BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1933|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1933
Author: Brownley (D), et al
Amended: 8/17/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/23/10
AYES: Romero, Huff, Alquist, Emmerson, Liu, Price,
Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 11-0, 8/12/10
AYES: Kehoe, Ashburn, Alquist, Corbett, Emmerson, Leno,
Price, Walters, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/6/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Foster children: education
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : 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.
ANALYSIS :
Existing State Law
1.Requires all educational and school placement decisions
CONTINUED
AB 1933
Page
2
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, extracurricular
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.
2.Requires local education agencies to allow a foster child
to continue is or her education in the school of origin
for the duration of the academic school year after
changing residential placement.
3.Requires 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 inn 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.
4.Requires 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.
5.Requires 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.
6.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
CONTINUED
AB 1933
Page
3
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.
7.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.
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 high school is not in the best interest
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.
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
CONTINUED
AB 1933
Page
4
of the court is terminated prior to the end of the
academic year.
3.Expresses the intent of the Legislature that nothing is
to be construed to require a school district to provide
transportation services to allow a child to attend a
school or school district, unless otherwise required
under federal law.
4.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
matriculation whether or not the 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 the
school districts).
Comments
Need for the Bill . According to the author's office,
"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."
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
individualized education program (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 the 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
CONTINUED
AB 1933
Page
5
based on the best interests of the child. This bill does
not 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.
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.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 1353 (Wright), 2009-10 Session, 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. (In Assembly Education
Committee)
AB 1067 (Brownley), 2009-10 Session, 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
CONTINUED
AB 1933
Page
6
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
School of origin Likely minor
General*
transportation for
*Counts toward meeting the Proposition 98 minimum funding
guarantee
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/17/10)
Advancement Project
Alliance for Children's Rights
Angel's Flight At Risk Youth Services
Aspiranet
Association of California Schools Administrators
California Alliance for Child and Family Services
California Court Appointed Special Advocates Association
California Probation Parole and Correctional 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 of California
Families in Schools
Learning Rights Law Center
Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.
My Friend's Place
National Association of Social Workers
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel
United Friends of the Children
Youth Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/17/10)
CONTINUED
AB 1933
Page
7
Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De
Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Block, De La Torre, Gilmore,
Mendoza, Vacancy
CPM:cm 8/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED