BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1407
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1407 (Huffman) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
SUBJECT : Pupil attendance: interdistrict transfers.
SUMMARY : An urgency measure that extends the sunset and repeal
date for the School Districts of Choice program from July 1,
2009 to July 1, 2014 and January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015,
respectively.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Main interdistrict transfer authorization. The main
authorization provides for inter-district attendance when both
the district of residence and district of proposed attendance
agree. This process allows the parent or guardian of a pupil
requesting inter-district attendance to appeal to the County
Board of Education in the event that either district refuses
the requested transfer. (Education Code Section 46600)
2)" School Districts of Choice. " Under this authorization,
established by AB 19 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of
1993, a school board may declare the district to be a
"District of Choice" willing to accept a specified number of
inter-district transfers. A "District of Choice" 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 district of
choice may prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer
would exacerbate racial segregation. Each district of choice
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granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the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; and, 3) The number of pupils transferred into the
district. Districts are required to report this information
to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) annually,
and the SPI is required to make the information available to
the Governor, the Legislature, and the public annually before
April 1. This section is scheduled to sunset July 1, 2009.
(Education Code Section 48300)
AB 1407
Page 2
3)Residency requirements for school attendance . This is an
alternative attendance authorization, not necessarily an
interdistrict transfer because no interdistrict transfer
agreement is established. Under this section, an elementary
pupil is authorized to attend school in a district where the
pupil's parent works, rather than where the pupil and parent
reside, however, the district is not required to admit the
pupil to its schools. Either the sending district or
receiving district may prevent a transfer under this law if
the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. Once
established on the basis of parental employment, this
authorization allows a parent to maintain a pupil's enrollment
through the 12th grade. This section is scheduled to sunset on
July 1, 2012. (Education Code Section 48204(b))
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background on "District of Choice" law. Under the
District of Choice law, the governing board of any school
district may declare the district to be a "District of Choice"
willing to accept a specified number of inter-district
transfers. A "District of Choice" 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.
Differences between the District of Choice program and other
interdistrict transfer options . Unlike the main interdistrict
transfer law, the District of Choice law does not require
agreement between the district of residence and the receiving
district in order for the receiving district (District of
Choice) to admit interdistrict transfers. The district of
residence has little say in the transfer process except,
districts with 50,000 or less average daily attendance (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.
Other differences:
A District of Choice that is also a basic aid district is
AB 1407
Page 3
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 District of Choice.
Students with special needs are admitted despite additional
incurred costs unless the transfer of those students would
require the creation of a new program.
Districts of Choice data is difficult to track . Under current
law, districts establish themselves as a District of Choice by
adopting a local school board resolution. Data collection on
Districts of Choice and the numbers of transfers they accept or
deny began in 2008 and this data is required to be reported to
the Legislature by the SPI by April 1st each year.
SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174,
Statutes of 2007, required the California Department of
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 Superintendent of
Public Instruction 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 3 districts that have
elected to declare themselves a "District of Choice." It's
important to note the survey was not a complete assessment of
all school Districts of Choice. The CDE report recommends,
however, "Given that only 3.9 percent of the responding
districts indicated an active participation in the District of
Choice 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 done by the CDE in 2003, the only
solid indicator of a district being a District of Choice 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 Districts of Choice. As of 2002, CDE was able to
identify 18 small, mostly rural districts as Districts of
AB 1407
Page 4
Choice. One-half of these districts were basic aid districts.
In 2007, it was reported that there were 11 basic aid districts
that were Districts of Choice, according to CDE.
According to the author, the bill extends, not repeals, the
sunset date to give the Legislature the opportunity to evaluate
the effectiveness of the program since the Department of
Education has yet to provide the data required under SB 80
(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) from 2008.
Committee Amendment : Staff recommends the bill be amended to
revise the date by which a study is due to the Legislature by
CDE. The study should include a census of school districts to
determine the number of districts that are currently electing to
be Districts of Choice and the number of students electing to
attend districts due to this provision of law.
Related legislation . SB 129 (Huff) from 2009 would eliminate
the sunset and repeal dates for the District of Choice program
and would eliminate the ban on new districts electing to become
Districts of Choice. This bill is pending in the Senate
Education Committee.
Previous legislation . AB 270 (Huff) from 2007 extended the
authority for "School District of Choice" inter-district
transfers from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2009, prohibited
additional districts from becoming "School Districts of Choice,"
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 school District of Choice
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 1993 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993,
established school District of Choice and allowed the governing
board of any school district to declare the district to be a
AB 1407
Page 5
"District of Choice" willing to accept a specified number of
inter-district transfers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles County Office of Education
San Rafael High School District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087