BILL ANALYSIS
AB 343
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 343 (Saldana) - As Amended: April 14, 2009
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to Be Amended)
SUBJECT : PUPILS: MILITARY FAMILIES
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO AFFORD EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
SUCCESS TO CHILDREN OF MILITARY FAMILIES WHO FREQUENTLY MOVE
BETWEEN STATES, SHOULD CALIFORNIA ADOPT AN INTERSTATE COMPACT
THAT WILL ESTABLISH CERTAIN POLICIES AND STANDARDS FOR THAT
PURPOSE, EVEN IF THOSE POLICIES CANNOT BE UNILATERALLY AMENDED
OR MODIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURE ONCE THE COMPACT IS ENACTED IN
THIS STATE?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill seeks to ratify the Interstate
Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children (the
Compact). The intent of the Compact is to ensure that the
children of military families are afforded the same
opportunities for educational success as other children and are
not penalized or delayed in achieving their educational goals by
sometimes inflexible administrative and bureaucratic practices
as they change schools from state to state. The Compact is a
comprehensive set of policies that address the key issues
encountered by military families: eligibility, enrollment,
placement and graduation. In addition, the Compact provides for
a detailed governance structure at both the state and national
levels with built-in enforcement and compliance mechanisms. The
Compact is currently operative in the 14 states that have
already adopted it. This bill was passed by the Education
Committee on consent, and has no known opposition in this
Committee.
SUMMARY : Ratifies the Interstate Compact on Educational
Opportunity for Military Children (the Compact) in order to
remove barriers to educational success imposed on children of
military families due to the frequent relocation and deployment
of their parents. Specifically, this bill :
AB 343
Page 2
1)States the intent and purpose of the Compact, and defines
terms specific to the Compact.
2)Requires that the provisions of the Compact apply only to the
children of members of the uniformed services, as specified.
3)Requires sending schools, the school in the state from which
an eligible pupil is sent or brought, to furnish unofficial
and official student records to parents and receiving schools,
respectively, as provided.
4)Requires receiving schools, the school in the state to which
an eligible pupil is sent or brought, to perform certain
actions, as provided. Among other things, receiving schools
shall:
a) Allow transferring students to continue their enrollment
at their grade level in the sending state, regardless of
age.
b) Allow a pupil who has completed a grade level at the
sending school to enroll in the next highest grade level at
the receiving school.
c) Accept and honor courses. If such courses are offered
and space is available, and program placements made at the
sending school, including courses such as Honors, Advanced
Placement, International Baccalaureate, vocational,
technical and career pathways courses, and programs such as
gifted and talented, and English as a Second Language.
d) Accept exit or end-of-course examinations for graduation
from the sending state, but requires passage of
California's high school exit examination in order to
receive a diploma issued by a California high school.
5)Requires state and local education agencies to facilitate the
opportunity for transitioning military children's inclusion in
extracurricular activities, regardless of application or
tryout deadlines, to the extent they are otherwise qualified
and space is available as determined by the school district.
6)Requires that the provisions of the Compact apply to local
education agencies (LEAs), and with respect to LEAs:
AB 343
Page 3
a) Prohibits an LEA from charging local tuition to a
transferring student in the care of a non-custodial parent
or other person acting as the parent who lives in a
jurisdiction other than that of the custodial parent.
b) Requires LEA administrative officials to use best
efforts to waive courses required for graduation if a
transferring student has completed similar coursework, and
if a waiver is not granted, to use best efforts to provide
an alternative means of acquiring required coursework so
that graduation may occur on time.
c) Allows LEA administrative officials to waive
pre-requisite courses or other pre-conditions for course
placement of eligible pupils.
d) Allows a student to receive a diploma from the sending
school should that student meet the requirements for
graduation at the sending school, but not at the receiving
school; also requires both sending and receiving LEAs to
make best efforts to ensure this.
7)Requires each member state to create a state council to
provide for the coordination among its agencies of government,
local education agencies and military installations. With
respect to the state council, this bill:
a) Requires the state council to appoint a military family
education liaison to assist military families and the
state.
b) Specifies the membership of and the appointing authority
for members of the State Council that is charged with
coordinating efforts across all federal, state, and local
agencies involved in the state's participation in the
Compact.
8)Provides that the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall
be the appointing authority for the state's Compact
Commissioner, who is responsible for the administration and
management of the state's participation in the compact.
9)States that the compact does not prevent the enforcement of
any other law of a member state. However, all other member
AB 343
Page 4
states' laws that conflict with the compact are superseded to
the extent of the conflict.
10)Requires the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
the member states to enforce the Compact and take all
necessary actions to carry out the rules promulgated as a
result of the Compact.
