BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






                           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
                           2005-2006 Regular Session


          AB 1261                                                A
          Assembly Member Leno                                   B
          As Amended June 21, 2005
          Hearing Date:  June 28, 2005                           1
          Education; Welfare and Institutions Codes              2
          MJM:cjt                                                6
                                                                 1

                                     SUBJECT
                                         
                          Foster Children:  Education


                                   DESCRIPTION  

          This bill clarifies and cleans up the provisions of AB 490  
          (Steinberg) Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003, addressing the  
          educational needs of children in the foster care system.   
          It also reinstates language that was inadvertently  
          chaptered out of AB 1858 (Steinberg) Chapter 914, Statutes  
          of 2004 by SB 722 (McPherson) Chapter 915, Statutes of  
          2004.

                                    BACKGROUND  

          According to the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL), 30  
          percent of foster youth perform below grade level, 50  
          percent are held back at least one grade in school, and  
          nearly two-thirds of youth who emancipate out of foster  
          care at age 18 have not completed high school.  

          Citing statistics like these and other reports documenting  
          the poor educational performance of foster youth, AB 490  
          (Steinberg) Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003, enacted broad  
          reforms regarding the education of foster youth.  The  
          reforms were designed to promote school stability and  
          ensure that students in foster care have a meaningful  
          opportunity to meet the academic achievement standards  
          applied to all students.  

                                                                 
          (more)



          AB 1261 (Leno)
          Page 2



          As groups across the state have worked to implement the  
          provisions of AB 490, educational liaisons and child  
          advocates have discovered gaps in the protections afforded  
          by the bill.  


           
                             CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
          1.  Existing law  requires a student in foster care to attend  
            programs operated by a local educational agency, subject  
            to certain exceptions.  [Education Code Section 48853.]

             This bill  would define "local educational agency" for  
          these purposes.

          2.  Existing law  provides that a foster child has the right  
            to remain in his or her school of origin, if a school  
            placement dispute arises, until the resolution of the  
            dispute.  [Education Code Section 48853.]
            
             This bill  would require local educational agencies to  
            have a dispute resolution process in place and would  
            specify the requirements of that process.

          3.  Existing law  defines "school of origin" as the school  
            that the foster child attended when permanently housed or  
            as the school that the foster child last attended.   
            [Education Code Section 48853.5.]

             This bill  would additionally require that the child have  
            attended that school in the past 15 months.
           
          4.  Existing law  provides for the immediate enrollment and  
            transfer of records when it is determined that the best  
            interests of the child would be served by transferring to  
            a different school.  [Education Code Section 48853.5.]

             This bill  would further specify that enrollment of the  
            student and the transfer of education records shall be  
            done even if the foster child has outstanding fees,  
            fines, textbooks, or other moneys due to the school last  
            attended.

          5.  Existing law  provides that the proper and timely transfer  
                                                                       




          AB 1261 (Leno)
          Page 3



            between schools of a "pupil in foster care" is the  
            responsibility of both the local educational agency and  
            the county placing agency.

             This bill  would define "pupil in foster care" for these  
            purposes.

          6.  Existing law  provides that after a child has been  
            adjudged a dependent child by the court, the court may  
            limit the rights of a parent or guardian to make  
            educational decisions for the child.  At the same time,  
            the court must appoint a responsible adult to make  
            educational decisions for the child.  [Welfare and  
            Institutions Code Sections 361 and 726.]

             This bill  would allow the court, before the child is  
            adjudged a dependent to temporarily limit the right or a  
            parent or guardian to make educational decisions for the  
            child and allow for the appointment of a responsible  
            adult to make educational decisions if certain criteria  
            are met.

             This bill  would allow the court, if no responsible adult  
            can be identified, to make educational decisions on  
            behalf of the child both pre- and post-adjudication.
           
           7.  Existing law  requires the county welfare department to  
            verify that specified documents have been provided to the  
            child when a child is emancipated from the foster care  
            system.  [Welfare and Institutions Code Section 391.]
           
             This bill  would provide that the child's health and  
            education summary is one of the required documents.

          8.  Existing law  requires the Superintendent of Public  
            Instruction to develop an Academic Performance Index to  
            assess performance within schools.   Existing law  requires  
            the Superintendent to develop an alternative  
            accountability system for specified schools.   [Education  
            Code Section 52020.]

             This bill  would add nonpublic, nonsectarian schools to  
            those specified schools.
           

                                                                       




          AB 1261 (Leno)
          Page 4



                                     COMMENT
           
          1.  Need for the bill

             According to the author, this bill is intended to clean  
            up provisions of AB 490 (Steinberg) Chapter 862, Statutes  
            of 2003, related to the education of foster youth in  
            public schools.  (See Comments 2, 3, and 4.)

            This bill also reinstates language that was inadvertently  
            chaptered out of AB 1858 (Steinberg) Chapter 914,  
            Statutes of 2004 by SB 722 (McPherson) Chapter 915,  
            Statutes of 2004.  (See point 8, above.)

          2.  This bill would allow for the limitation of the right of  
            a parent or guardian to make educational decisions before  
            the child is adjudicated a dependent child

             After a child has been adjudged a dependent child or ward  
            of the court, the court may limit the control any parent  
            or guardian may exercise over the child.  Specifically,  
            the court may limit the right of a parent or guardian to  
            make educational decisions on behalf of the child.  

            If the court does limit the guardian's or parent's  
            educational decisionmaking power, then the court must  
            also, at the same time, appoint a "responsible adult" to  
            make those decisions.  A responsible adult can be anyone  
            who does not have a conflict of interest or is receiving  
            compensation or attorneys' fees for their care of the  
            child.  Accordingly, attorneys and paid group home  
            workers do not qualify to act as a responsible adult to  
            make educational decisions for dependent children.   
            Foster parents, although they receive compensation, are  
            explicitly exempted.  Often, then, these "responsible  
            adults" are foster parents, older siblings or relatives  
            of the child, or Court-Appointed Special Advocates  
            (CASA).  The sponsor, Children's Law Center of Los  
            Angeles (CLCLA), points out that there are even programs  
            through which students, with no relationship to the  
            child, who are currently enrolled in masters program in  
            Special Education, are appointed to make educational  
            decisions for dependent children.

            If, however, the court cannot appoint a responsible  
                                                                       




          AB 1261 (Leno)
          Page 5



            adult, and the child has been referred to a local  
            educational agency for special education and related  
            services or has a valid individualized education plan  
            (IEP), the court shall refer the child to the local  
            educational agency for the appointment of a surrogate  
            parent.  

            Current law, however, fails to address the court's  
            authority to limit a parent's or guardian's right to make  
            educational decisions prior to the child's adjudication  
            as a dependent child.  This bill would address this gap  
            and allow the court, prior to adjudication, to  
            temporarily limit the right of a guardian or parent to  
            make educational decisions for the child and appoint a  
            responsible adult if the following conditions are met:

             1)   the parent or guardian is unavailable, unable, or  
               unwilling to exercise educational rights for the  
               child;
             2)   the county placing agency has made diligent efforts  
               to locate and secure the participation of a parent or  
               guardian in educational decisionmaking; and
             3)   the child's educational needs cannot be met without  
               the temporary appointment of a responsible adult.
              
            This bill would provide that any order made limiting the  
            educational rights of a parent or guardian and appointing  
            a responsible adult shall terminate upon the dismissal of  
            the petition or the conclusion of the hearing in which  
            the child is finally adjudicated a dependent child of the  
            court.

          3.  This bill would permit the court to make educational  
            decisions for the child in limited situation

            A.  Post-adjudication
            Rule of Court 1499(e) allows the court to make  
            educational decisions on behalf of the child when the  
            court cannot identify a responsible adult, the  
            appointment of a surrogate parent is not legally  
            warranted, and there is no foster parent with the  
            authority to make educational decisions.  The court must  
            utilize the input of any interested person when making  
            educational decisions for the child.  Codification of  
            this rule of court was attempted in AB 490 (Steinberg),  
                                                                       




          AB 1261 (Leno)
          Page 6



            but was expressly rejected by the Senate Education  
            Committee.  

