BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1854
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1854 (Ammiano)
As Amended May 12, 2010
Majority vote
EDUCATION 6-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, | | |
| |Arambula, Carter, Eng, | | |
| |Torlakson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Nestande, Miller | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires school districts to accept reasonable evidence
that a pupil meets residency requirements for school attendance
within the district; and, specifies certain types of documents that
shall be considered reasonable evidence. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that "reasonable evidence" of district residency shall
be established by documentation including, but is not limited to:
a) Property tax payment receipts;
b) Rent contract, lease, or payment receipts;
c) Utility service contract, statement, or payment receipts;
d) Pay stubs;
e) Voter registration;
f) Correspondence from a government agency; and,
g) Declaration of residency executed by the parent or guardian
of the pupil who is homeless, as defined in Section 725 of the
federal McKinney-Vento Act.
2)Specifies that if any employee of a school district reasonably
believes that the parent or guardian of a pupil has provided false
or unreliable evidence of residency, the school district may make
AB 1854
Page 2
reasonable efforts to determine that the pupil meets the
requirements.
3)Specifies that nothing in this section shall be construed as
limiting access to pupil enrollment in a school district as
otherwise provided by state and federal statutes and regulations.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The Education Code requires that all students attend
school in the district in which the residency of either the parent
or legal guardian is located, but it does not provide any definition
of school district residency, nor does it provide school districts
with any guidance about how to verify residency, except for those
districts adjacent to the international border. According to the
author, some districts are imposing overly burdensome requirements
on parents to establish their residence in the district, with some
districts establishing complex matrices with requirements that far
exceed those for border area districts. One could argue that these
requirements go against the legal advisory opinions issued by the
California Department of Education (CDE) and make it difficult to
implement the public policy of ensuring universal enrollment and
education. Providing uniform guidelines that are easily
understandable and not overly burdensome will ensure that California
children enroll in and attend school and provide clear guidance to
school districts.
The CDE has promulgated regulations regarding eligibility for child
care and development services that allow a wide range of documents
to be accepted by providers as proof of residency. CDE has also
issued several legal advisory documents intended to assist districts
and county offices regarding the information they may rely on to
determine that a child is a resident for purposes of school
attendance, including, in the context of the homeless, advising
districts to accept any kind of document, including a parental
declaration of intent to remain in the district indefinitely. In
Legal Advisory LO:1-95, the CDE states that the general rule is that
districts may accept a wide range of documents and parent
representation regarding residency, there is no particular list of
documents that may be accepted, and that any reasonable evidence of
residence is sufficient.
In 2008, the Evergreen school district governing board was asked by
their community to implement a strict "proof of residence" policy
AB 1854
Page 3
aimed at eliminating falsely registered children. The community
brought forth registration documents from a neighboring high
performing district as proof that the school district could also
require such proof to determine residency. The district disagreed
with the legal direction and denied the initiative at a public board
meeting. The community's solution amounted to requiring specific
documents which would very likely lead to disclosure of a student's
immigration status and would clearly be in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Some school districts
utilize a strict proof of residence policy as described above.
For example, the Acalanes Union High School requires three forms of
residency verification, one form of documentation is required from
each of the following groups to register a child:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
|---------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
| | | |
| ? Current | ? Current | ? State or |
| Passport | Rental/Lease | Federal Tax |
| ? Current | Agreement with | Return with W-2 |
| Driver License | name and | attached |
| with vehicle | address of | ? |
| registration | parent and | Payroll/Check Stub with name |
| ? Current CA | property | & address |
| ID | manager | ? Other form |
| ? Current | ? Current | of |
| Military ID | property tax | identification |
| | bill | or |
| | ? Current | correspondence |
| | Homeowner's or | from a |
| | Renter's | government |
| | Insurance |agency |
| | Policy | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Acalanes Union High School District website.
Previous legislation: SB 1735 (Romero), which was vetoed by the
Governor in 2008 with the generic budget veto message, required
school districts to accept documents and representations that
reasonably provide evidence that a pupil meets residency
requirements for school attendance within the district.
AB 1854
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0004306