BILL ANALYSIS
SB 680
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 680 (Romero and Huff) - As Amended: May 28, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 37-0
SUBJECT : School attendance: interdistrict transfers.
SUMMARY : An urgency measure that eliminates the sunset and
repeal dates for the District of Choice (DOC) program; repeals
the prohibition on new districts electing to become a DOC; and,
repeals the requirement for the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to report data on DOCs annually to the
Legislature, Governor and the public. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires, if the number of transfer applications exceeds the
number of transfers the governing board elects to accept,
approval for transfer to be determined by a random drawing
held in public.
2)Requires communications to parents or guardians by districts
electing to enroll pupils under the DOC program to be
factually accurate and not target individual parents or
guardians on the basis of their child's actual or perceived
academic or athletic performance.
3)Authorizes DOCs to give priority for attendance to children of
military personnel.
4)Repeals the authorization for districts to cap the maximum
number of students transferring out at 10% based on average
daily attendance (ADA) for the duration of the program.
5)Repeals the requirement for the SPI to calculate the
apportionment for basic aid districts that elect to become
DOCs.
6)Repeals the requirement for the State Allocation Board to
develop procedures to ensure that the ADA of pupils admitted
by a DOC be credited to that district for the purposes of any
determination under Article 2 of Chapter 12 of Part 10 that
utilizes an ADA calculation.
SB 680
Page 2
7)Repeals an authorization and instead requires DOCs to keep an
accounting of the following and report the information to the
governing board of the school district:
a) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn and
in the case of denied requests, the records may indicate
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.
8)Requires, no later than May 15 of each year, the school
district to report the data collected and its status as a DOC
to each school district to which it is geographically
adjacent, the local county office of education, and the SPI;
and, deletes the authorization for the SPI to designate a date
by which to report the data.
9)Repeals the requirement for the SPI to make DOC data available
to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public on or before
April 1 of each year; and, repeals the requirement for the SPI
to complete a study by November 1, 2008.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Main Interdistrict Transfer Authorization. The main
authorization provides for inter-district attendance when both
the district of residence and 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)
2)Districts of Choice . Under this authorization, established by
AB 19 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993, a school
board may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a
specified number of inter-district transfers. 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 or DOC may prevent a
transfer under this law if the transfer would exacerbate
racial segregation. Each DOC is required to keep records of:
1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as
well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils
SB 680
Page 3
transferred out of the district; and, 3) The number of pupils
transferred into the district. Districts are required to
report this information to the SPI annually, and the SPI is
required to make the information available to the Governor,
the Legislature, and the public annually before April 1. This
section is scheduled to sunset July 1, 2009. (Education Code
Section 48300)
3)Residency Requirements for School Attendance . This is an
alternative attendance authorization, not necessarily an
interdistrict transfer because no interdistrict transfer
agreement is established. Under this section, an elementary
pupil is authorized to attend school in a district where the
pupil's parent works, rather than where the pupil and parent
reside, however, the district is not required to admit the
pupil to its schools. Either the sending district or
receiving district may prevent a transfer under this law if
the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. Once
established on the basis of parental employment, this
authorization allows a parent to maintain a pupil's enrollment
through the 12th grade. This section is scheduled to sunset on
July 1, 2012. (Education Code Section 48204(b))
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal, however, the
Assembly Appropriations Committee has requested this bill be
referred to them. If this bill is passed by the Assembly
Education Committee it will be referred to the Committee on
Appropriations to consider the fiscal implications.
COMMENTS : Under the DOC law, the governing board of any school
district may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept
a specified number of inter-district transfers. 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 and they
are prohibited from choosing pupils based upon academic or
athletic talent.
Differences between the DOC program and other interdistrict
transfer options . Unlike the main interdistrict transfer law,
the DOC law does not require agreement between the district of
residence and the receiving district in order for the receiving
district (DOC) to admit interdistrict transfers. The district
of residence has little say in the transfer process, except,
districts with 50,000 or less ADA may limit the maximum number
of transfers each year to 3% of their ADA and may limit
SB 680
Page 4
transfers for the duration of the program to 10% of their ADA.
Districts with more than 50,000 pupils in attendance may refuse
to transfer more than 1% of their ADA. A district of residence
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.
Other differences include: A DOC that is also a basic aid
district is apportioned 70% of the amount the state revenue
limit for ADA that otherwise would have gone to the district of
residence (the remaining 30% is a savings in revenue for the
state). Transfer priority is given to the siblings of transfer
students already attending school in the DOC. Students with
special needs are admitted despite additional incurred costs
unless the transfer of those students would require the creation
of a new program.
DOC data is difficult to track . Under current law, districts
establish themselves as a DOC by adopting a local school board
resolution. Data collection on DOCs and the numbers of
transfers they accept or deny began in 2008 and this data is
required to be reported to the Legislature by the SPI by April 1
each year.
SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174,
Statutes of 2007, required the California Department of
Education (CDE) to report to the Legislature by November 30,
2008 on the effectiveness of the interdistrict transfer program
using data provided by school districts to the SPI on the
disposition of all interdistrict transfer requests. CDE did not
provide the complete report due to lack of funding. In lieu of
the report, CDE conducted a survey of 100 schools that receive
the most inter-district transfers in the state and found only 3
districts that have elected to declare themselves a DOC. It is
important to note the survey was not a complete assessment of
all DOCs. The CDE report recommends, however, "Given that only
3.9% of the responding districts indicated an active
participation in the DOC program, it seems to be a small program
with very limited impact. The CDE sees no significant negative
consequences to the program's lapse as scheduled for July 1,
2009."
Interestingly, in a report done by the CDE in 2003, the only
solid indicator of a district being a DOC was if the district
SB 680
Page 5
was a basic aid district that received state apportionment for
its transfer students. CDE had to use district
self-identification and a survey done by the California
Association of School Business Officials to determine the total
number or DOCs. As of 2002, CDE was able to identify 18 small,
mostly rural districts as DOCs. One-half of these districts
were basic aid districts. In 2007, it was reported that there
were 11 basic aid districts that were DOCs, according to CDE.
Removing the Reporting Requirement . The bill deletes the
requirement for the SPI to report data on DOCs annually to the
Legislature, Governor and the public. Without annual data
collection and reporting to the Legislature, how will the
effectiveness of the program ever be evaluated? The committee
should consider whether it is appropriate to repeal this annual
reporting requirement.
Repealing the Program's Sunset Date . The bill deletes the DOC
program sunset and repeal dates. AB 1407 (Huffman) from 2009,
would have extended the sunset and repeal dates for 5 years to
allow for further evaluation before the program is extended.
The committee should consider whether it is appropriate to
delete the DOC program sunset and repeal dates, and extend the
program indefinitely, without first properly evaluating the
number of districts currently using the program and the
effectiveness of the program state-wide. The committee should
further consider whether it is appropriate to repeal both the
sunset date and the reporting requirement at the same time.
Repealing the 10% Maximum Cap . The bill repeals the
authorization for districts with less than 50,000 ADA to cap the
maximum number of students transferring out at 10% for the
duration of the program. Without a maximum cap for the duration
of the program, districts will be unable to cap the total number
of students transferring out of their district over time.
Instead, districts would only be authorized to cap the annual
number of students transferring out at 3%, but there would no
longer be a maximum cap over time. The committee should
consider the negative impacts on districts this change will
bring to districts that have already reached the 10% maximum
cap, and who would be forced to allow more students to transfer
out of their district in the future.
Racial Inequities . Rowland Unified School District borders
Walnut Valley Unified School District, which is a DOC. Since
SB 680
Page 6
the inception of the DOC law, 1,649 students have transferred
out of Rowland Unified and transferred into Walnut Valley
Unified under the DOC law. According to CDE data, the overall
demographic characteristics of Rowland Unified in 2008-09
included 60.9% Hispanic students and 20.9% Asian students.
Rowland Unified School District has calculated, based on 727
students of the 1,649 total students who have transferred out of
the district under the DOC law, that Walnut Valley has enrolled
52% Asian students and only 20% Hispanic students from Rowland
Unified. One could argue that the percentages of students, by
ethnic background, who transferred out of Rowland Unified do not
appear to be random since they do not reflect the demographic
characteristics of the district overall. In fact, the
percentage of Asian students who transferred out of Rowland
Unified is more than twice the total percentage of Asian
students in the entire district. Conversely, the percentage of
Hispanic students who transferred out of Rowland Unified is 1/3
of the total percentage of Hispanic students in the entire
district. In 2006-07, Rowland Unified reached the maximum cap
of 10%, and the district utilized the authority granted in
statute to stop any future students from transferring out of
their district under the DOC law, due to concerns that Walnut
Valley's DOC program had negatively impacted the demographic
profile of Rowland Unified.
Arguments in Support : EdVoice, the sponsor of the bill, argues
the law is critical to improving the quality of education, as it
focuses on the needs of a student and acknowledges the right of
a parent to secure the best education possible for his or her
child. It is simply unjust for poor and minority children to be
held hostage to a zip code or attendance zone assignment of a
persistently low performing school without any other unfettered
public school choice. Nearly 5,000 families across the state
are currently benefiting from parent-initiated choices to enroll
in the traditional public school that bests meets their child's
needs. If this program is allowed to sunset, these students
would immediately be forced to leave their schools, sending them
back to their zip code assigned schools that are unfamiliar and
not serving their needs.
