BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1432
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1432
(Huff) - As Amended June 30, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill revises and recasts provisions of the District of
Choice (DOC) program and extends the program through January 1,
2023. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires, on or before July 1, 2017, a school district that
chooses to be a DOC, to register this status with the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) through the
existing school data system (CALPADS) or another system
specified by the SPI. Prohibits a district from enrolling
students through the DOC program unless the district has
SB 1432
Page 2
registered with the SPI.
2)Requires a DOC to post student transfer information online,
including any applicable forms or timelines and an explanation
of the DOC selection process for admittance. Requires
communications to be provided in all languages, consistent
with provisions of existing law regarding translations.
Requires the DOC to make public announcements about programs
and policies during the enrollment period.
3)Replaces the 10% hard cap on transfers from a district of
residence with an 8% rolling cap. A school district of
residence must authorize additional students to participate in
the DOC program when current program participants leave or
graduate, provided that the total number of pupils does not
exceed the school district's 8% cap. Grandfathers in students
enrolled prior to the 2018-19 school year without regard to
the 8% cap.
4)Authorizes a school district of residence with a negative
fiscal status, by resolution at a public meeting, to limit the
number of students who may transfer out of the district in
that fiscal year and restrict any further pupils from
transferring for the upcoming school year.
5)Provides for an appeal process through the county board of
education for students that are denied a transfer, similar to
the current interdistrict transfer appeals process and
authorizes a district of residence or a DOC to file complaints
of law violations with the county board.
6)Requires the DOC to provide free transportation assistance to
students eligible for free and reduced price meals starting
July 1, 2019, if the parent requests the transportation and
the student lives at least two, but not more than 10 miles
SB 1432
Page 3
from the school district boundary. Authorizes a DOC to pursue
a waiver of this requirement through the State Board of
Education, as specified.
7)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
maintain and post a list of all DOCs in the state; collect
specified transfer data from each DOC and post information on
the department website. Specifies Legislative intent that the
SPI collect data in the manner that minimizes the
administrative burden for school districts and the state.
Requires the SPI to report their plan for collecting data to
the Legislature, Governor, and Legislative Analyst's Office by
July 1, 2017.
8)Shifts annual reporting requirements, such as pupil
performance and the costs of providing transportation, from
the LAO to the SPI, but continues to require the LAO to
provide a comprehensive evaluation of the program. The LAO
report is due January 31, 2020.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Ongoing General Fund costs to the California Department of
Education of approximately $154,000 for one consultant to
maintain the list of DOCs; collect and report data; post
information online; respond to inquiries and provide technical
assistance to districts. The CDE indicates some of these
activities require more than one consultant but CDE can absorb
some of this workload.
2)Unknown, potentially reimbursable, state mandated costs for
county boards of education to process appeals made by parents
regarding a denied transfer and to process complaints made by
school districts of choice and school districts of residence
purporting a violation of law.
SB 1432
Page 4
3)This bill will also result in cost pressures on DOCs to comply
with additional program requirements; however, since the DOC
program is optional, these requirements would not be eligible
for reimbursement under state mandate law.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Under current law, 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 transfers. Unlike the main interdistrict
transfer law, the DOC law does not require agreement between
the district of residence and the DOC to admit 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.
2)Purpose. This bill recasts and revises the DOC program and
extends the sunset on the program for an additional five
years. This bill also includes several LAO recommendations
from a 2015 report of the program. Specifically, the bill
repeals the hard cap on program participation and instead
provides for a rolling cap; assigns the CDE with more
administrative responsibilities, such as maintaining a list of
DOCs. This bill also includes a process to allow DOCs and
districts of residence to bring concerns of law violations to
the county board of education and an appeal process for
SB 1432
Page 5
parents whose children are denied a transfer.
3)Comments. Data from districts of residence that have lost
significant numbers of students to DOCs show racial and
socio-economic disparities among those who transfer. A recent
LAO review of the program confirmed that low income and
minority students are not utilizing the DOC program at the
same rates as wealthy students, potentially due to lack of
transportation or other program challenges. Recent amendments
to the bill attempt to address barriers to participation. For
example, the bill now requires DOCs to provide transportation
services to low income students who request the service.
4)Opposition. The Azusa Unified School District and Duarte
Unified School District are opposed to this bill. Both
districts note they have instituted the 10% hard cap to limit
students from transferring out of their districts. They are
opposed to the 8% rolling cap which will allow additional
transfers from their district to adjacent DOCs. Both
districts are declining in enrollment and are concerned about
unpredictable and perpetual unlimited loss of ADA.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081