BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 597
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
SB
597 (Huff) - As Amended May 26, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict transfers.
SUMMARY: Provides a one year extension of the sunset date for
the District of Choice (DOC) Program and requires the
Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) to complete their evaluation of
the program by January 31, 2016.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Under the DOC authorization, established by AB 19
(Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993, a school board
may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a
specified number of inter-district transfers. A DOC is not
required to admit pupils but it is required to select those
pupils that it does elect to admit through a random process
that does not choose pupils based upon academic or athletic
talent. Either the district of residence or DOC may prevent a
transfer under this law if the transfer would exacerbate
racial segregation. Each DOC is required to keep records of:
1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as
SB 597
Page 2
well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils
transferred out of the district; 3) The number of pupils
transferred into the district; 4) The race, ethnicity, gender,
socioeconomic status and the district of residence for each
student in #2 and #3 above; and, 5) The number of pupils in #2
and #3 above who are English Learners or individuals with
exceptional needs. The Legislative Analyst is required to make
specified information available to the Governor and the
Legislature annually and to complete an evaluation by November
1, 2014. The DOC program becomes inoperative on July 1, 2016
and repealed on January 1, 2017. (Education Code Section
48300-48316)
2)Requires a DOC to give priority for attendance to siblings of
children already in attendance in that district, and
authorizes a DOC to give priority for attendance to children
of military personnel. (Education Code 48306)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: Under the DOC law, the governing board of any school
district may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept
a specified number of inter-district transfers. A DOC is not
required to admit pupils but is required to select those pupils
that it does elect to admit through a random process and they
are prohibited from choosing pupils based upon academic or
athletic talent.
DOC data is difficult to track. Under current law, districts
establish themselves as a DOC by adopting a local school board
resolution. Required data collection on DOCs and the numbers of
transfers they accept or deny began in 2008 and this data is
required to be reported to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI), the county board of education and the
Department of Finance annually.
SB 597
Page 3
SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174,
Statutes of 2007, required the California Department of
Education (CDE) to report to the Legislature by November 30,
2008 on the effectiveness of the interdistrict transfer program
using data provided by school districts to the SPI on the
disposition of all interdistrict transfer requests. CDE did not
provide the complete report due to lack of funding. In lieu of
the report, CDE conducted a survey of 100 schools that receive
the most inter-district transfers in the state and found only
three districts that have elected to declare themselves a DOC.
It is important to note the survey was not a complete assessment
of all DOCs. The CDE report recommends, however, "Given that
only 3.9% of the responding districts indicated an active
participation in the DOC program, it seems to be a small program
with very limited impact. The CDE sees no significant negative
consequences to the program's lapse as scheduled for July 1,
2009."
Interestingly, in a report by the CDE in 2003, the only solid
indicator of a district being a DOC was if the district was a
basic aid district that received state apportionment for its
transfer students. CDE had to use district self-identification
and a survey done by the California Association of School
Business Officials to determine the total number or DOCs. As of
2002, CDE was able to identify 18 small, mostly rural districts
as DOCs. One-half of these districts were basic aid districts.
In 2007, it was reported that there were 11 basic aid districts
that were DOCs, according to CDE.
An evaluation was due to the Legislature by the Legislative
Analyst's Office (LAO) on November 1, 2014. Due to lack of data
sharing between various agencies, the evaluation did not get
completed. The intent of this bill is to extend the sunset date
of the DOC program by one year, so that the LAO's evaluation can
be completed by January 31, 2016 and the Legislature will have
one more year to gather information before the program's sunset
date.
