BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 680|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 680
Author: Romero (D) and Huff (R), et al
Amended: 9/2/09
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/15/09
AYES: Romero, Huff, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Maldonado,
Padilla, Simitian, Wyland
SENATE FLOOR : 37-0, 4/20/09
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Benoit, Cedillo,
Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham, DeSaulnier,
Ducheny, Dutton, Florez, Hancock, Harman, Hollingsworth,
Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Runner,
Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Walters, Wiggins, Wolk,
Wright, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Wyland, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-15, 9/3/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School district attendance: school district of
choice
interdistrict transfers
SOURCE : EdVoice
DIGEST : This bill 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,
CONTINUED
SB 680
Page
2
2017, respectively; repeals the prohibition on new
districts electing to become a DOC; and requires the
Legislative Analyst to complete an evaluation of the DOC
program and to report to the Legislature by November 1,
2014.
Assembly Amendments (1) extend the sunset date on the DOC
Program to January 1, 2017, instead of altogether as it
left the Senate, (2) include provisions concerning
communications to parents and guardians of a participating
school, (3) include provisions concerning financial audits,
(4) prohibit a school district from rejecting the transfer
of a special needs pupil, including an individual with
exceptional needs or an English learner, (5) add specified
categories to the regional accounting of request transfers,
(6) require the Legislative Analyst to evaluate the
interdistrict transfer program and recommendations
regarding the extension of the program to the Legislature
and the Governor by November 1, 2014, and (7) delete the
urgency clause.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides several means to
authorize inter-district attendance of a pupil who resides
in one school district but wishes to attend public school
in another district. The primary authorization provides
for inter-district attendance when both the district of
residence and district of proposed attendance agree.
Another authorization allows a pupil to attend school in a
district where the pupil's parent or legal guardian is
employed, rather than where the pupil and parent reside.
The district where the parent is employed must agree to
this alternative, and either district of residence or
district of parental employment may prohibit the transfer
under specified conditions.
Another authorization for inter-district transfer is known
as the "school districts of choice" authorization in which
the governing board of a school district may declare the
district to be a "district of choice" willing to accept a
specified number of inter-district transfers. Under
existing law, the district of choice authorization is
limited to those districts that declared their intent to
use the authorization prior to the statutes last effective
date of August 24, 2007.
SB 680
Page
3
A "district of choice" is not required to admit pupils but
those pupils that it does elect to admit must be selected
through a random process that prohibits enrollment based on
academic or athletic performance. School districts of
choice must give priority for attendance to siblings of
children already in attendance in that district. This law
is currently scheduled to become inoperative on July 1,
2009.
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.
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
SB 680
Page
4
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.
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
SB 680
Page
5
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 Legislative Analyst's
Office (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.
Prior legislation . AB 270 (Huff), 2007-08 Session, which
was incorporated into SB 80 (Senate Budget and Fiscal
Review Committee), 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/4/09)
EdVoice (source)
SB 680
Page
6
California Business for Education Excellence
Numerous school districts including Bolinas-Stinson Union,
Buena Vista Elementary, Burnt Ranch, College, Columbine,
Encinitas Union, Glendora Unified, Gorman Elementary,
Kenwood, Lagunitas, Manzanita Elementary, Mendocino
Unified, Monte Rio Union, Oak Park Unified, Pine Ridge,
Pond Union Elementary, Santa Clara Elementary, San Rafael
City High School District, Valle Lindo, Vista Del Mar
Union, Walnut Valley Unified, and Waukena Joint Union
Elementary
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/4/09)
Azusa Unified School District
Charter Oak Unified School District
Covina Valley Unified School District
Pasadena Unified School District
Pomona Unified School District
Public Advocates
Rowland Unified School District
San Bernardino County Office of Education
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states the
"Districts of Choice" (DOC) Program, which is due to
"sunset" or terminate on July 1, 2009, is the only program
in current law that provides parents the option to enroll
their child in a school of their choice in a neighboring
school district. It allows participating school district
that elect to participate in the program to enroll a
student without first seeking permission from the student's
district of residence, as required under the usual
inter-district transfer agreements. Terminating this
program would further limit school choices for parents,
especially those whose children are destined to attend
low-performing schools. After July 1, of 2009, a student
who has transferred to a school in a district other than
the school of his or her district of residence would have
to return to the school in the original district of
residence.
This bill extends, without a sunset date, the existing DOC
Program of inter-district student transfers, which is due
to sunset on July 1, 2009, and expands the program to other
school districts that choose to become a DOC. The DOC
SB 680
Page
7
Program, also referred to as a cross-district, open
enrollment option for parents, allows participating
districts to admit students from other districts without
first seeking permission from the student's original
district of residence. This bill is an urgency bill to
ensure that pupils continue to have the opportunity to
apply for inter-district transfers.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Rowland Unified School
District, which borders the Walnut Valley Unified School
District, a DOC indicates the impact of the DOC on Rowland
has resulted in the loss of students and in the loss of all
revenues and the eligibility for state funds for
construction and they are concerned about no oversight
concerning the program.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Anderson, Arambula, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Buchanan,
Charles Calderon, Conway, Cook, De La Torre, Duvall,
Emmerson, Fletcher, Fong, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Ma, Miller, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Smyth, Solorio,
Audra Strickland, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Bass
NOES: Caballero, Carter, Coto, Feuer, Fuentes, Galgiani,
Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Mendoza, Nava, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Beall, Brownley, Chesbro,
Davis, De Leon, DeVore, Eng, Evans, Fuller, Furutani,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Monning, John A. Perez, V. Manuel
Perez, Portantino, Saldana, Skinner, Vacancy
DLW:do 9/4/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****