BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2444
AUTHOR: Furutani
AMENDED: May 11, 2010
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 23, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Interdistrict Transfer
KEY POLICY ISSUES
Should school districts that accept a pupil on an
interdistrict transfer be required to allow that pupil to
continue to attend the school without having to ever reapply
for the interdistrict transfer?
Should school districts of residence be authorized to rescind
existing interdistrict transfer permits if the district
receives a qualified or negative fiscal certification?
Should a school district of residence be prohibited from
rescinding the transfer permit for any pupil entering grades
11 or 12 in the subsequent school year?
Should statute supersede local agreements?
SUMMARY
This bill provides that a pupil who has been granted an
interdistrict transfer does not have to reapply for that
transfer, and authorizes a school district of residence to
rescind existing transfer permits if it receives a qualified
or negative fiscal certification.
BACKGROUND
Current law:
1) Authorizes two or more school districts to enter into an
agreement, for a term not to exceed five school years,
for the interdistrict transfer of pupils who are
residents of the districts. This process allows a
AB 2444
Page 2
parent to request a permit to attend a school district
that is a party to the agreement, and provides for an
appeal process if either of the districts denies the
transfer request. (Education Code 46600)
2) Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and
conditions under which interdistrict attendance is
permitted or denied. (EC 46600)
3) Provides that it is the responsibility of the district
of attendance (receiving school district) to stipulate
the terms and conditions under which the permit may be
revoked. (EC 46600)
4) Requires the supervisor of attendance of the district of
residence to issue an individual permit verifying the
district's approval, pursuant to policies of the
governing board and terms of the transfer agreement, for
the transfer and for the applicable period of time. A
permit is valid upon concurring endorsement by the
receiving school district. (EC 46600)
5) Establishes a process whereby a parent may appeal to the
county board of education the decision of either
district that fails to approve the transfer request, or
fails to enter into an agreement. (EC 46601)
In contrast, the District of Choice option does not require
the agreement of the district of residence before a pupil may
transfer (it does require a district to choose to be
designated as a district of choice in order to enroll these
transfer pupils). (EC 48301) A district of residence
that has a negative fiscal certification may limit the number
of pupils who transfer out of that district into a district
of choice. (EC 48307)
ANALYSIS
This bill provides that a pupil who has been granted an
interdistrict transfer does not have to reapply for that
transfer, and authorizes a school district of residence to
rescind existing transfer permits if it receives a qualified
or negative fiscal certification. Specifically, this bill:
1) Provides that, once a pupil is enrolled in a school
AB 2444
Page 3
pursuant to an interdistrict transfer, the pupil shall
not have to reapply for an interdistrict transfer.
2) Requires the governing board of the school district of
enrollment to allow the pupil to continue to attend the
school in which he or she is enrolled.
3) Authorizes a school district of residence to rescind
existing transfer permits for the subsequent school year
if it is determined to not meet the standards and
criteria for fiscal stability and it receives a
qualified or negative certification in that fiscal year.
4) Prohibits a school district of residence from rescinding
existing transfer permits for pupils entering grades 11
or 12 in the subsequent school year.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author, "In many
school districts, transfers granted via an interdistrict
transfer authorization are limited to one year. Parents
and students are forced to got through the transfer
process every year, even if the student already ahs been
granted the transfer for previous years. This
limitation creates uncertainty and instability for
students and parents. The requirement to reapply
annually for the interdistrict transfer produces
situations where students are uprooted - from their
established relationships with their teachers and
counselors, from their extracurricular activities such
as sports and student organizations, or from educational
curriculums such as the International Baccalaureate
program or magnet programs that are only offered at
select schools."
2) Will this tie the hands of the receiving district ? This
bill requires a receiving school district to allow a
pupil who has been granted an interdistrict transfer
permit to continue to attend the school in which he or
she is enrolled without having to reapply for the
permit. Current law requires the transfer agreement to
stipulate the terms and conditions under which
interdistrict attendance may be permitted or denied, and
provides that it is the responsibility of the district
AB 2444
Page 4
of attendance (receiving school district) to stipulate
the terms and conditions under which the permit may be
revoked. Therefore, this bill would prohibit a
receiving district from denying or revoking a transfer
permit for reasons other than those stipulated in the
agreement between two or more school districts. Does
this provide adequate protections for receiving school
districts that choose to enter into interdistrict
transfer agreements? Will this discourage districts
from entering into interdistrict transfer agreements?
3) Link back to agreement between districts . This bill
diminishes local control by requiring the receiving
school to allow a pupil to continue to attend the school
without having to reapply for a transfer. This could
lead to situations where the transfer agreement
stipulates that the receiving district will allow
transfers for three years, but statute would require the
pupil to be allowed to attend indefinitely. Staff
believes that statute would trump a transfer agreement
under this scenario. Therefore, staff recommends
amendments to require the school district of enrollment
to allow the pupil to continue to attend the school in
which he or she is enrolled only to the extent it is
consistent with the terms and conditions stipulated in
the interdistrict transfer agreement between the
districts.
4) Prior legislation . AB 1465 (Richardson, 2007) would
have required the Compton Unified School District and
the Los Angeles Unified School District to abide by
their interdistrict transfer agreement, specifically
with regards to the provision that a transfer shall not
be required to resubmit a new application annually in
order to remain enrolled in the school district. AB
1465 was vetoed by the Governor, whose message read:
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.
AB 2444
Page 5
SUPPORT
City of Lakewood
An individual
OPPOSITION
None received.