BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2444
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2444 (Furutani)
As Amended May 11, 2010
Majority vote
EDUCATION 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, | | |
| |Ammiano, Arambula, | | |
| |Carter, Eng, Miller, | | |
| |Norby, Torlakson | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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; requires that a
district allow an interdistrict transfer pupil to continue to
attend the school in which he or she is enrolled; and, allows a
district of residence (DOR) to rescind interdistrict transfers
in the event that they are designated as having a negative or
qualified budget certification.
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 are authorized to transfer
their children to schools which are: a) not identified for
Program Improvement (PI); and, b) 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)
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.
AB 2444
Page 2
The agreement may also provide for the admission and
enrollment of a pupil in a district other than that pupil's
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 Section 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 Section
48300)
3)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 Section 48307)
4)Establishes the Open Enrollment Program, which authorizes a
pupil enrolled in the 1,000 lowest achieving schools, as
defined, to attend any higher achieving school in the state.
(Education Code Sections 48350 - 48361)
5)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 Section 48204)
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : Current law authorizes the governing board of two or
more school districts to enter into an agreement for the
AB 2444
Page 3
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
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 a significant number of
California's 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 1,000
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
AB 2444
Page 4
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.
In the 2009-2010 school year, the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) granted interdistrict transfers to over 12,000
students. However, LAUSD-facing a $640 million budget
deficit-later retracted approximately 80% of these interdistrict
transfers. This bill allows districts that choose to enter into
interdistrict transfer agreements to rescind interdistrict
transfers in the event that a district is designated as having a
negative or qualified budget certification. Today, there are 12
districts on the negative certification list and 114 districts
with a qualified certification status. The latter includes
several of the state's larger districts, including the largest,
Los Angeles Unified.
This bill may also potentially create inequities pertaining to
the interdistrict transfer process between districts for
students across the state, because schools significantly vary in
their grade-level configuration. For example, in the case of a
student attending a K-1 school (there are 21 such schools in the
state), 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 (there are 69 such schools in the
state), conversely, will not be required to reapply at any point
during their 13 years of attendance in a school. The author may
wish to consider the implications of these inequities and
whether expanding the scope of this bill 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
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
AB 2444
Page 5
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Pilar Whitaker and Gerald Shelton / ED.
/ (916) 319-2087
FN: 0004290