BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1854
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1854 (Ammiano)
As Amended June 30, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |48-27|(June 1, 2010) |SENATE: |21-11|(August 18, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
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.
The Senate amendments specify that a school district may make
reasonable efforts to determine whether the pupil actually meets
the residency requirements.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
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.
AB 1854
Page 2
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 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 |
AB 1854
Page 3
| 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN:
0005206