BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1432
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Huff |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 19, 2016 Hearing Date: |
| | April 6, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Olgalilia Ramirez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: School attendance: pupil transfer options: school
districts of choice
SUMMARY
This bill deletes the sunset and repeal dates for "school
district of choice," program, repeals the cumulative 10% cap for
students transferring out of specified school districts of
residence, reassigns certain reporting requirements to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and expands various
oversight responsibilities to county superintendents, among
other things.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1) Requires students to attend the public full-time day
school or continuation school or classes in which the
residency of either the parent or legal guardian is
located. (Education Code § 48200)
2) Authorizes the governing board of a school board to
declare themselves a school district of choice willing to
accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. As a
condition of participating in the program, either the
district of residence or district of choice may prevent a
transfer if the transfer would exacerbate racial
segregation. (EC § 48300, et seq.)
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 2
of ?
3) Requires a school district of choice to select students
through a random and unbiased process that prohibits
enrollment based upon academic or athletic talent. It is
incumbent upon the school district of choice to ensure that
the auditor who conducts its annual financial audit also
reviews compliance with the specified selection
requirements. (EC § 48301)
4) Authorizes a school district of residence with an
average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000 to cap
outbound transfers each year to 3% of its ADA for that year
and to cap the maximum number at 10% of its ADA for the
duration of the program. A school district of residence is
also authorized to limit transfers if it has a negative or
qualified status on the most recent budget certification or
if a determination is made by the county superintendent
determines that the school district will not meet standards
for fiscal stability due to the impact of additional
transfers, as specified. (EC § 48307)
5) Requires each school district of choice 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, as specified; and
c) The number of pupils transferred into the
district, as specified.
(EC § 48301)
6) Further requires, school districts of choice to annually
report this information to neighboring school districts,
their county office of education, the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) and Department of Finance (DOF),
as specified. The DOF is required to make the information
available to the Legislative Analyst. The Legislative
Analyst is required to conduct a comprehensive evaluation
of the district of choice program, as specified, and submit
the evaluation, along with recommendations, to the
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 3
of ?
appropriate legislative education policy committees, and
the Governor, by January 31, 2016. This section is
scheduled to sunset July 1, 2017. (EC § 48300, et seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill deletes the sunset and repeal dates for "school
district of choice," program; repeals the cumulative 10% cap for
students transferring out of specified school districts of
residence; reassigns certain reporting requirements to the SPI;
and expands various oversight responsibilities to county
superintendents. Specifically, it:
1) Deletes the July 1, 2017 repeal of the district of choice
program thereby extending the operation of the program
indefinitely.
2) Requires, instead of authorizes, the governing board of the
school district of choice to:
a) Notify parents in writing regarding the
status of the application, no later than February 15
of the school year preceding the request for transfer,
instead of 90 days after the receipt of an
application.
b) If an application is rejected, include
the specific reason for the rejection of an
application, as provided.
c) Notify the district of residence if an
application is accepted or provisionally accepted no
later than March 1 of the school year proceeding the
school year for which the student is requesting
transfer.
d) Ensure, by resolution, that students
accepted for transfer are selected through a random,
unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of
whether or not a student should be enrolled based upon
academic or athletic performance.
e) By resolution, determine and adopt the
number of transfers it is willing to accept.
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 4
of ?
3) Modifies provisions related to the audit by striking the
requirement for districts of choice to request a compliance
review of specified components of the district of choice
program and clarifies that this compliance review be
incorporated into the district's annual audit already
required by current law.
4) Requires, instead of authorizes, all school districts to
make information regarding their schools, programs,
policies, and procedures available to any interested person
upon request and adds the requirement for school districts
to make public announcements during the enrollment period
with that information.
5) Requires a school district of choice to post application
information on its Internet Web site and include at a
minimum all of the following:
a) Any applicable form and timeline for transfer.
b) An explanation of the selection process.
6) Authorizes only a school district of residence, instead of
authorizing both districts of residence and districts of
choice, to prohibit or limit transfers when the governing
board determines that the transfer would negatively impact:
a) A court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan.
b) The racial and ethnic balance of the school
district of residence.
7) Deletes the authorization for districts with an average
daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000 to cap the
maximum number of students transferring out at 10% based on
ADA for the duration of the program.
8) Modifies the authorization provided to school districts of
residence for implementing existing transfer caps by
establishing new procedures that:
a) Require districts of choice to notify
districts of residence once a certain percentage of
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 5
of ?
transfers are accepted into that district of choice,
as specified.
b) Require action by the governing board, as
specified.
