BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1933
AUTHOR: Brownley
AMENDED: April 5, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 16, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Foster youth: School of origin.
KEY POLICY ISSUES
Should foster youth be allowed to stay in their school of
origin for the entire duration of the jurisdiction of the
court, rather than just for the remainder of the school year?
Will foster youth be forced to remain in a school even when it
is not in their best interest?
Will decisions on educational placement be removed from the
individualized education program (IEP) team process?
Will schools be required to pay for transportation?
SUMMARY
This bill extends the right of foster youth to remain in their
school of origin from the remainder of the school year (after
changing residential placement) to the duration of the
jurisdiction of the court.
BACKGROUND
Current state law requires :
1) All educational and school placement decisions related to
foster youth to ensure that pupils are placed in the least
restrictive educational programs, and that the pupil has
access to all educational, extra-curricular and enrichment
activities that are available to all pupils. In all
instances, educational and school placement decisions must
be based on the best interests of the child. (Education
Code 48853)
AB 1933
Page 2
2) Local education agencies to allow a foster child to
continue his or her education in the school of origin for
the duration of the academic school year after changing
residential placement. (EC 48853.5)
3) The decision regarding choice of residential placement to
be based upon selection of a safe setting that is the
least restrictive or most family-like and the most
appropriate setting that is available and in close
proximity to the parent's home, proximity to the child's
school, or both. The selection of the most appropriate
home that will meet the child's special needs and best
interests must also promote educational stability by
taking into consideration proximity to the child's school
attendance area.
(Welfare & Institutions Code 16501.1)
4) The case plan for each foster child to include a summary
of the health and education information or records of the
child. The health and education summary must include
assurances that the child's placement in foster care takes
into account proximity to the school in which the child is
enrolled at the time of placement. (WIC 16010)
5) A foster child to have the right to remain in the school
of origin pending the resolution of any dispute regarding
the request of a foster child to remain in that school.
(EC 48853.5)
Current state law further :
1) Authorizes the local education agency liaison for foster
children, with the agreement of the foster child and the
person holding education rights, to recommend that the
child's right to attend his or her school of origin be
waived and the foster child be enrolled in any public
school having an attendance area in which the foster child
resides. Under this scenario, and prior to making any
recommendation to move a foster child from his or her
school of origin, the liaison must provide the foster
child and person holding education rights with a written
explanation stating the basis for the recommendation and
how this recommendation serves the foster child's best
interest. (EC 48853.5)
AB 1933
Page 3
2) Defines "school of origin" as the school the foster child
attended when he or she was permanently housed or the last
school in which the foster child was enrolled. (EC
48853.5)
Current federal law :
The federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008, among other things, requires states to
have a plan for ensuring the educational stability of children
while in foster care, including:
1) Assurances that the placement takes into account the
appropriateness of the current educational setting and the
proximity to the school in which the child is enrolled at
the time of placement.
2) An assurance that the state agency has coordinated with
appropriate local educational agencies to ensure that the
child remains in the school in which the child is enrolled
at the time of placement.
3) If remaining in such school is not in the best interests
of the child, assurances by the state agency and the local
educational agencies to provide immediate and appropriate
enrollment in a new school, with all of the educational
records of the child provided to the school. (United
States Code, Title 42, 675)
ANALYSIS
This bill expands the rights of foster youth relative to
remaining in their school of origin. Specifically, this bill:
1) Extends the right of a foster child to remain in his or
her school of origin from the remainder of the school year
to the duration of the jurisdiction of the court.
2) Requires the foster child to be allowed to continue his or
her education in the school of origin through the duration
of the academic school year if the jurisdiction of the
court is terminated prior to the end of an academic year.
3) Requires local education agencies to allow a foster child
to continue in the school district of origin in the same
attendance area, or to attend the school designated for
AB 1933
Page 4
matriculation whether or not that school is in another
school district (to ensure that the foster child has the
benefit of matriculating with his or her peers in
accordance with the established feeder patterns of school
districts).