11)Creates the Interstate Commission on Educational Opportunity
for Military Children (the Commission), specifies its duties,
powers, membership, and requires that the Commission enforce
the provisions and rules of the Compact. With respect to the
Commission:
a) Grants the Commission's executive director, employees,
and representatives immunity from suit and liability
relating to the performance of their Commission duties.
b) Requires the Commission to promulgate rules to bring
about the goals of the Compact, and establishes that these
rules have the force of law over all member states unless
overturned by legislation approved individually by a
majority of member states.
c) Outlines the process the Commission must follow if it
determines a member state has defaulted in the performance
of its obligations and responsibilities under the Compact,
including, but not limited to, the use of the judicial
process.
d) Allows the Commission to levy and collect an annual
assessment from each member state to cover the cost of the
operations and activities of the Commission, but authorizes
the Superintendent of Public Instruction to accept nonstate
funding to offset these costs.
e) Prohibits the Commission from incurring obligations of
any kind prior to securing the funds adequate to meet the
same. The Commission cannot pledge the credit of member
states without the member states' permission.
f) Allows the Commission to propose amendments to the
compact for enactment by unanimous consent of the member
states.
AB 343
Page 5
12)Allows member states to withdraw from the compact by
repealing the statute and specifies the withdrawal process.
13)Contains a severability clause, requiring the remaining
provisions of the Compact to be enforceable, if any other
provision is deemed unenforceable.
14)Provides that the Compact is dissolved when there is only one
member state.
15)Directs the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
reconvene, with its original membership to the extent
possible, the task force that was convened pursuant to Section
2 of Chapter 589 of the Statutes of 2008 (AB 2049 (Salda?a).)
The task force shall:
a) Reconvene on or after July 1, 2012 and on or before
September 1, 2012;
b) Review the impact of the Compact on California, its
school districts and students, and issue a final report
regarding these impacts, including any recommendations for
legislative action.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Under the Education Code, provides statutory requirements
applying to pupils, their families, local education agencies
and the state, for the provision of education in the state of
California, including but not limited to issues of enrollment,
attendance, pupil records, graduation requirements, and
transfer between school districts.
2)Allows, through permissive authority granted in the Education
Code, for the governing board of any school district to
initiate and carry on any program, activity, or otherwise act
in any manner which is not in conflict with or inconsistent
with, or preempted by, any law and which is not in conflict
with the purposes for which school districts are established.
3)Requires, in the state Constitution, that the state reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated
by the state.
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill seeks to ratify the
AB 343
Page 6
Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military
Children to remove barriers to educational success imposed on
children of military families due to the frequent relocation and
deployment of their parents.
The Bill Addresses the Unique Problem Faced by Children of
Military Families. Military families move between postings on a
regular basis, and these reassignments can be required and/or
advantageous for career personnel. These moves often create
educational disadvantages for the children of military families.
In the words of the author, "Unfortunately, (these) military
families encounter significant school challenges when dealing
with enrollment, eligibility, placement, and graduation of their
children."
The average military student faces transition challenges more
than twice during high school, and most military children will
have six to nine different school systems in their lives from
kindergarten to 12th grade. With more than half of all military
personnel supporting families, the impacts of reassignment and
long deployments are a key consideration when making life and
career choices.
While the armed services has taken steps to ease the transition
of personnel, their spouses and children, the realities of
frequently moving subjects these children to divergent policies,
rules, and procedures at both the state and local level. The
intent of the Compact is to ensure that the children of military
families are afforded the same opportunities for educational
success as other children and are not penalized or delayed in
achieving their educational goals by sometimes inflexible
administrative and bureaucratic practices as they move from one
school jurisdiction to another, between states or within a
state.
Scope of the Problem . According to information provided by the
author, based on 2008 figures, over 582,000 children of military
families nationwide would be covered by the provisions of this
compact. In California, there are slightly over 61,000
school-age military dependents between the ages of 5 and 18
years. Twenty-five percent of the students lose their course
credits due to multiple school transfers from out-of-state and
out-of-country DOD schools to California schools.
Background on Interstate Compacts . Interstate compacts are
AB 343
Page 7
contracts between two or more states creating agreements on how
to address particular policy issues, setting standards, or
establishing cooperation on regional or national matters. By
their nature compacts deal with public policy matters that
extend beyond the boundaries of one state. Most states are a
party to a number of interstate compacts. Most of these address
corrections issues, such as offender supervision and treatment
of juveniles, natural resource management, multi-state taxation,
transportation, or professional accreditation.
Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency
which is responsible for administering or improving some shared
resource such as a seaport or public transportation
infrastructure. Examples of agencies created by compacts in
which California is a participant are the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission,
and the Education Commission of the States. In some cases, a
compact serves as a coordination mechanism between independent
authorities in the member states; an example of this is the
Colorado River Compact, that was adopted by California. Many of
the earliest compacts, dating as far back as the late 1780s,
were designed to settle boundary disputes.
