BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2444
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2444 (Furutani) - As Amended: April 05, 2010
SUBJECT : Interdistrict transfers.
SUMMARY : Precludes a pupil who is enrolled in a school pursuant
to interdistrict transfer provisions under current law from
having to reapply for an interdistrict transfer and requires
that a district allow a pupil to continue to attend the school
in which he or she is enrolled.
EXISTING STATE LAW :
1)Authorizes the governing boards of two or more school
districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed
five school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils.
The agreement may also provide for the admission and
enrollment of a pupil in a district other than that pupil's
district of residence (DOR) if the district of enrollment is a
party to the agreement, and requires that the district of
enrollment maintain schools and classes in kindergarten or any
of grades 1 to 12. (Education Code 46600)
2)Authorizes a school board to declare the district to be a
District of Choice (DOC) that is willing to accept a specified
number of students from outside of the DOC, as determined by
the DOC. A DOC is not required to admit pupils but 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. (Education Code 48300)
3)Establishes the Open Enrollment Program, which authorizes a
pupil enrolled in the 1000 lowest achieving schools, as
defined, to attend any higher achieving school in the state.
(Education Code 48350 - 48361)
4)Provides that a school district may deem a pupil to have
complied with the residency requirements for school attendance
in the district if at least one parent or the legal guardian
of the pupil is physically employed within the boundaries of
that district. (Education Code 48204)
AB 2444
Page 2
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,
parents of children in that school have the choice to transfer
their children to schools which are (1) not identified for
Program Improvement (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
identified for PI, the district should try to establish a
cooperative agreement with other districts in order to provide
school choice. (NCLB)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : Current law authorizes the governing board of two or
more school districts to enter into an agreement for the
interdistrict transfer of students. Students may then submit an
application for an interdistrict transfer for approval by the
DOR and desired district of enrollment. Districts may establish
their own policies pertaining to the length of time for which an
interdistrict transfer is valid, and many require that an
interdistrict transfer permit be renewed each year. As such,
many students must reapply for an interdistrict transfer each
year they attend a school outside of their DOR, creating the
potential for unstable educational environments if students are
forced to return to their districts of residence. Studies of
the effects of educational instability on student learning have
revealed a number of adverse impacts on students. Research has
demonstrated that instability is associated with lower student
achievement regardless of the quality of a school's
instructional programs. This bill seeks to enhance student
stability by providing that a student granted an interdistrict
transfer will not be required to reapply for an interdistrict
transfer until the completion of his or her tenure at a single
school. A district must, accordingly, allow the continued
enrollment of a student at a school should the student be
granted an interdistrict transfer. This bill does not alter the
interdistrict transfer application process or the current
authorities under which a transfer may be granted.
There are a number of options for students who wish to transfer
AB 2444
Page 3
to a school outside of their DOR in addition to the
interdistrict transfer process. Under the DOC program, students
may transfer to a DOC, and are not required to reapply and may
not be sent back to their DOR under any circumstances. However,
there is only a small pool of DOCs across the state and, thus,
this option may not be accessible to students. Students are also
entitled to transfer to a higher performing school under NCLB,
though this entitlement is limited to students in schools
designated as Title 1 under Federal law who fail to make
Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years. Lastly,
California law also authorizes an open enrollment option for
students enrolled only in the 1000 lowest performing schools.
Due to various limitations on these various transfer processes,
the interdistrict transfer process is the most viable and
accessible for most of California's students. Factors that may
influence a family's decision to apply for an interdistrict
transfer include, but are not limited to, divorce, loss of job,
or other financial factors that force students to relocate to
schools outside of their DOR. Many parents may also seek
educational opportunities for their children outside of their
DOR in order to access specialized curriculum, strong academic
or extracurricular programs, or due to greater geographical
convenience for the student or family members. Under such
circumstances, many families seek interdistrict transfers.
