BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2370
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2370 (Hernandez) - As Amended: April 12, 2010
SUBJECT : Districts of choice.
SUMMARY : Requires a school district of choice (DOC) to give
priority to English learners, and pupils with exceptional needs.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a DOC to give priority to the following pupils in
addition to pupils already granted priority under existing
law:
a) English learners; and,
b) Pupils who are individuals with exceptional needs.
2)Requires a DOC to ensure that a pupil who transfers into the
district pursuant to this article is enrolled in a school with
a higher Academic Performance Index (API) score than the
school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
3)Makes a finding and declaration that the fiscal
responsibilities of the county superintendent of schools
relative to making a determination that a district's fiscal
stability may be compromised as a result of students
transferring out of the district are related to the current
oversight responsibilities of the county superintendent
pursuant to current law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes districts to become DOCs. A DOC is not required to
admit pupils but it is required to select those pupils that it
does elect to admit through a random process that does not
choose pupils based upon academic or athletic talent. Either
the district of residence (DOR) or DOC may prevent a transfer
under this law if the transfer would exacerbate racial
segregation. (Education Code 48300)
2)Requires each DOC to keep records of:
AB 2370
Page 2
a) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as
well as the reasons for the denials;
b) The number of pupils transferred out of the district;
and,
c) The number of pupils transferred into the district. The
DOC program becomes inoperative on July 1, 2016 and
repealed on January 1, 2017. (Education Code 48300)
3)Requires that if the number of transfer applications exceeds
the number of transfers under the DOC program, the governing
board must conduct a random drawing held in public at a
regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board.
(Education Code 48301)
4)Prohibits a DOC from rejecting a transfer of a pupil based
upon a determination by the governing board of that school
district that the additional cost of educating the pupil would
exceed the amount of additional state aid received as a result
of the transfer. A school district may reject the transfer of
a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the
district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except
that a DOC shall not reject the transfer of a special needs
pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs and an
English learner. (Education Code 48303)
5)Requires a DOC to give priority for attendance to siblings of
children already in attendance in that district, and
authorizes a DOC to give priority for attendance to children
of military personnel. (Education Code 48306)
6)Specifies that DORs that have a negative budget certification,
as determined by the county office of education, may limit the
number of pupils transferring out in that fiscal year. DORs
may limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the
district if the county superintendent of schools determines
that the district will not meet the standards and criteria for
fiscal stability due to such transfers, as specified; and,
specifies that students who have already been accepted to
transfer to a DOC before a DOR takes action to limit the
number of transfers, shall be permitted to attend the DOC, as
specified. (Education Code 48307)
7)Provides for an interdistrict transfer when both the DOR and
AB 2370
Page 3
district of proposed attendance agree. This process allows
the parent or guardian of a pupil requesting inter-district
attendance to appeal to the County Board of Education in the
event that either district refuses the requested transfer.
(Education Code Section 46600)
8)Establishes an open enrollment program, which authorizes a
pupil enrolled in a low achieving school, as defined, to
attend any higher achieving school in the state. (Education
Code 48350 - 48361)
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW :
1)Provides that when a Title I school fails to meet adequate
yearly progress (AYP) goals for two or more consecutive years
and they are identified for program improvement (PI), parents
of children in that school have the choice to transfer their
children to schools which are (1) not identified for PI and
(2) not identified by the state as persistently dangerous
schools. (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB))
2)Provides that if all public schools served by the district are
classified as PI, the district shall, to the extent
practicable try to establish a cooperative agreement with
other districts in order to provide school choice. (NCLB)
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : California law provides that a student may attend a
DOC without obtaining an interdistrict transfer. Unlike the
main interdistrict transfer law, the DOC law does not require
agreement between the DOR and the receiving district in order
for the receiving DOC to admit interdistrict transfers.
Transfer priority is given to the siblings of transfer students
already attending school in the DOC. Some educational advocates
have credited the DOC program with expanding parental choice by
removing geographical restrictions, thereby expanding
educational opportunities for children. Others, however,
maintain that the DOC program limits educational opportunities
and choice for students, as some districts employ selective
processes and recruitment. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
some DOCs recruit higher performing students, while neglecting
those who require additional academic assistance. Additionally,
a lack of data on the DOC program has raised questions of the
demographic makeup and academic profile of the populations that
AB 2370
Page 4
the program serves. This bill requires DOCs to grant priority
to English learners and students with exceptional needs. This
bill also requires a DOC to ensure that child who transfers into
the district attends a school in a DOC with a higher API score
than that of the school attended in the DOR.
Limiting Transfers : Under the DOC program, current law provides
that the DOR has little say in the transfer process, except
districts with 50,000 or less average daily attendance (ADA) may
limit the maximum number of transfers each year to 3% of their
ADA and may limit transfers for the duration of the program to
10% of their ADA. Districts with more than 50,000 pupils in
attendance may limit transfers to no more than 1% of their ADA.
A DOR may also prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer
would have a negative impact on a court-ordered or voluntary
desegregation plan or the racial and ethnic balance of the
district. Furthermore, current law specifies that DORs may
limit the number of pupils transferring out of the district if
the county superintendent of schools determines that the
district will not meet the criteria for fiscal stability due to
those transfers. This bill includes intent language to
reinforce that this responsibility falls within existing
responsibilities of a county superintendent pursuant to existing
law.
