BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1933
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Jim Beall, Jr., Chair
AB 1933 (Brownley) - As Amended: April 5, 2010
SUBJECT : Foster children: education
SUMMARY : Modifies requirements for local educational agencies
to allow wards and dependents to stay in their school of origin
for the duration of the court's jurisdiction. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Specifies that when a child becomes a ward or dependent of the
court, or their residential placement changes, the local
educational agency (LEA) shall allow the child to continue in
his or her school of origin for the duration of the court's
jurisdiction.
2)Provides that when court jurisdiction ends before the end of
the school year, the child shall be allowed to stay at the
school of origin until the end of the school year.
3)Requires the LEA to allow a foster child to matriculate with
his or her peers between grade levels, and from one school to
another through high school for the duration of the court's
jurisdiction.
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires that all educational and school placement decisions
for foster children be based on the best interests of the
child, ensuring the child is placed in the least restrictive
educational programs. Education Code (EDC) 48850, 48853.
2)Requires proximity to the child's school be considered, as one
of several criteria, including proximity to the parent's home,
and whether the selected setting is the least restrictive,
most family-like, and appropriate setting, when out-of-home
placement is considered in a child's case plan. Welfare &
Institutions Code (WIC) 16501.1.
3)Requires the LEA to allow a foster child to continue in his or
her school of origin for the duration of the school year when
AB 1933
Page 2
placed in foster care, or whenever the child's residential
placement changes. EDC 48853.5.
4)Provides that the LEA's educational liaison for foster
children (liaison), in consultation with, and the agreement
of, the foster child and the foster child's educational rights
holder, may recommend that the child's right to attend their
school of origin be waived if in the child's best interests.
EDC 48853.5.
5)Requires that, when a foster child is to be best served by
transferring to a new school, rather than the school of
origin, the foster child shall be immediately enrolled in the
new school, regardless of whether the foster child has
outstanding fees, fines, or textbooks or the last school is
unable to provide the documents necessary for student
enrollment. EDC 48853.5.
6)Requires a foster child remain in his or her school of origin
should a dispute arise regarding the child's request to remain
in the school of origin. EDC 48853.5.
7)Defines "school of origin" as the school the foster child
attended when he or she was permanently housed or the last
school the foster child was enrolled in. EDC 48853.5.
8)Defines "local educational agency" as a school district,
county office of education, charter school participating as a
member of a special education local plan area, or special
education local plan area. EDC 48859.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Need for this bill: According to the author, this bill is an
attempt to ensure educational stability by allowing foster
children to remain in their school of origin throughout the time
they are under the court's jurisdiction. Educational stability
is an important way to ensure the overall well-being of foster
youth and helps to ensure a successful transition to adulthood.
As the Institute for Higher Education Policy pointed out in
their 2005 primer, "Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
Youth":
AB 1933
Page 3
The most important barrier to educational attainment
and high school graduation that is unique to foster
youth is the frequent disruptions of their education
by changes in school placement. Foster youth change
schools about once every six months, and some research
suggests that they lose an average of four to six
months of educational attainment each time they change
schools.
California made significant progress toward educational
stability through the framework provided by AB 490 (Steinberg),
Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003, which, in addition to requiring
immediate enrollment of foster children, also required that when
a child is placed in foster care, or the child's placement
changes, LEAs must allow the child to remain in his or her
school of origin until the end of the school year. AB 490 also
attempted to improve educational stability by including it as
one of several factors considered when making residential
placement decisions for foster children.
This bill would require the LEA to allow a child to continue his
or her education in the child's school of origin, and to change
schools with his or her classmates as the child matriculates
from elementary to middle and high school, for as long as the
child remains in foster care, and that educational placement is
in his or her best interests. It does not require the student
to be placed in the school of origin, nor does it add
requirements to how residential placement decisions are made.
According to the author, this bill would extend the length of
time afforded to foster youth in their school of origin, to
align with provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Fostering
Connections Act) (H.R. 6893, P.L. 110-351), which seek to
improve educational stability for foster youth.
Arguments in support: According to the California Youth
Connection:
For foster youth, the transience of out-of-home
placement means that school placement may be the one
place where they can develop positive, lasting
relationships and legitimately depend on adult
AB 1933
Page 4
consistency. Unfortunately, frequent changes in
residential placement lead to frequent changes in
school placement; it is estimated that California's
foster youth attend an average of nine different
schools by age 18.
The California Court Appointed Special Advocates Association
writes in support of this bill:
AB 1933 gives children- and those that care about
them- the option to keep the child in the school of
origin until the case stabilizes, and therefore not
mandating a change in schools until it makes sense to
do so . This will give the child a chance to make and
maintain lasting connections with peers, teachers,
coaches, counselors, and others met through school.
It is these connections to caring individuals that
really makes the difference.
Arguments in opposition: According to the Special Education
Local Plan Area Administrators (SELPAs):
This bill would require a local educational agency to
allow the foster child to continue at the school of
origin at the foster child's initial detention,
placement, or any subsequent change in placement for
the duration of the jurisdiction of the court. The
SELPA administrators oppose this legislation for the
following reasons:
Current law allows for pupils to continue
placement to the end of the school year.
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) process
has provisions for successful transition from one
school to the new school.
No provision for transportation across LEA/SELPA
agreements is included.
Inconsistencies with IDEA may arise regarding
provision of FAPE, as the IEP team is required to
recommend the appropriate placement.
For LCI pupils, on the on-grounds Non-Public
School (NPS) would severely limit the pupil access to
other options, including college preparatory classes
and inclusion.
AB 1933
Page 5
Prior and related legislation:
SB 1353 (Wright) of 2010 provides that proximity to the school
of origin is an indicator of the "best interests" of a foster
child with respect to educational stability. SB 1353 passed out
of Senate Education Committee 7-0 and is pending a hearing in
the Senate Human Services Committee.
AB 1067 (Brownley) of 2009, held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, sought to increase educational stability for foster
children by requiring transportation to the school of origin to
conform with federal law.
AB 490 (Steinberg) Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003 made numerous
changes to the education code in order to improve the
educational stability and outcomes of foster youth.
SECOND COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE . This bill was previously heard
in the Assembly Education Committee on March 24, 2009, and was
approved on a 9 - 0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Public Counsel Law Center (co-sponsor)
Youth Law Center (co-sponsor)
Alliance for Children's Rights
Angel's Flight At Risk Youth Services
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA)
California State PTA
California Youth Connection
Children's Advocacy Institute
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles
Common Ground
Compton Unified School District
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)
Families in Schools (FIS)
Learning Rights Law Center
Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.
My Friend's Place
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
AB 1933
Page 6
(NASW-CA)
National Center for Youth Law
The Alliance For Children's Rights
United Friends of Children (UFC)
3 Individuals
Opposition
Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators
Analysis Prepared by : Michelle Doty Cabrera / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089