Historical Context of Racial Inequities in the DOC program:
SB 597
Page 4
Rowland Unified School District borders Walnut Valley Unified
School District, which is a DOC. As of 2009, 1,649 students had
transferred out of Rowland Unified and transferred into Walnut
Valley Unified under the DOC law. According to CDE data, the
overall demographic characteristics of Rowland Unified in
2008-09 included 60.9% Hispanic students and 20.9% Asian
students. Rowland Unified School District calculated, based on
727 students of the 1,649 total students who had transferred out
of the district under the DOC law in 2009, that Walnut Valley
had enrolled 52% Asian students and only 20% Hispanic students
from Rowland Unified. One could argue that the percentages of
students, by ethnic background, who transferred out of Rowland
Unified do not appear to be random since they do not reflect the
demographic characteristics of the district overall. In fact,
the percentage of Asian students who transferred out of Rowland
Unified was more than twice the total percentage of Asian
students in the entire district. Conversely, the percentage of
Hispanic students who transferred out of Rowland Unified was 1/3
of the total percentage of Hispanic students in the entire
district. In 2006-07, Rowland Unified reached the maximum cap
of 10%, and the district utilized the authority granted in
statute to stop any future students from transferring out of
their district under the DOC law, due to concerns that Walnut
Valley's DOC program had negatively impacted the demographic
profile of Rowland Unified. This type of example demonstrates
the importance of quality evaluation data about the DOC program.
Differences between the DOC program and other interdistrict
transfer options. Unlike the main interdistrict transfer law,
the DOC law does not require agreement between the district of
residence and the receiving district in order for the receiving
district (DOC) to admit interdistrict transfers. The district
of residence has little say in the transfer process, except,
districts with 50,000 or less ADA may limit the maximum number
of transfers each year to 3% of their ADA and may limit
transfers for the duration of the program to 10% of their ADA.
Districts with more than 50,000 pupils in attendance may refuse
to transfer more than 1% of their ADA. A district of residence
SB 597
Page 5
may also prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer would
have a negative impact on a court-ordered or voluntary
desegregation plan or the racial and ethnic balance of the
district.
Other differences include: A DOC that is also a basic aid
district is apportioned 70% of the amount the state revenue
limit for ADA that otherwise would have gone to the district of
residence (the remaining 30% is a savings in revenue for the
state). Transfer priority is given to the siblings of transfer
students already attending school in the DOC. Students with
special needs are admitted despite additional incurred costs
unless the transfer of those students would require the creation
of a new program.
Previous legislation: SB 680 (Romero & Huff), Chapter 198,
Statutes of 2009, extended the sunset and repeal date for the
School District of Choice (DOC) program from July 1, 2009 to
July 1, 2016 and January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017,
respectively; repealed the prohibition on new districts electing
to become DOCs; and, required the Legislative Analyst (LAO) to
complete an evaluation of the DOC program and report to the
Legislature by November 1, 2014.
AB 1407 (Huffman) from 2009, was held on the Assembly
Appropriations Committee Suspense file, would have extended the
sunset and repeal dates for the DOC program for 5 years and
required a census report on DOC by CDE by November 2010.
AB 270 (Huff) from 2007, extended the authority for DOC
inter-district transfers from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2009,
prohibited additional districts from becoming DOCs, and required
school districts (electing to accept transfers) to maintain
records on the number of requests it receives and annually
report the number of requests it receives to the SPI. The
language in this bill was incorporated into SB 80 (Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174, Statutes of 2007.
AB 97 (Nation), Chapter 21, Statutes of 2004, extended the
SB 597
Page 6
sunset date for one year for the DOC authorization and required
the SPI to continue the calculation for the Special Disabilities
Adjustment using the current incidence multiplier to allow
special education local plan areas to continue to receive funds
provided through 2003-04 until a new multiplier is calculated.
AB 1993 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993,
established school DOC and allowed the governing board of any
school district to declare the district to be a DOC willing to
accept a specified number of inter-district transfers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Alexander Valley Union School District
College School District
Columbine School District
EdVoice
Elk Hills School District
Glendora Unified School District
Inyo County Superintendent of Schools
SB 597
Page 7
Pine Ridge Elementary School District
Riverside Unified School District
Round Valley School STEP Foundation
Small School Districts' Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916)
319-2087