BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2370
AUTHOR: Hernandez
AMENDED: May 11, 2010
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 23, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : School Districts of Choice
KEY POLICY ISSUES
Should a pupil transferring into a district of choice be
required to attend a school in that district that has a
higher Academic Performance Index score than the school from
which the pupil is transferring?
Should second tier priorities for attendance in a school
district of choice be established for English learners,
pupils with exceptional needs, and pupils who are eligible
for free and reduced price meals?
Does this bill create a barrier to pupils transferring into a
district of choice?
Should the Legislature wait for an LAO evaluation before
making changes to the district of choice program?
SUMMARY
This bill establishes second tier priorities for attendance
in a district of choice, and requires that pupils who
transfer into the district be enrolled in a school with an
Academic Performance Index score that is higher than the
school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
BACKGROUND
History:
The School Districts of Choice was initially established by
AB 19 (Quackenbush, Ch. 160, 1993). The statute has been
reauthorized as follows:
AB 2370
Page 2
AB 19 (Nation, Ch. 21, 2004) extended the statute
until July 1, 2007.
SB 80 (Ch. 174, 2007) extended the sunset until July
1, 2009, and added a new section to the law that
"grandfathered" the districts then participating and
prohibited new districts from becoming a school district
of choice.
SB 680 (Romero, Ch. 198, 2009) extended the sunset to
July 1, 2016, and repealed the prohibition on new
districts electing to become a DOC.
According to analyses of the authorizing legislation (AB 19,
1993), the author explained that the purpose of the district
of choice program is to give parents the opportunity to
select schools that best fit their children's educational
needs in the public school environment. Mr. Quackenbush
stated that the end result of the interdistrict choice
program will be innovative educational programs and motivated
students, without the participation of private schools.
Supporters of AB 19 argued that interdistrict choice is an
essential element of necessary reform in California public
schools. They stated that public school choice contributes
to empowerment of parents, teachers, and students in ways
best defined by local school districts. They also argued
that implementation of public school choice is essential to
the survival of public schools in light of increasing
pressure from various interests for public subsidizing of
private schools.
Current law:
1) Establishes the District of Choice option, whereby a
governing board of any school district may accept
inter-district transfers. This option does not require
the agreement of the district of residence before a
pupil may transfer. A school district that elects to be
a district of choice may, by resolution, determine and
adopt the number of transfers it is willing to accept,
and ensure that pupils admitted under the policy are
selected through a random, unbiased process that
prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil
should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or
athletic performance. (Education Code 48301)
AB 2370
Page 3
2) Authorizes either the district of residence or the
district of choice to prohibit the transfer or limit the
number of transfers if the district determines that the
transfer would negatively impact any of the following:
a) The court-ordered desegregation plan of the
district.
b) The voluntary desegregation plan of the
district.
c) The racial and ethnic balance of the
district. (EC 48301)
3) Prohibits a district of choice from forbidding a
transfer based upon a determination that the additional
cost of educating the pupil would exceed the amount of
additional state aid received as a result of the
transfer. However, a district may reject the transfer
if it would require the district to create a new program
to serve that pupil, except that a school district of
choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of
pupils with special needs and English learners. (EC
48303)
4) Prohibits the approval of any application for transfer
that would require the displacement, from a school or
program, of any other pupil who resides within that
attendance area or is currently enrolled in that school.
(EC 48304)
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes second tier priorities for attendance
in a district of choice, and requires that pupils who
transfer into the district be enrolled in a school with an
Academic Performance Index score that is higher than the
school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
Specifically, this bill:
Priority for attendance
1) Requires a district of choice to give priority for
attendance as follows:
a) First priority to siblings of pupils already
AB 2370
Page 4
in attendance in that district (current law).
b) Second priority to all of the following:
i) English learners.
ii) Pupils who are individuals with
exceptional needs.
iii) Pupils who are eligible for free and
reduced price meals.
2) Requires the school district to conduct a lottery in the
group priority order to select pupils at random if the
number of priority pupils who request to attend a
particular school exceeds the number of spaces available
at that school.
3) Requires a district of choice to comply with the
priority requirements before admitting other pupils who
request to transfer into the district.
Higher Academic Performance Index score
Requires a school district of choice to ensure that a pupil
who transfers into the district is enrolled in a school with
a higher Academic Performance Index score than the school in
which the pupil was previously enrolled.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "AB 2370
will guarantee the same priority for attendance to the
most vulnerable, socio-economically disadvantaged
students, and students with special needs. It will
allow parents to secure for their children the best
public education available in a traditional public
school setting. Expanding priority to this group of
pupils will also prevent districts of choice from cherry
picking students - enrolling top students while avoiding
those who score historically lower and cost more to
educate."
2) Transfer only to schools with a higher API ? This bill
requires a school district of choice to ensure that a
pupil who transfers into the district is enrolled in a
school with a higher Academic Performance Index (API)
AB 2370
Page 5
score than the school in which the pupil was previously
enrolled. This provision is consistent with the
newly-established Open Enrollment Act (SB 4 of the Fifth
Extraordinary Session, Romero, Ch. 3, 2010); however,
that Act relates only to the 1,000 lowest-performing
schools. Should a pupil be allowed to transfer into
another district for safety reasons, or to a school
offering a health professions theme that may not have a
higher API? Should districts of choice be allowed to
waive the requirement that the transfer is to a school
with a higher API if the parent requests the transfer?
Does this provision create a barrier to pupils
transferring into a district of choice?
3) LAO evaluation . SB 680 (Romero, Ch. 198, 2009), among
other things, requires the Legislative Analyst's Office
(LAO) to submit a comprehensive evaluation of the
district of choice program, as specified, to the
Legislature and Governor by November 1, 2014. Should
the LAO complete and submit this evaluation before any
changes are made to the district of choice program?
4) Priority for attendance . This bill establishes a second
tier priority for attendance in a district of choice for
English learners, pupils with exceptional needs, and
pupils who are eligible for free and reduced price
meals. Should priority also be extended to pupils
requesting transfer pursuant to the Open Enrollment Act
who may not meet the requirements for priority
eligibility (see #2 above)?
5) Prior legislation .
SB 680 (Romero, Chapter 198, 2009) extended
the district of choice program to July 1, 2016,
repealed the prohibition on new districts electing
to become districts of choice, and required the
Legislative Analyst's Office to complete an
evaluation of this program by November 1, 2014.
AB 1407 (Huffman, 2009) would have extended
the district of choice program from July 1, 2009
until July 1, 2014, and would have required the
California Department of Education to prepare and
submit a census report to the Legislature that
evaluates interdistrict transfer options within the
state. AB 1407 was held in the Assembly
AB 2370
Page 6
Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
Azusa Unified School District
Baldwin Park Unified School District
Bassett Unified School District
California Federation of Teachers
California State PTA
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
Rowland Unified School District
United Teachers Los Angeles
OPPOSITION
None received.