal that were not presented in the  
               underlying complaint, the CDE is required to remand any new  
               issue to the public school to treat as a newly filed  
               complaint, but is required to resolve the remainder of the  
               appeal.


             e)   Requires the public school to provide to the CDE, within  
               60 days of CDE's written decision, evidence documenting  
               that the public school has complied with any corrective  
               action specified in the written decision as specified.  If  
               the public school has not satisfied this requirement, 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, will be required to appear at the  
               next regularly scheduled meeting of the state board to  
               explain the public school's failure to satisfy that  
               requirement.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  








                                                                     SB 320


                                                                    Page  4





          Committee:


          1)General Fund costs to the California Department of Education  
            of approximately $315,000 for increased administrative and  
            legal workload.  Increased workload includes: regulatory  
            review, updating existing Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP),  
            revision of compliance monitoring processes, review of  
            identified fees-related deficiencies, and provision of on-site  
            direct investigations where new evidence is presented or an  
            LEA fails to address an issue on appeal.  Legal counsel will  
            also be needed to consult and train staff on the appellate  
            review process and to review appeal decisions and the  
            increased number of direct investigation reports.


          2)Unknown Proposition 98 (1988)/General Fund costs, potentially  
            in the low thousands, for schools and school districts to  
            address issues of noncompliance.  For example, schools could  
            incur costs to refute new evidence of noncompliance presented  
            on appeal.  Further, this bill requires the superintendent of  
            the school district or county office of education, as  
            applicable, to appear before the State Board of Education  
            (SBE) if the public school that they oversee fails to provide  
            evidence that they have complied with CDE's recommended  
            corrective action within 60 days.  School level and district  
            level resources will be needed to gather documentation to  
            prove compliance and travel to the SBE meeting, if necessary. 


          COMMENTS:


          Background.  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].  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  








                                                                     SB 320


                                                                    Page  5





          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 2011,  
          the 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) of 2011.  AB 165 was vetoed by the Governor and  
          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 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 of  
          noncompliance through the UCP.


          Purpose.  Even after the enactment of AB 1575, supporters of  
          this bill state that some districts continue to charge unlawful  
          fees. The author notes, for example, that 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.   The ACLU and other supporters of this bill are seeking  
          to further clarify and strengthen existing law to ensure  
          compliance with AB 1575.  There is no known opposition on file.









                                                                     SB 320


                                                                    Page  6








          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
          Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087  FN: 0001626