Arguments in Opposition : Public Advocates opposes the bill
unless amended due to the bill's failure to ensure equal
educational opportunities for the most disadvantaged students,
and its glaring lack of any accountability system. We are
concerned that the DOC Program, which does not require the
SB 680
Page 7
"home" district to approve a student's transfer, has the effect
of "creaming" high-performing students without equally serving
the needs of low-income students, students or color, and English
Learners. While in theory the DOC option is open to all
students and slots in the DOC are awarded through a lottery,
anecdotal assertions suggest that, at least in some districts,
participation in the DOC program does not represent the
demographics of the district as a whole-as would be expected
were the program operating as contemplated by statute. Public
Advocates is also concerned that SB 680 extends and expands the
DOC program without providing for an evaluation of the program's
impact-in particular whether the program has a discriminatory
impact on low-income students, students of color, and English
Learners. CDE's evaluation of the DOC Program, published in
November 2008, was not adequately funded and thus fell far short
of the rigorous evaluation mandated by SB 80. The study made no
findings or conclusions about the effectiveness of the program,
and focused solely on the number of districts that use it.
Thus, to date there has been no study of the effectiveness of
the DOC program. This makes the elimination of a sunset date
even more concerning and, quite simply, bad public policy.
Committee Amendments : The bill clarifies that communications to
parents must not target students with actual or perceived
academic or athletic performance, committee staff recommends the
bill be amended to specify that students must also not be
targeted based on place of residence any other personal
characteristic. To clarify that special education, bilingual or
other special needs pupils are not discriminated against in the
DOC program, staff recommends the bill be amended to clarify
that these populations of students cannot be denied transfer to
a DOC regardless of whether the DOC must create a new program to
serve that pupil. The bill repeals the authorization for
districts to cap the maximum number of students transferring out
at 10% based on ADA for the duration of the program, committee
staff recommends the bill be amended to clarify that the 10% cap
remains in effect and to allow districts of residence to limit
the number of pupils transferring out when the district has a
negative or qualified budget certification. The bill deletes
the requirement for the SPI to calculate the state
apportionments for basic aid districts and deletes the
requirement for the State Allocation Board to develop
procedures, committee staff recommends those changes be reversed
and existing law remain unchanged. To ensure adequate data
collection on students who elect to transfer to DOCs, committee
SB 680
Page 8
staff recommends the bill be amended to require DOCs to collect
data related to pupil demographics, special education status,
English learner status and the district of residence for pupils
who transfer into their district. The bill requires DOCs to
collect certain data on their transfers, but only authorizes
districts to report the reasons for petitions that are denied,
committee staff recommends the bill be amended to require
districts to report the reasons for transfer denials. The bill
deletes the requirement for the SPI to report DOC data to the
Legislature, Governor and the public annually, committee staff
recommends those changes be reversed and existing law remain
unchanged. The bill deletes the requirement for the SPI to
complete a report evaluating the DOC program by November 1,
2008, staff recommends that deletion be reversed and the bill be
amended to revise the date by which a census study is due to the
Legislature by CDE to November 1, 2010 and specify that the SPI
shall report the cutbacks districts of residence have made as a
result of the DOC program. The bill deletes the prohibition on
new districts electing to become DOC, staff recommends that
deletion be reversed and existing law remain unchanged. The
bill deletes the sunset and repeal dates for the DOC program,
staff recommends that deletion be reversed, and instead the
sunset and repeal dates be extended to July 1, 2014 and January
1, 2015, respectively. To ensure fairness and transparency,
staff recommends the bill be amended to require that compliance
with the requirements of this article be subject to the annual
audit performed pursuant to Section 41020.
Related legislation : AB 1407 (Huffman) from 2009, was held on
the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense file, would have
extended the sunset and repeal dates for the DOC program for 5
years and required a census report on DOC by CDE by November
2010.
Previous legislation : AB 270 (Huff) from 2007, extended the
authority for DOC inter-district transfers from July 1, 2007 to
July 1, 2009, prohibited additional districts from becoming
DOCs, and required school districts (electing to accept
transfers) to maintain records on the number of requests it
receives and annually report the number of requests it receives
to the SPI. The language in this bill was incorporated into SB
80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174,
Statutes of 2007.
AB 97 (Nation), Chapter 21, Statutes of 2004, extended the
SB 680
Page 9
sunset date for one year for the DOC authorization and required
the SPI to continue the calculation for the Special Disabilities
Adjustment using the current incidence multiplier to allow
special education local plan areas to continue to receive funds
provided through 2003-04 until a new multiplier is calculated.
AB 1993 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993,
established school DOC and allowed the governing board of any
school district to declare the district to be a DOC willing to
accept a specified number of inter-district transfers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
EdVoice (Sponsor)
Cardiff School District
College School District
Oak Park Unified School District
Santa Clara Elementary School District
Numerous Individuals
Opposition
Alhambra Unified School District
Azusa Unified School District
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
Charter Oak Unified School District
Covina-Valley Unified School District
Pasadena Unified School District
Pomona Unified School District
Public Advocates
Rowland Unified School District
Numerous Individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087