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