The provisions of this bill may impact districts during
financially challenging times. Under current law, districts that
send or receive a number of students under the interdistrict
transfer process may choose to restrict the number of students
granted interdistrict transfers in the event that districts face
significant budget deficits. Districts that allow a number of
students to transfer outside to another district may seek to
limit or even retract the number of interdistrict transfers
granted in order to generate increased average daily attendance
(ADA) funding. In the 2009-2010 school year, the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) granted interdistrict transfers
to over 12 thousand students. However, LAUSD-facing a $640
million budget deficit-later retracted approximately 80% of
these interdistrict transfers. This bill would potentially
limit districts' ability to generate additional ADA and revenue
in this way during a fiscal crisis. In addition, Basic Aid
districts that receive a number of interdistrict transfer
students may wish to reject or rescind interdistrict transfers
into the district under similar circumstances in order to
preserve educational resources for resident students only. The
AB 2444
Page 4
Beverly Hills Unified School District recently rescinded
interdistrict transfers granted to a number of students who had
previously transferred into the district.
This bill would eliminate a district's ability to take these
actions and, thus, may create a disincentive against districts
granting interdistrict transfers. In order to mediate this
problem, Staff recommends amending this bill to include a
provision that would allow districts to rescind interdistrict
transfers in the event that they face significant budget
deficits during a school year. This amendment is consistent
with provisions under the DOC program which would authorize a
DOR to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status
on the most recent budget certification.
This bill may also potentially create inequities pertaining to
the interdistrict transfer process between districts for
students across the state. Schools significantly vary in their
grade-level configuration, as detailed below:
------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------
------------------
| Elementary |
| Schools |
| |
| |
------------------
|--------+---------|
| | |
| Grade | Number |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K | 28 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K-1 | 21 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K-2 | 48 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K-3 | 86 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
AB 2444
Page 5
| K-4 | 89 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K-5 | 2,477 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K-6 | 1,928 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K-7 | 42 |
|--------+---------|
| | |
| K-8 | 658 |
------------------
-------------------
|Kindergarten-Grade |
| 12 Schools |
| |
| |
-------------------
-------------------
| | |
| Grade | Number |
-------------------
| | |
| K-8 | 11 |
|---------+---------|
| | |
| K-12 |69 |
| | |
-------------------
In the instance that a student attends a K-1 school, the family
will be required to reapply for an interdistrict transfer after
just two years of attendance in a school, thus undermining the
author's intent of this bill. A student in a K-12 school,
conversely, will not be required to reapply at any point during
their 13 years of attendance in a school. The committee may
consider the implications of these inequities and whether
expanding the scope of AB 2444 to include a student's entire
tenure within a district or specifying the number of school
years a transfer may be valid is appropriate. However,
expanding an interdistrict transfer to be inclusive of a
AB 2444
Page 6
student's entire tenure within a school system may produce
additional financial and other disincentives for districts to
offer interdistrict transfers under such permanent agreements.
School administrators have also raised concerns over granting
extended or permanent interdistrict transfers in situations
where educators or families discover a student's special
education needs later during a student's tenure in a single
school. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
a district must provide a "free and appropriate public
education" (FAPE) that meets a child's educational needs,
regardless of special needs. However, the author may wish to
consider whether language clarifying the assignment of the costs
of providing special education services to special needs
students should be included in interdistrict transfer
agreements.
In 2007, the Governor vetoed AB 1465 (Richardson)-a bill
pertaining only to the Compton Unified School District (CUSD)
and LAUSD that prohibited a transfer from being required to
resubmit a new application annually in order to remain enrolled
in the school district-issuing the following veto message:
"This bill merely reiterates in statute that the Compton
Unified School District (CUSD) and the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) must abide by the terms
of their existing mutually adopted agreement, including
the provision that pupils shall not be required to
annually resubmit a new transfer application.
Therefore, this bill is unnecessary."
This bill, however, is inclusive of districts across the state,
including those that may not provide for such terms in their
existing agreements. Accordingly, this bill would override any
provisions, or lack thereof, in interdistrict transfer
agreements pertaining to the length an interdistrict transfer
remains valid, though it does not alter any other interdistrict
transfer granting procedures.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City of Lakewood
AB 2444
Page 7
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Pilar Whitaker and Gerald Shelton / ED.
/ (916) 319-2087