BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1510
Page A
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 1510 (Eng)
As Amended July 9, 2009
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(May 4, 2009) |SENATE: |35-0 |(August 17, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |78-0 |(August 20, | | | |
| | |2009) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Provides that a parent or guardian of a pupil who
speak a language other than English has a right to bring an oral
language interpreter to conferences, meetings, or proceedings
held at a district building or schoolsite or sponsored by the
district or school, except when doing so would conflict with
state or federal law. Specifies that nothing in this bill
requires school districts to bear the costs of oral language
interpreters brought by parents, or reduces or eliminates any
existing duties of a school district under state or federal law
to provide a language interpreter.
The Senate amendments add the provision that specifies that
school districts are not required to bear the costs of oral
language interpreters brought by parents and add co-authors.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a parent or guardian's lack of English fluency
does not preclude a parent or guardian from exercising
parental rights. Requires a school district to take all
reasonable steps to ensure that all parents and guardians of
pupils who speak a language other than English are properly
notified in English and in their home language, and have the
AB 1510
Page B
right to participate in the education of their children, to
receive the results of their children's performance on
standardized tests, to participate in school advisory bodies,
and to receive information regarding state and local academic
standards, testing programs, accountability measures, and
school improvement efforts.
2)Requires that if 15% or more of the pupils enrolled in a
public school speak a single primary language other than
English, as determined from the census data submitted to the
California Department of Education (CDE) in the preceding
year, all notices, reports, statements, or records sent to the
parent or guardian of any such pupil by the school or school
district shall, in addition to being written in English, be
written in the primary language, and may be responded to
either in English or the primary language.
3)Requires a local educational agency to take any action
necessary to ensure that a parent or guardian of a pupil with
disabilities understands the proceedings at an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) meeting, including arranging for an
interpreter for parents or guardians with deafness or whose
native language is a language other than English.
4)Specifies, under Government Code Section 11135, that no person
in the State of California shall, on the basis of race,
national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age,
sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully
denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be
unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or
activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the
state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state,
or receives any financial assistance from the state.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Legislative Counsel, this bill
is non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill specifies that parents and guardians of
AB 1510
Page C
pupils with Limited English Proficiency (LEPs) have the right to
bring an oral language interpreter to conferences, meetings or
proceeding held at a district building or schoolsite or
sponsored by a district or school, unless doing so will conflict
with state or federal law. The bill also specifies that giving
a parent or guardian the right to bring his/her own language
interpreter shall not be construed to mean that school districts
must bear the costs of interpreters brought by parents, or
reduce or eliminate any existing duties of a school district to
provide a language interpreter.
The federal Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, in
part, that "?No person in the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
assistance." A May 1970 memorandum from the federal Office of
Civil Rights stated that, pursuant to Title VI, school districts
must take affirmative steps to provide equal access and address
the language needs of LEP students. Government Code Section
11135 et seq. is the state law's version of Title VI. Education
Code Section 51101 specifies parental rights regarding their
children's education and spells out specifically the rights of a
parent and guardian of a LEP pupil. It is in this code section
where the bill proposes to add the right to bring an oral
interpreter.
According to the author, "Unfortunately, inadequate knowledge of
existing laws and declining resources cause many school
districts to struggle to meet translation and interpreter needs
for LEP parents. Many school districts do not have formal
policies for providing interpreters. As a result many limited
English proficiency parents are unaware of their rights and thus
make decisions about their child's life without completely
understanding existing laws."
The CDE indicates that, "Currently, California has no
comprehensive written policy or standard procedure for
recruiting, assessing, utilizing, and compensating qualified
translators and interpreters in kindergarten through grade
twelve educational settings. Practices throughout California's
AB 1510
Page D
schools and districts are inconsistent and in some cases
inadequate to serve multilingual students and their
families."<1> The sponsor, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), reports that 64% of districts that responded to a survey
did not have formal policies for providing interpreters.
Some districts utilize district or school bilingual employees as
interpreters, but according to the author, even districts that
have translation departments are unable to adequately provide
sufficient services. For example, in 2005, the Los Angeles
Unified School District denied one-third of the 7,488 requests
for interpreters and translators.
Translators are especially critical for disciplinary
meetings/hearings such as suspensions or expulsions. The ACLU
cites, as an example, an 11th grade student from San Diego who
was accused of involvement in a fight off-campus and was
recommended for expulsion. His parents and grandmother, who
speak very little English, brought a former middle school
teacher to a meeting with school officials, but was denied entry
to the meeting. The school's provided interpreter did not fully
translate the discussion and provided little details. The
pupil's grandmother said, "People who understand can debate and
argue. We cannot, we only ask for the reasoning, and we cannot
understand. I have a really great desire to understand, but I
cannot. If I ask a question, they tell me only one or two
words, they do not tell me everything."
The author states, "These parent meetings have high-stake
consequences and long-term implications for a child's future.
Suspension and expulsion reduce the likelihood of graduating on
time and often lead to student drop out. Students who do not
graduate from high school have a reduced earning capacity, are
more likely to be unemployed, and are over-represented in the
criminal justice system."
Over 40% of the 6.3 million students enrolled in public schools
in 2007-08 speak a language other than English at home, with
---------------------------
<1> "Quality Indicators for Translation and Interpretation in
Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve Educational Settings,"
California Department of Education, 2006.
AB 1510
Page E
almost 25% (1.55 million) considered English learners (EL). Of
the 1.55 million EL students, the predominant languages spoken
are Spanish (85%), followed by Vietnamese (2.2%), Pilipino or
Tagalog (1.4%), Cantonese (1.4%), Hmong (1.3%), and Korean
(1.1%).
Current law requires schools to send any notification, reports,
statements or records (e.g., information regarding testing,
health, attendance, suspension and expulsion, English Learner
Programs, etc.) in a primary language and in English if 15% or
more of the pupils enrolled in the school speak that primary
language at home, but existing law does not explicitly provide
the same requirement for oral interpretation, except for pupils
with disabilities during IEP meetings.
The ACLU states, "School districts struggle to meet interpreter
needs of parents partly due to an inadequate knowledge of
existing laws and inadequate fiscal resources. This bill
addresses both these issues by highlighting existing laws in the
Education code and by allowing parents to provide and pay for
their own interpreters when this does not conflict with existing
law. Further, there are situations where state and federal laws
do not require school districts to provide interpreters for LEP
parents. In these circumstances, this bill will give parents a
right to bring their own."
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"Nothing under current law prohibits a parent or guardian of
English learning students from bringing an oral language
interpreter to conferences, meetings, or proceedings that are
held at a school site or district building, at their own
expense. Therefore, this bill is unnecessary."
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003428