9) Modifies the requirement, for which a student may continue
to attend a school district of choice, regardless of
transfer restrictions, to clarify that the student may
continue to attend if he or she is attending or has
received a notice of acceptance before action is taken by a
governing board to restrict further transfers.
10) Authorizes county superintendents to:
a) Accept complaints from school districts
and appeals from parents of students who are denied
transfer.
b) Make determinations on those complaints
and appeals based only on whether certain provisions
of existing law related to the District of Choice
program were applied accurately.
11) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
do all of the following:
a) Maintain and update a list of the
school districts of choice in the state, as specified.
b) Collect certain information from each
school district of choice and ensure information is
provided in a consistent format, as described.
c) Post all of the following information
on the California Department of Education's (CDE)
Internet Web site:
i) A list of school districts of choice.
ii) A plan for collecting information, as
specified.
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 6
of ?
iii) A single list of all school choice
programs, including but not limited to, school
district of choice.
d) Report by July 1, 2017, a plan for
collecting data, to the education policy committees of
the Legislature, the Department of Finance (DOF), and
the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO).
e) Annually make specified information
regarding districts of choice transfers available to
the Governor and appropriate fiscal and policy
committees of the Legislature, instead of the LAO.
12) Authorizes the SPI to collect specified information
reported by the district of choice through the California
Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System or another
manner that minimizes the administrative burden.
13) Deletes the requirement for the LAO to conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program.
14) Removes the requirement for the DOF to report specified
information to the LAO.
15) Recast certain provisions and makes numerous
non-substantive changes.
16) Establishes if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that this act contains costs mandated by the state, the
state will reimburse applicable entities.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill. Established in 1993, the District of
Choice program is scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2017.
There are approximately 10,000 students served by 47
districts of choice. According to the author, allowing the
program to sunset would leave transfer students unprotected
and their ability to remain in their district of choice
could be jeopardized. The author asserts, many school
districts enroll a significant number of students from
outside of their district boundaries through the District
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 7
of ?
of Choice program. As a result, ending the program could
cause a decline in enrollment for several small school
districts. This bill makes the District of Choice program
permanent and seeks to incorporate recommendations made by
Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) in its evaluation of the
program.
2) Program evaluation. Existing law requires the LAO to
submit a comprehensive report and make recommendations
regarding the extension of the District of Choice program,
by January 31, 2016. The report, "Evaluation of the School
District of Choice Program," was released on January 27,
2016, and highlighted several points: transfer students
have varied by demographic backgrounds (i.e. race/ethnic
and income); the program provides transfer students with
additional educational options; almost all students
transfer to districts with higher test scores and;
districts of residence often respond by improving
instructional offerings.
However, the report also highlights: program oversight has been
limited by a lack of data and flaws in the audit procedure and;
participation in the program is relatively low (5% of all school
districts and 0.2% of students statewide).
3) LAO recommendations. This report made several
recommendations all of which are related to provisions of
this bill. Those recommendations include:
a) Reauthorize program for a minimum of five years.
The District of Choice program has a long legislative
history as it has been reauthorized five times since
1993. In 2015, SB 527 (Huff Chapter 421, Statutes of
2015) extended the life of the District of Choice
program for one year. This extension was needed as
delays in the data collection process stalled the
District of Choice program evaluation, along with
recommendations for its extension, required by SB 680
(Romero and Huff, Chapter 198, Statute of 2009).
In addition to the records mentioned in the background
of this analysis, existing law required the evaluation
to incorporate the following information; the number
and characteristics of pupils who use the school
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 8
of ?
district of choice option, the enrollment of school
districts of residence and school districts of choice
and the fiscal health of school districts of residence
and school districts of choice, as specified. The 2009
statute required the evaluation to be completed and
submitted by November 1, 2014. However, although a
one-year extension was provided, minimal information
was collected from the letter disseminated from the
California Department of Education (CDE) to all school
districts that requesting districts of choice to
self-identify and provide data required by existing
law.
This bill makes the district of choice program
permanent. The ability to provide additional
educational options for students and improve district
programs are two reasons for the recommendation of
reauthorization. However, the report also provides
that a five-year extension would allow for the
collection of better data and the assessment of the
effects of the other recommendations. For this reason,
staff recommends the bill be amended to extend the
program sunset and repeal dates by five years.
Staff further recommends the bill be amended to
reinstate provisions related to the comprehensive
evaluation of the district of choice program pursuant
to section 48316 of the education code and extend
completion and submission date by five years.
b) Assign the California Department of Education
(CDE) specific administrative responsibilities,
including to maintain a list of districts of choice,
ensuring all districts submit annual reports and other
efforts that would help the legislature monitor the
program and assist families learn about the program.
