BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1432
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
SB
1432 (Huff) - As Amended May 31, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 38-1
SUBJECT: School attendance: pupil transfer options: school
districts of choice
SUMMARY: Extends the sunset and repeal dates for District of
Choice (DOC) program, deletes the 10% cap for the total number
of students transferring out of districts of residence over time
and instead creates a rolling 10% cap, 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 DOC program to July 1, 2022.
2) Requires, instead of authorizes, the governing board of the
DOC 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.
SB 1432
Page 2
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,
as specified.
e) By resolution, determine and adopt the number of
transfers it is willing to accept.
3) Makes changes to the audit requirement, specifying that the
compliance review be incorporated into the district's annual
audit.
SB 1432
Page 3
4) Requires DOCs to make public announcements during the
enrollment period regarding its schools, programs, policies
and procedures.
5) Requires a DOC 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 a school district of residence, instead of
authorizing both districts of residence and DOCs, 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) Makes changes to the authorization for districts of
residence with an average daily attendance (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. Requires districts of
residence to authorize additional students within the cap to
participate in the program as current program participants
leave or graduate.
SB 1432
Page 4
8) Modifies the authorization provided to school districts of
residence for implementing transfer caps related to the
district's fiscal condition by requiring a board adopted
resolution at a public meeting.
9) Specifies that a student may continue to attend a DOC,
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 DOCs in the state.
b) Collect certain information from each DOC.
SB 1432
Page 5
c) Post information on the California Department of
Education's (CDE) Internet Web site including:
i) A list of DOCs.
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.
SB 1432
Page 6
11)Authorizes the SPI to require the information collected by
DOCs 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.
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
well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils
transferred out of the district; 3) The number of pupils
SB 1432
Page 7
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 DOC program becomes inoperative on July
1, 2017 and repealed on January 1, 2018. (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, the California Department of Education estimates
costs of $132,000 for one position to gather and report
specified information required by this bill. (General Fund)
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.
Racial Inequities in the DOC program: Azusa Unified School
District has collected data to show that there is a significant
difference in the percentages for low-income students who
utilize this program--only 18% of students that used DOC were
low-income vs 82% total of students in Azusa are considered
low-income as they qualify for the free and reduced priced meal
program (FRPM). Azusa Unified's data also shows an
overrepresentation of White and Asian students that utilize DOC,
and underrepresentation of Hispanic students that utilize DOC.
According to Glendora Unified School District, they receive 37%
low income students from Azusa Unified School District, not the
SB 1432
Page 8
18% that was reported by Azusa Unified.
Other districts of residence can demonstrate similar variances
in the demographics of the students who transfer out of their
district to attend DOCs. 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.
Kern County Office of Education: Data from several Districts of
Choice in Kern County show that Hispanic students and low income
(Free and Reduced Price eligible) students are not utilizing the
District of Choice program at the same rates as wealthy
students.
Elk Hills School District:
Elk Hills receives approximately 5% Hispanic students from Taft
SB 1432
Page 9
City, but the population of Hispanic students at Taft City is
approximately 54%. Similarly, Elk Hills receives approximately
57% low income students from Taft City, but the population of
low income students at Taft City is 83%.
McKittrick Elementary School District:
McKittrick receives approximately 10% low income students from
Taft City, but the population of low income students at Taft
City is 83%.
Maple Elementary School District:
Maple receives approximately 30% low income students from Wasco,
but Wasco's population is 89% low income. Similarly, Maple
receives approximately 47% low income students from Richland,
but Richland's population of low income students is
approximately 87%.
These examples are consistent with the 2016 analysis done by the
LAO, and they highlight the long time concerns of the DOC
program, that low income and minority students are not able to
access to benefits of the program due to a lack of
transportation and other program challenges. Based on this
evidence, one could argue that the DOC program is segregating
California public schools.
Busing. Pond Union School District is a District of Choice and
the data from their district tells a different story. In some
cases, Pond enrolls a higher percentage of low income and
Hispanic students than the sending district's corresponding
percentage of those student populations. Pond pays for a bus to
pick up students in the districts where they enroll children.
Pond receives 94% Hispanic students from Delano, and the
population of Hispanic students in Delano is 88%. Pond also
receives 96% low income students from Delano, and the population
of low income students at Delano is 92%. Pond receives 80% low
income students from McFarland, and the population of low income
students at McFarland is 87%. Pond receives 76% Hispanic
students from McFarland, and the population of Hispanic students
at McFarland is 98%.
SB 1432
Page 10
The committee should consider whether busing provides more
equitable access to the District of Choice program for low
income and minority students. The committee should consider
requiring Districts of Choice to provide transportation to
students, particularly those eligible for free and reduced
priced meals, upon their request.
