BILL ANALYSIS
SB 680
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 680 (Romero and Huff)
As Amended August 17, 2009
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :37-0
EDUCATION 6-1 APPROPRIATIONS 9-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Nestande, Arambula, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, Charles |
| |Buchanan, Garrick, | |Calderon, Coto, Duvall, |
| |Miller, Solorio | |Harkey, Miller, Solorio, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Ammiano |Nays:|Ammiano, Fuentes, |
| | | |Torlakson |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : An urgency measure that extends the sunset and repeal
date for the School District of Choice (DOC) program from July
1, 2009 to July 1, 2016 and January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017,
respectively; repeals the prohibition on new districts electing
to become DOCs; and, requires the Legislative Analyst (LAO) to
complete an evaluation of the DOC program and report to the
Legislature by November 1, 2014. 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 at
a regularly scheduled public meeting of the school district
governing board.
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 or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a
child's actual or perceived academic or athletic performance
or any other personal characteristic.
3)Requires the annual local audit of a DOC to include a
compliance review of the selection process and appropriate
communications, as specified.
SB 680
Page 2
4)Specifies that DOCs shall not reject the transfer of special
needs pupils including individuals with exceptional needs or
English learner pupils.
5)Specifies that districts of residence (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.
6)Specifies that 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.
7)Authorizes DOCs to give priority for attendance to children of
military personnel.
8)Repeals the requirement for the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to calculate the apportionment for basic aid
districts that elect to become DOCs; and, repeals the
requirement for the State Allocation Board to develop
procedures to ensure that the average daily attendance (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.
9)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 shall indicate
the reasons for the denials;
b) The number of pupils transferred out of the district and
the number of pupils transferred into the district;
c) The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported
socio-economic status and the DOR of the pupils
transferring into and out of the district; and,
SB 680
Page 3
d) The number of pupils transferring into and out of the
district classified as English learners and the number of
pupils identified as individuals with exceptional needs.
10)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, the SPI, and
the Department of Finance (DOF); and, deletes the
authorization for the SPI to designate a date by which to
report the data.
11)Repeals the requirement for the California Department of
Education (CDE) to annually report data on the DOC program and
instead requires the LAO to annually report the following
information to the Governor and the appropriate fiscal and
policy committees of the Legislature: data on the
characteristics of DOC students; Academic Performance Index
scores of schools in the DOR and DOC; graduation rates of DORs
and DOCs; enrollment data for DORs and DOCs for the past five
years; the fiscal health of DOCs and DORs; and, whether any
district has exceeded the transfer limits.
12)Specifies that the LAO may request data from DOF; and,
requires the LAO where necessary and practicable to survey
DORs and DOCs to gather necessary information.
13)Repeals the requirement for CDE to complete a one-time
evaluation of the DOC program and instead requires the LAO to
complete an evaluation of the DOC program and report to the
Legislature by November 1, 2014, as specified.
EXISTING LAW authorizes a school board to 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 DOR 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 transferred out of the district; and, 3) the number of
SB 680
Page 4
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
program sunset on July 1, 2009.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee,
1)Potential loss of General Fund (GF)/Proposition 98 savings, of
approximately $2.6 million, to the 19 CDE identified school
districts of choice that are basic aid. A basic aid district
is defined as a district whose revenue limit funding (general
purpose) is met entirely with local property tax funds;
therefore, the state does not contribute revenue limit funding
to these districts to serve their pupils. However, under the
DOC program, statute requires the SPI to calculate revenue
limit funding for basic aid school districts of choice in an
amount equivalent to 70% of revenue limit funding that the DOR
would have received if the pupil attended school in that
district.
2)Potential GF/Proposition 98 costs, likely between $400,000 and
$795,000, for increased costs related to the declining
enrollment adjustment. This measure uncaps the DOC program,
which allows any school district in the state to participate
in the DOC program. As stated below, 52% of school districts
in the state are experiencing declining enrollment. Existing
law provides school districts with a one-year hold harmless
adjustment if their enrollment is declining. For the 2007-08
fiscal year, the state provided $318 million GF/Proposition 98
for the declining enrollment adjustment.
