BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1432|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1432
Author: Huff (R), et al.
Amended: 5/31/16
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/6/16
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan,
Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: School attendance: pupil transfer options: school
districts of choice
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill (1) extends the sunset and repeal dates for
"school district of choice," program, (2) authorizes a 10% cap
for the total number students transferring out of school
districts of residence at a point in time, (3) requires the
Legislative Analyst's Office to evaluate the program and (4)
reassigns certain reporting requirements to the Superintendent
of Public Instruction (SPI).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
SB 1432
Page 2
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.)
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;
SB 1432
Page 3
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) Requires, further, school districts of choice to annually
report this information to neighboring school districts,
their county office of education, the 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
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.)
This bill extends the sunset and repeal dates for "school
district of choice" program, authorizes a 10% cap for the total
number students transferring out of school districts of
residence at a point in time, requires the Legislative Analyst's
Office to evaluate the program and reassigns certain reporting
requirements to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
Specifically, this bill:
1) Extends the sunset of the district of choice program to July
1, 2022.
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.
b) If an application is rejected, include the specific
SB 1432
Page 4
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,
as specified.
e) By resolution, determine and adopt the number of
transfers it is willing to accept.
3) Amends the audit requirement, clarifying that the compliance
review be incorporated into the district's annual audit
already required by current law.
4) Requires school districts of choice to make public
announcements during the enrollment period regarding its,
schools, programs, policies and procedures during the
enrollment period.
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:
SB 1432
Page 5
a) A court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan.
b) The racial and ethnic balance of the school district
of residence.
7) Amends the authorization for districts of residence with an
ADA of less than 50,000, to cap the maximum number of
students transferring out at 10 percent based on ADA at a
point in time, instead of for the duration of the program.
It requires districts of residence to authorize additional
students within the cap to participate in the program as
current program participants leave or graduate.
8) Modifies the authorization provided to school districts of
residence for implementing transfer caps related to the
district's fiscal condition by establishing new procedures
that require action by the governing board, as specified.
9) Specifies that a student may continue to attend a school
district of choice, regardless of transfer restrictions 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)Requires the SPI to do all of the following:
a) Maintain a list of the school districts of choice in
the state.
b) Collect certain information from each school district
of choice.
c) Post information on the California Department of
Education's (CDE) Internet Web site including:
SB 1432
Page 6
i) A list of school districts of choice.
ii) An accounting of all requests made for transfer,
as specified.
iii) A single list of all school choice programs.
d) Report to the Legislature, Governor and LAO a
description of the plan for collecting data by July 1,
2017.
e) Annually make information regarding student transfers
under the district of choice program available to the
Governor and Legislature and LAO.
11)Authorizes the SPI to require the information collected by
school districts of choice to be provided through the
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
(CALPADS) or another system administered by CDE.
12)Requires LAO to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the
program, as specified, and provide recommendations regarding
the extension of the program by January 31, 2020.
13)Removes the requirement for the DOF to report specified
information to the LAO.
14)Recasts certain provisions and makes numerous
non-substantive changes.
15)Establishes if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that this act contains costs mandated by the state, the state
will reimburse applicable entities.
SB 1432
Page 7
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 of Choice program.
As a result, ending the program could cause a decline in
enrollment for several small school districts. This bill
extends the sunset for the District of Choice program and
seeks to incorporate recommendations made by 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. Existing law requires the evaluation to incorporate the
following information; the number and characteristics of
pupils who use the school 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 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
SB 1432
Page 8
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
many of which are related to provisions of this bill. Those
recommendations include:
a) Reauthorize program for a minimum of five years. The LAO
recommends reauthorizing the district of choice program as
it provides students with additional educational options
and motivates districts to improve their programs. The
report also provides that a five-year extension of the
program would allow for the collection of better data and
an assessment of other recommended changes.
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 short 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).
This bill extends the sunset of the district of choice
program to July 1, 2022 and requires LAO to conduct a
second comprehensive evaluation of the program and provide
recommendations regarding its extension by January 31,
2020.
b) Assign 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. Existing law
requires districts to report to DOF and SPI. This line of
reporting created confusion among districts and state
agencies. This bill streamlines reporting by clarifying
SB 1432
Page 9
that information collected by districts of choice must be
reported to the SPI annually. In turn the SPI is
responsible for ensuring information is reported and making
it available to the Legislature, Governor, LAO and on the
CDE Web site.
This bill also requires the SPI to create a plan for the
collection of data and make that plan available to the
appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the
Legislature, Governor and the LAO.
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 requirement by allowing the specified
compliance review to be a regular component of the
district's annual audit process.
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 requires school districts of choice to 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. This bill also requires school
districts of choice to make public announcements during the
enrollment period regarding its schools, programs, policies
and procedures during the enrollment period.
e) Repeal the 10% cumulative cap. 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 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
SB 1432
Page 10
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. The Senate Education Committee staff notes that
a school district of residence would need to approach dire
financial conditions in order to impose such a cap.
This bill instead of repealing the cap modifies the
existing 10% cap to authorize a district of choice to
enroll additional students within the cap as current
program participants leave or graduate.
In addition, this bill modifies the authorization provided
to school districts of residence for implementing other
transfer caps related to the district's fiscal condition by
establishing new procedures that require action by the
governing board, as specified.
Prior Legislation
SB 597 (Huff, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015) extended, for one
year, the sunset and repeal dates of the 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 five years and required a census
report on DOC by CDE by November 2010. The bill was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
SB 1432
Page 11
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, 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 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriation Committee, CDE estimates
costs of $132,000 for one position to gather and report
specified information required by this bill. (General Fund)
SUPPORT: (Verified5/31/16)
Alexander Valley Union School District
Big Creek School District
SB 1432
Page 12
College School District
EdVoice
Elk Hills School District
Geyserville Unified School District
Glendora Unified School District
Gorman Joint School District
Inyo County Superintendent of Schools
Kenwood School District
Maple School District
McKittrick School District
Mendocino Unified School District
Monte Rio Union School District
Oak Park Unified School District
Pine Ridge Elementary School District
Pond Union Elementary School District
Round Valley Joint Elementary School District
Round Valley Parent Teacher Organization
Round Valley School Step Foundation
Semitropic Elementary School District
St. Helena Unified School District
Vista Del Mar Union School District
Walnut Valley Unified School District
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/31/16)
None received
Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105
5/31/16 21:51:59
**** END ****
SB 1432
Page 13