BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 597 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 597 (Huff) As Amended May 26, 2015 Majority vote SENATE VOTE: 36-0 ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Education |6-0 |O'Donnell, Chávez, | | | | |Kim, McCarty, | | | | |Santiago, Thurmond | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | | | | |Bloom, Bonta, | | | | |Calderon, Chang, | | | | |Daly, Eggman, | | | | |Gallagher, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Eduardo Garcia, | | | | |Holden, Jones, Quirk, | | | | |Rendon, Wagner, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | SB 597 Page 2 | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Each DOC is required to keep records of: a) the number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials; b) the number of pupils transferred out of the district; c) the number of pupils transferred into the district; d) the race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status and the district of residence for each student in b) and c) above; and, e) the number of pupils in b) and c) above, who are English Learners or individuals with exceptional needs. The LAO 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 The DOC program becomes inoperative on July 1, 2016, and repealed on January 1, 2017.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 Sections 48300 to 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 SB 597 Page 3 of military personnel. (Education Code Section 48306) FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no significant state costs associated with the extension of the DOC program. Local fiscal impact will vary depending on the type of district, the number of students that transfer, and whether or not the student qualifies for supplemental or concentration grant funding under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Unknown, likely minor costs for the LAO to complete reporting requirements. 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 80 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), 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 SB 597 Page 4 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 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: 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 SB 597 Page 5 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 one-third 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 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. SB 597 Page 6 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. Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0001463