3)This bill is an urgency measure due to the current statute
that sunsets the DOC program on July 1, 2009. The author has
provided a March 2009 Legislative Counsel Opinion to this
committee that states if the DOC program becomes inoperative
on July 1, 2009 pupils who are enrolled under this program
will not be allowed to remain in a school district choice. As
such, the author contends that if these school districts are
in declining enrollment, the state will be required to pay an
increased declining enrollment adjustment in addition to the
revenue limit funding for the pupils returning to their DOR,
resulting in millions of dollars in GF/Proposition 98 costs to
SB 680
Page 5
the state.
a) The contention assumes a number of variables associated
with it. First, it assumes that all pupils participating
in the DOC program would not continue to enroll in these
districts. As referenced below, existing law establishes
an interdistrict transfer program, which is an avenue these
pupils can pursue to remain in the district of choice.
Second, as referenced above in 1) above, 19 of the 25
districts identified as currently participating in the DOC
program are basic aid school districts. Therefore, the
state does not pay a declining enrollment adjustment to
them because it does not provide revenue limit funding to a
basic aid district. However, the state would be required
to pay the full revenue limit cost of the pupil who returns
to his or her DOR.
Of the six school districts of choice that are not basic
aid, the state may be required to pay a declining
enrollment adjustment, if the school district is in
decline. However, if these pupils return to their DOR and
these districts receive a declining enrollment adjustment
from the state, the amount of this adjustment would be
slightly reduced due to the pupils return to the district.
4)If the DOC program were to sunset and the pupils attending
basic aid school districts of choice were required to return
to their DOR, the state would pay increased GF/Proposition 98
revenue limit apportionments, likely in the hundreds of
thousands to low millions (assuming the DORs are not basic
aid). These costs would be incurred due the state paying full
revenue limit funding for the returning pupils. However, as
noted above, these costs may be offset by a potential decrease
in the state's declining enrollment adjustment paid to the
DOR.
In addition, the Assembly Appropriations Committee indicates the
cost of the LAO report will require $50,000 to $100,000 from the
GF.
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
SB 680
Page 6
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. Unlike the main interdistrict transfer law,
the DOC law does not require agreement between the DOR and the
receiving district in order for the receiving district (DOC) to
admit interdistrict transfers. The DOR 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 three percent
(3%) of their ADA and may limit 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 one
percent (1%) of their ADA. A DOR 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.
DOC Data: Under current law, districts elect to be 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 CDE
to report to the Legislature by November 1, 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 three DOCs.
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."
Seven Year Sunset Date: The bill extends the sunset date for
the DOC program for seven years. AB 1407 (Huffman) from 2009,
would have extended the DOC program sunset date for five years.
It is customary to have sunset dates extended for a maximum of
five years. The Assembly should consider whether it is
appropriate to extend the DOC program sunset date for such a
SB 680
Page 7
long period of time, without first properly evaluating the
number of districts currently using the program and the
effectiveness of the program statewide.
Eliminating the Prohibition: The bill eliminates the
prohibition in existing law for new districts to elect to be
DOCs. This will expand the program and authorize any district
to elect to be a DOC. The prohibition was put in place to allow
for an evaluation to be completed before further expanding the
program. The evaluation was not fully completed and the
Assembly should consider whether it is appropriate to expand the
program without first requiring an evaluation of the program and
its effects on students statewide.
DOF Data Collection: The bill requires school districts to
report DOC program data to DOF and CDE. The bill further
specifies that the LAO may request the data from DOF to complete
the annual report to the Legislature. Why would the LAO request
the data from DOF instead of requesting it directly from CDE?
The Assembly should consider whether it is appropriate to have
data reported to DOF and then sent to the LAO instead of having
the information come directly from CDE. In any case, it is
clearly the intent of the Legislature that DOF provide the LAO
with the raw DOC data collected annually.
Racial Inequities: Rowland Unified School District borders
Walnut Valley Unified School District, which is a DOC. Since
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
SB 680
Page 8
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 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.
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
five years and required a census report on the DOC program by
CDE by November 2010.
Previous legislation: AB 270 (Huff) from 2007, which was
incorporated into SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review),
Chapter 174, Statutes of 2007, extended the DOC program from
July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2009, prohibited additional districts
from becoming DOCs, and required DOCs to maintain records and
annually report the number of requests it receives to the SPI.
AB 97 (Nation), Chapter 21, Statutes of 2004, extended the DOC
program sunset date one year.
AB 1993 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993,
established the school DOC program.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0002020