This bill clarifies that information collected by
districts of choice must be reported only to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) annually.
In turn the SPI is responsible for ensuring
information is reported to them and make certain
information available to the legislature, Governor and
on its website. Existing law requires districts to
report to the Department of Finance (DOF) and SPI
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 9
of ?
which created confusion among districts and state
agencies.
This bill also requires the SPI to create a plan for
the collection of data and make that plan available to
the DOF, the appropriate fiscal and policy committees
of the legislature and the Legislative Analyst's
Office. For consistency purposes and to streamline
the reporting process staff recommends the bill be
amended to require both the plan pursuant to
subsection 48313(d)(2) and specified information
pursuant to subsection 48313(e) be reported to the
same entities (i.e. appropriate fiscal and policy
committees of the Legislature, Governor and the
Legislative Analyst's Office).
c) Implement a new oversight mechanism that replaces
the existing audit requirement with a new system of
oversight administration by county offices of
education. This bill modifies the audit by allowing
the specified compliance review to be a regular
component of the district's annual audit process. This
bill adds language to authorize parents and districts
to submit complaints to the specified county
superintendent. After a complaint is received the
superintendent may make a determination based only on
provisions in existing law related to the district of
choice program. This bill is silent with regard to any
repercussion should a violation occur.
d) Improve local communication by requiring
districts of choice to provide nearby districts of
residence with timely notification of the students
accepted through the program. This bill establishes
new notification procedures for school districts
regarding its schools' programs and policies and
requires certain information to be available upon
request and on its website.
e) Repeal the 10% cumulative cap. Repeal the 10%
cumulative cap. As described in the background of this
analysis, current law authorizes a school district of
residence with an ADA of less than 50,000 to cap the
maximum number of outbound transfers at 3 % of ADA per
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 10
of ?
year and/or 10% of its ADA for the duration of the
program. This "cumulative" cap results from a 2011
appellate court ruling that the cap is equal to 10
percent of a district's average ADA over the life of
the program, i.e every student who has participated in
the program counts toward the cap, even if that
student has graduated or left the program. The LAO
report notes that absent the repeal of this cap, the
program becomes unavailable to certain districts and
that districts of residence could still prohibit
transfers that have a negative impact on desegregation
efforts or if it is in severe fiscal distress. Staff
notes that a school district of residence would need
to approach dire financial conditions in order to
impose such a cap. For this reason staff recommends
that the bill be amended to, reinstate the 10% cap,
but authorize a district of choice to enroll
additional students within the cap as current program
participants leave or graduate.
4) Related and prior legislation.
SB 597 (Huff, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015) extended, for
one year, the sunset and repeal dates of statute that
allows the governing board of a school district to permit
the enrollment of pupils who reside in another district by
declaring to be a District of Choice (DOC).
SB 680 (Romero and Huff, Chapter 198, Statute of 2009)
extended the inoperative and repeal dates for which school
districts are permitted to enroll pupils who reside in
another school district by declaring to be a "school
district of choice," and repealed the prohibition on new
districts electing to become a DOC.
AB 1407 (Huff, 2009) would have extended the sunset and
repeal dates for the DOC programs for 5 years and required
a census report on DOC by California Department of
Education by November 2010. The bill was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
AB 270 (Huff, 2007) would have extended the authority for
DOC inter-district transfers from July 1, 2007 to July 1,
2009, prohibited additional districts from becoming DOCs,
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 11
of ?
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 Superintendent of Public Instruction. The
language of this bill was incorporated into SB 80 (Budget
Bill, 2007).
AB 97 (Nation, Chapter 21, Statutes of 2004) extended the
sunset date for one year for the DOC authorization and
required the Superintendent of Public Instruction 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 19 (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.
SUPPORT
Alexander Valley Union School District
Big Creek School District
California Catholic Conference
California State PTA
College School District
Ed Voice
Elk Hills School District
Encinitas Union School District
Glendora Unified School District
Gorman Joint School District
Inyo County Superintendent of Schools
Kenwood School District
Monte Rio Union School District
Oak Park Unified School District
Pine Ridge Elementary School District
Riverside Unified School District
Riverside Unified School District
Round Valley Joint Elementary School District
Round Valley Parent Teacher Organization
Round Valley School Step Foundation
SB 1432 (Huff) Page 12
of ?
San Rafael City Schools
Semitropic Elementary School District
Small School Districts' Association
St. Helena Unified School District
Vista del Mar Union School District
OPPOSITION
Rowland Unified School District
-- END --