Priority Admission : Under current law, DOCs must utilize a
random selection process in its application process if the
number of transfer requests exceeds the number of available
transfer spaces. The current DOC program also provides that a
district may not reject the transfer of a student with
exceptional needs or an English learner under any circumstances.
However, educators in the field have noted that the DOC program
has failed to adequately serve these high need students. This
bill provides a pathway to create a more inclusive DOC program
by requiring DOCs to prioritize English learners and exceptional
needs students.
While the intent of the DOC program, according to proponents, is
also to provide enhanced academic opportunities for
socio-economically disadvantaged students, neither current law
nor this bill require that priority be given to this population
of students. Staff recommends amending this bill to also grant
priority to students who qualify for free and reduced price
meals in order to better serve this population of students.
AB 2370
Page 5
Current law requires that siblings of students currently
enrolled be granted priority in a DOC admission process.
Granting priority to English learners, exceptional needs pupils,
and students who qualify for free and reduced price meals may
significantly increase the pool of students granted priority
depending on various geographical and other factors. In the
event that a lottery is required for the selection of students,
this bill does not specify a process that would be followed for
purposes of prioritizing English learners and students with
exceptional needs. This committee may wish to consider the
following options to prioritize these students in a random
selection process:
1)Establish a system in which the number of English learners and
exceptional needs students must reflect the same proportion of
the population of the DOC or surrounding areas;
2)Conduct a separate random selection process for these groups
outside of the selection process for the general population;
or,
3)Accept all exceptional needs pupils or English learners
outside of the random selection process.
The first proposal may fail to benefit a significant number of
exceptional needs students and English learners if the DOC has a
low percentage of these populations, though it may ensure that a
proportionate number are accepted through the process. The
second option may favor these populations to a greater extent,
though it will require the DOC to establish a specified number
of students to be accepted under this process. Lastly, the
third option may align more closely with the intent of this
bill, in that these populations would be prioritized by ensuring
all English learners and students with exceptional needs are
admitted and are not rejected consistent with current law.
Those students from the general population may be disadvantaged
by this process if the number of priority students meets or
exceeds the numbers of available transfer spaces. Staff
recommends an amendment to this bill that will require DOCs to
admit pupils that have priority enrollment under this bill, and
to conduct a priority lottery that includes English learners,
students with exceptional needs, and those who qualify for free
and reduced price meals, should there be more applications from
priority populations than available spaces. Any priority
lottery shall be conducted outside of the random selection
process for the general population.
AB 2370
Page 6
API Score Requirement : The authors of SB 680 (Romero), Chapter
198, Statutes of 2009 expressed intent to provide access to high
quality academic programs for socio-economically disadvantaged
students through the DOC program. This bill also reinforces and
prioritizes the primary goal of the DOC program-that students
gain access to a higher quality education than their DOR
provides-by requiring that a student attends a school in a DOC
with an API score higher than that of their school in their DOR.
However, there are a number of additional factors that may
impact the quality of education and influence a family's
decision to participate in the DOC program including, but not
limited to, access to stronger academic curriculum, programs for
English learners or students with exceptional needs, unique
extracurricular or specialty programs, specialized curriculum,
or after school care. These factors may not be adequately
captured in a school's API score. This raises the question as
to whether an API score is a broad enough factor to determine a
child's attendance at a particular school under the DOC program,
especially if the API score of the desired school of attendance
is equal to or moderately less than that of the DOR. As this
bill moves forward, the author may wish to consider whether to
provide flexibility for students to attend a school in a DOC
that offers a specialized program without regard to that
school's academic performance, as indicated by the API score.
Alternative Interdistrict Transfer Programs : Two of
California's interdistrict transfer options intend to serve
students in low-achieving schools. NCLB entitles students in
schools designated as PI to transfer to a higher performing
school either within the DOR or to another district if the
district is designated as PI. NCLB also requires that
transportation be provided for the transfer of the student by
the DOR. California law also authorizes an open enrollment
option for students enrolled in the 1000 lowest performing
schools-in which case they may transfer to any higher performing
school in the state. Lastly, current law also provides that any
students may apply for a general interdistrict transfer to any
school in another district that has established an interdistrict
transfer agreement with their DOR.
Author's Statement : "AB 2370 would address the deficiency in
current law by guaranteeing priority for attendance to the most
vulnerable students and students with special needs. Expanding
priority to this group of pupils will also prevent 'cherry
picking' its students-enrolling top/high achieving students
AB 2370
Page 7
while avoiding those who score historically lower and cost more
to educate."
Previous Legislation: SB 680 (Romero), Chapter 198, Statutes of
2009 extends the DOC program to July 1, 2016 and includes
various provisions pertaining to the admission of students under
the DOC program.
SB 4 X5 (Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009-2010, Fifth
Extraordinary Session establishes an open enrollment option for
students who attend a school that is among the 1000 lowest
performing in the state.
AB 1993 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993 establishes
the DOC program.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Azusa Unified School District
Baldwin Hills Unified School District
Bassett Unified School District
Charter Oak Unified School District
Covina Valley Unified School District
Disability Rights California
Fillmore Unified School District
Pasadena Unified School District
Pomona Unified School District
Public Advocates
Opposition
An individual
Analysis Prepared by : Pilar Whitaker and Marisol Avi?a / ED.
/ (916) 319-2087