BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 320
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
320 (Lara)
As Amended September 4, 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.
2)Requires the CDE to take the following actions:
a) If the CDE finds merit in an appeal, its 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) If the public school failed to address an issue raised
in the complaint of 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 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
SB 320
Page 3
provided the required response.
c) 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 and the CDE determines there is merit in the
appeal, the CDE shall resolve the underlying complaint. If
the CDE determines there is not merit in the appeal, it
shall send the underlying complaint and new evidence back
to the public school for further consideration.
d) 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 is required to
resolve the remainder of the appeal.
3)Requires a 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 governing board to explain the public school's failure
to satisfy that requirement.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)General Fund costs to the California Department of Education
of approximately $315,000 for increased administrative and
SB 320
Page 4
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
textbooks, workbooks, science labs, physical education uniforms,
classroom materials, and extracurricular activities.
In December 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger and the ACLU announced
SB 320
Page 5
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 2012. 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 the bill are seeking to
further clarify and strengthen existing law to ensure compliance
with AB 1575. There is no opposition on file.
Analysis Prepared by:
Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0002096
SB 320
Page 6