            This bill proposes to codify Rule 1499(e) for  
            post-adjudication educational decisionmaking.  Although  
            this bill has been heard by the Senate Education  
            Committee, no concerns were raised over this provision.    
             

            B.  Pre-adjudication
            This bill would also allow the court to make educational  
            decisions for the child prior to adjudication when no  
            responsible adult can be identified and the appointment  
            of a surrogate parent is not warranted.  Although giving  
            the court the authority to make educational decisions as  
            a last resort seems necessary, in the rare case when it  
            happens, it poses a substantial inconvenience for  
            everyone involved -- the child, the child's advocates,  
            the school, the court.  Shouldn't the court and the  
            child's advocates be encouraged to locate a responsible  
            adult quickly and avoid returning to the court the next  
            time an educational decision needs to be made?

            Should this BILL be amended to require the court TO issue  
            an order directing the social worker to locate a  
            responsible adult for future educational decisions so  
            that the court is not enmeshed in future decisions? 
           
           3.  Other changes are clarifying

             As AB 490 has been implemented across the state, various  
            gaps and inconsistencies have been discovered within its  
            provisions.  Accordingly, this bill makes the following  
            clarifications:

             1)        Current law allows the foster child, when a  
               dispute arises over his or her school placement, to  
               remain in his or her school of origin until the  
               dispute is resolved.  This bill would require local  
               educational agencies to have a dispute resolution  
               process in place.  Additionally, this bill would  
               require the person holding the right to make  
               educational decisions for the child be provided a  
               written explanation of the school's decision and be  
               informed of his or her rights to appeal the decision.   
                                                                       




          AB 1261 (Leno)
          Page 7



                


            2) Currently, when it is determined that a foster child's  
               interests would be best served by changing schools,  
               the child shall be immediately enrolled and his or her  
               records transferred immediately.  This bill would  
               clarify that the child's enrollment and record  
               transfer shall be done immediately even if the child  
               has outstanding fees, fines, textbooks, or other items  
               owed to the school last attended.


            3) When a child is emancipated from foster care, he or  
               she must be provided with various documents, including  
               a birth certificate, social security card, death  
               certificates of parents, if applicable, and proof of  
               citizenship.  This bill would require the child to  
               also be provided his or her health and education  
               summary, as maintained in his or her case plan.


            This bill would also provide or amend several critical  
            definitions, including "local educational agency," "pupil  
            in foster care" and "school of origin."  


            
          Support:  National Association of Social Workers,  
                 California Chapter; Juvenile Court Judges of  
                 California; California Coalition for Youth; Family  
                 Law Section of the State Bar of California; National  
                 Center for Youth Law; Inter-Agency Council on Child  
                 Abuse and Neglect; American Federation of State,  
                 County and Municipal Employees; Protection &  
                 Advocacy, Inc.; Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social  
                 Services, Inc.; California Alliance of Child and  
                 Family Services 

          Opposition:  None Known

                                     HISTORY
           
          Source:  Children's Law Center of Los Angeles

                                                                       




          AB 1261 (Leno)
          Page 8



          Related Pending Legislation:  None Known

           Prior Legislation:  AB 490 (Steinberg) Chapter 862,  
                        Statutes of 2003, made numerous changes to  
                        the law related to the education of foster  
                        youth specifically addressing educational  
                        placement, coursework credit, records  
                        transfer, and educational programs offered to  
                        foster youth.

                        AB 1858 (Steinberg) Chapter 914, Statutes of  
                        2004, placed new requirements on nonpublic  
                        schools which provide education to foster  
                        youth.

          Prior Vote:  Senate Education (Ayes 12, Noes 0)
                   Assembly Floor (Ayes 74, Noes 0)
                   Assembly Appropriations (Ayes 18, Noes 0)
                   Assembly Education (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

                                 **************