Racial Segregation in Schools. According to an April 2016
Government Accountability Office report entitled, Better Use of
Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address
Racial Discrimination, "The percentage of K-12 public schools in
the United States with students who are poor and are mostly
Black or Hispanic is growing and these schools share a number of
challenging characteristics. From school years 2000-01 to
2013-14 (the most recent data available), the percentage of all
K-12 public schools that had high percentages of poor and Black
or Hispanic students grew from 9 to 16 percent, according to
GAO's analysis of data from the Department of Education
(Education). These schools were the most racially and
economically concentrated: 75 to 100 percent of the students
were Black or Hispanic and eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch-a commonly used indicator of poverty. GAO's analysis of
Education data also found that compared with other schools,
these schools offered disproportionately fewer math, science,
and college preparatory courses and had disproportionately
higher rates of students who were held back in 9th grade,
suspended, or expelled."
History of District of Choice Evaluations. 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 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174,
Statutes of 2007, required the California Department of
SB 1432
Page 11
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. Last year the sunset date of the DOC program was
extended by one year, so that the LAO's evaluation could be
completed by January 31, 2016.
2016 LAO Evaluation: As the LAO compiled the 2016 report, once
again, insufficient data was collected due to DOC's not
reporting the required data to the State. The LAO's report found
there to be 47 DOC's statewide and the report recommends the
program's sunset date be extended. Because the data in the
SB 1432
Page 12
report was collected by statewide survey and direct
communication between the LAO and 100 districts, it is unclear
whether the number of DOCs statewide is an accurate number.
Despite the potentially limited data, the LAO found evidence of
higher rates of student transfers among certain racial
populations. The LAO report states, "Overall, participating
transfer students tend to mirror the profile of the Districts of
Choice they attend. Some differences emerged when we compared
these students with their home districts. As shown?Hispanic
students transfer at relatively low rates compared with their
share of home district enrollment. These students account for 66
percent of the students attending home districts but only 32
percent of participating transfer students. Conversely, white
students and Asian students transfer at relatively high rates."
One could argue that if DOC's are failing to report the transfer
data that has been required to be reported annually since 2008,
that the program may not be having a significant impact at the
local level, and should be allowed to sunset. The committee
should consider whether to make it a requirement for DOC's to
report the necessary data as a condition of continuing as a
District of Choice.
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 1432
Page 13
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. This exception does not apply to special
education students or English learners.
Repealing the 10% Lifetime Cap. The bill repeals the
authorization for districts with less than 50,000 ADA to cap the
maximum number of students transferring out at 10% for the
duration of the program and instead makes the cap a 10% rolling
cap. This means that as seniors graduate, more students could
transfer out of the district. Without a maximum cap for the
duration of the program, districts will be unable to cap the
total number of students transferring out of their district over
time. The committee should consider the negative fiscal impacts
on districts this change will bring. A handful of districts
have hit the 10% lifetime cap and have stopped transfers. For
those districts, this policy change would be like pulling the
fiscal rug out from under them. Their enrollment has only
recently started to recover and this will end that financial
stability. The committee should consider whether to reinstate
the 10% lifetime cap or reduce the rolling cap to a lower
percentage of ADA.
Committee Amendments:
1)Require DOCs to track and report the number of students who
qualify for the FRPM.
2)Require all communication produced by a DOC regarding the DOC
program be translated into the necessary languages for parents
in the district of residence pursuant to Section 48985.
3)Require DOCs to provide transportation to pupils who are
eligible for free and reduced priced meals transferring into
the district, upon the student's request.
SB 1432
Page 14
4)Require DOCs to register as a DOC through the CDE and the
County office of education (COE) by July 1, 2017.
5)Prohibit the participation in the DOC program for any district
that has not registered through the CDE and the COE as a DOC
and that has not submitted the annual data required.
6)Implement a 6% rolling cap on the number of students
transferring out of a district of residence.
7)Clarify that a school district of residence governing board
can certify at a board meeting that further transfers as part
of the DOC program will cause the district to receive a
qualified or negative certification by the county
superintendent of schools, and limit transfers under the DOC
program. Clarify that if the county office of education
determines the district of residence will receive qualified or
negative certification in the subsequent year, the district of
residence may stop all further transfers under the DOC
program.
8)Prohibit a DOC from making any inquiry into, evaluation or
consideration of academic or athletic performance, physical
condition, proficiency in the English language, family income,
or any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section
200.
9)Clarify that a DOC must accept all students until they are at
capacity, and then must implement a random drawing.
10) Clarify that DOCs have only one reason to deny a transfer:
The number of students exceeded the capacity of the DOC and
the student did not win the lottery.
11) Reinstate an appeal process through the county board of
education, similar to the current interdistrict transfer
appeals process.
Previous legislation: SB 597 (Huff), Chapter 421, Statutes of
2015, provided 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.
SB 680 (Romero & Huff), Chapter 198, Statutes of 2009, extended
SB 1432
Page 15
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
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:
SB 1432
Page 16
Support
Alexander Valley Union School District
Big Creek School District
College School District
EdVoice
Elk Hills School District
Geyserville Unified School District
Glendora Unified School District
Gorman Joint School District
Kenwood School District
Marin County Superintendent of Schools
Riverside Unified School District
Small School Districts Association
SB 1432
Page 17
Opposition
Association of Rowland Educators
Azusa Unified School District
Californians Together
Public Advocates
Rowland Unified School District
Analysis Prepared by:Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916)
319-2087