The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity For Military
Children ("the Compact"), Having Been Adopted by 14 States, is
Already Operative . To date, the Compact has been enacted by 14
states, including Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Compact
became operable, and thus obligated those adopting states, once
its language was adopted by 10 states. Bills proposing that the
state enact the Compact are currently pending in 16 additional
states, including California where this bill is that vehicle.
California is one of two states that have created a task force
that has examined issues related to enacting the Compact and now
have bills pending in their respective legislatures. In all, 34
states are engaged at some point in the process of enacting or
considering enactment of the Compact. In 2009, the U.S.
Department of Defense expects bills for Compact adoption to be
introduced in 26 or 27 states.
Constitutional Authorization for Interstate Compacts .
Interstate compacts are authorized under Article I, Section 10
of the United States Constitution, which states:
AB 343
Page 8
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay
any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in
time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage
in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent
Danger as will not admit of delay.
Governance Issues Associated with Interstate Compacts . As
previously stated, interstate compacts are contracts between two
or more states creating agreements on how to address particular
policy issues. Since compacts are considered contracts, their
construction is governed by the legal principles applicable to
contracts. An excellent memorandum by the Washington State
Attorney General's Office, appearing as Appendix C in our
state's Military Compact Task Force Report, outlines some of the
general governance issues that policymakers should keep in mind
when they consider adoption of an interstate compact.
For example, under the rule of offer and acceptance, a state
must adopt the compact in precisely the terms it is being
offered, subject only to nonmaterial changes or alterations. In
addition, compact provisions take precedence over conflicting
state laws and inconsistent provisions of existing laws of a
compact state. Under the contract clause in either the federal
or state constitutions, a state may not pass laws impairing
existing contractual obligations. Thus, the legislature cannot
unilaterally amend or modify the Compact once it is enacted into
law in California. Although individual states are free to adopt
or decline to adopt any compact, states ratifying compacts are
bound to observe the terms of the agreement until the compact is
formally renounced by the state. Thus, the state would be
responsible for all assessments, obligations, and liabilities
incurred through the effective date of withdrawal.
The Compact is an Appropriate, Collaboratively Developed
Response to the Problems Facing Children of Military Families .
The Council of State Governments has worked with the U.S.
Department of Defense Office of Personnel and Readiness to draft
the Compact, addressing the educational transition issues of
children of military families. A variety of federal, state and
local officials as well as national organizations representing
interested education groups and military families worked from
July 2006 through early 2008 to develop the Compact that the
Legislature is requested to adopt in this bill. Legal experts,
specifically those with both extensive substantive knowledge and
AB 343
Page 9
experience in drafting interstate compacts, as well as experts
in primary and secondary education issues, worked together in
conjunction with the stakeholders mentioned to draft the
proposed compact language and legal analysis for the Compact
over the same period of time.
While the Compact is not exhaustive in its coverage, it does
address the key issues encountered by military families:
eligibility, enrollment, placement and graduation. These
educational issues were properly analyzed by the Education
Committee, which passed this bill unanimously on consent. In
addition, the Compact provides for a detailed governance
structure at both the state and national levels with built-in
enforcement and compliance mechanisms. The Task Force Report to
the California Legislature states why state sovereignty concerns
are misguided and why the Compact is appropriate to address the
unique problems faced by military families with school-age
children:
While "state sovereignty" concerns are sometimes
raised as an objection to an interstate compact, in
reality a compact usually serves to promote state
sovereignty in that interstate compacts, unlike
pre-emptive congressional legislation or regulations,
allow states to continue to exercise authority over
interstate issues without the need for federal
intervention or pre-emption. When examined from that
perspective, by enacting an interstate compact the
State is only giving up the right to act
"unilaterally" with regard to an interstate problem
which cannot be resolved without a uniform solution
agreed to by all the states involved. In this case
with this compact, neither California nor any other
state can assure that the educational needs of
children of military members will be met by another
state to which they are transferred without an
enforceable, uniform standard which under our federal
Constitution can only be established through either
Congressional action (See U.S. Constitution, Article
I, Section 8) or an interstate compact (See U.S.
Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).
Prior Legislation : AB 2049 (Saldana), Chapter 589, Statutes of
2008, created an urgency statute that required the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene and support a
AB 343
Page 10
task force to review and make recommendations regarding the
Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military
Children.
AB 1809 (Saldana), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
in 2008, was substantially similar to this bill.
AB 2102 (Saldana), Chapter 608, Statutes of 2006, established
procedures, including requiring the California Department of
Education to establish a formal liaison with the United States
Department of Defense and school districts that enroll military
dependents, to facilitate and smooth the transfer of school-age
military dependents and their school records.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Legion, Department of California
American Veterans (AMVETS) of California
California Teachers Association
Lincoln Military Housing
Military Child Education Coalition
San Diego Military Advisory Council
San Diego Unified School District
Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council
Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force; Donald C. Winter,
Secretary of the Navy; and Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army (1
letter)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334