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "current law
allows foster children and youth to remain in their school
of origin for the duration of the school year when their
residential placement changes and when remaining in the
same school is in the child's best interest. Often times,
it may be in the best interest of the child/youth to
remain in their school of origin for longer than the
remainder of a school year but current law does not allow
for that."
2) Conforming to federal law ? The federal Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
requires the state plan to include an assurance that the
state agency has coordinated with appropriate local
educational agencies to ensure that foster children remain
in the school in which a child is enrolled at the time of
placement. This law is silent with regard to the duration
of the right to remain in the school of origin, and
therefore has been interpreted by many to mean foster
children have the right to remain in their school of
origin indefinitely.
3) Role of the holder of education rights or individualized
education program (IEP) team . Parents play a large role
in determining the educational placement of their
children, typically based on where the parent resides.
For foster youth, educational placement may be determined
based on the residency of the pupil or the specific needs
of the pupil. For pupils with an IEP, the IEP team makes
decisions about what specific instruction and related
services are to be provided to the pupil, and hence, which
school the pupil is to attend. There is some concern that
this bill could supersede role of the IEP team or person
responsible for making education decisions for the foster
child (education rights holder). However, current law
clearly requires, in all instances, educational and school
placement decisions regarding foster youth to be based on
the best interests of the child. This bill does not
AB 1933
Page 5
change the process by which an IEP team makes decisions,
does not require a pupil to stay in his or her school of
origin, does not diminish consideration of the best
interest of the child, nor does it change how residential
placement decisions are made.
4) What about transportation ? Schools are not required to
transport, or pay for the transportation of, pupils. This
bill does not make any provision for the transportation of
foster youth to remain in their school of origin. For
pupils with an IEP, that document may specify which
entity, if any, is responsible to transport that pupil to
and from school. The federal Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act defines "foster care
maintenance payments," for the purpose of providing
funding to foster parents and group homes, to include
reasonable travel for the child to remain in the school in
which the child is enrolled at the time of placement.
State law defines "care and supervision" relative to
payments to foster parents and group homes, but does not
include travel to and from school. A change to state law
to allow for school transportation funding is currently
being considered.
Foster youth change residential placements frequently, and
could be moved to a residential placement outside the
attendance area of their school of origin. Will schools
or foster parents incur costs for transporting foster
youth from their residential placement to their school of
origin? Will foster parents be compensated for these
costs?
5) Fiscal impact . While this bill does create a mandate, the
Assembly Appropriations Committee staff estimates this
bill would result in minor, absorbable (General Fund,
Proposition 98) costs to schools.
6) Related and prior legislation .
SB 1353 (Wright, 2010) provides that
consideration of the proximity to the school in which
a child is enrolled at the time of placement in
foster care is one indicator of the best interests of
the child with respect to educational stability. SB
1353 is pending in the Assembly Human Services
Committee.
AB 1933
Page 6
AB 1067 (Brownley, 2009) would have required
local education agencies to provide the
transportation necessary to allow foster children to
remain in the school in which they were enrolled at
the time of foster care placement. AB 1067 was held
on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense
file.
Policy arguments .
Proponents argue that a child loses between four
to six months of educational attainment each time
that child is moved to a new school,
and that school may be the one place where foster
youth can develop positive, lasting relationships.
Opponents contend that this bill could be
inconsistent with federal law because the IEP team is
required to recommend the appropriate placement,
there is no provision for transportation, and
remaining in the school of origin may not be in the
best interests of the pupil.
SUPPORT
Advancement Project
Alliance for Children's Rights
Angel's Flight AT Risk Youth Services
Aspiranet
Association of California School Administrators
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Court Appointed Special Advocates Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
California Youth Connection
Children's Advocacy Institute
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles
Common Ground
Compton Unified School District
County Welfare Directors Association
Families In Schools
Learning Rights Law Center
Mental Health Advocacy Services
AB 1933
Page 7
My Friend's Place
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel Law Center
United Friends of the Children
Youth Law Center
Individuals
OPPOSITION
Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators