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a) the number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as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repealed on January 1, 2017.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