BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 207
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 207 (Ammiano)
As Introduced January 31, 2011
Majority vote
EDUCATION 7-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, | | |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | | |
| |Eng, Williams | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Halderman, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires school districts to accept reasonable evidence
that a pupil meets residency requirements for school attendance
within the district; and, specifies certain types of documents that
shall be considered reasonable evidence. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that "reasonable evidence" of district residency shall
be established by documentation including, but is not limited to:
a) Property tax payment receipts;
b) Rent contract, lease, or payment receipts;
c) Utility service contract, statement, or payment receipts;
d) Pay stubs;
e) Voter registration;
f) Correspondence from a government agency; and,
g) Declaration of residency executed by the parent or guardian
of the pupil who is homeless, as defined in Section 725 of the
federal McKinney-Vento Act.
2)Specifies that if any employee of a school district reasonably
believes that the parent or legal guardian of a pupil has provided
false or unreliable evidence of residency, the school district may
AB 207
Page 2
make reasonable efforts to determine that the pupil meets the
requirements.
3)Specifies that nothing in this section shall be construed as
limiting access to pupil enrollment in a school district as
otherwise provided by state and federal statutes and regulations.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The Education Code requires that all students attend
school in the district in which the residency of either the parent
or legal guardian is located, but it does not provide any definition
of school district residency, nor does it provide school districts
with any guidance about how to verify residency, except for those
districts adjacent to the international border. According to the
author, some districts are imposing overly burdensome requirements
on parents to establish their residence in the district, with some
districts establishing complex matrices with requirements that far
exceed those for border area districts. One could argue that these
requirements go against the legal advisory opinions issued by the
California Department of Education (CDE) and make it difficult to
implement the public policy of ensuring universal enrollment and
education.
CDE has also issued several legal advisory documents intended to
assist districts and county offices regarding the information they
may rely on to determine that a child is a resident for purposes of
school attendance, including, in the context of the homeless,
advising districts to accept any kind of document, including a
parental declaration of intent to remain in the district
indefinitely. In Legal Advisory LO:1-95, the CDE states that the
general rule is that districts may accept a wide range of documents
and parent representation regarding residency, there is no
particular list of documents that may be accepted, and that any
reasonable evidence of residence is sufficient.
In 2008, the Evergreen school district governing board was asked by
their community to implement a strict "proof of residence" policy
aimed at eliminating falsely registered children. The community
brought forth registration documents from a neighboring high
performing district as proof that the school district could also
require such proof to determine residency. The district disagreed
with the legal direction and denied the initiative at a public board
meeting. The community's solution amounted to requiring specific
AB 207
Page 3
documents which would very likely lead to disclosure of a student's
immigration status and would clearly be in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Some school
districts utilize a strict proof of residence policy as described
above.
For example, the Acalanes Union High School requires three forms of
residency verification; one form of documentation is required from
each of the following groups to register a child:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
|---------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
| | | |
| Current | Current | State or |
| Passport | Rental/Lease | Federal Tax |
| Current | Agreement with | Return with W-2 |
| Driver License | name and | attached |
| with vehicle | address of | |
| registration | parent and | Payroll/Check Stub with name |
| Current CA | property | & address |
| ID | manager | Other form |
| Current | Current | of |
| Military ID | property tax | identification |
| | bill | or |
| | Current | correspondence |
| | Homeowner's or | from a |
| | Renter's | government |
| | Insurance |agency |
| | Policy | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Acalanes Union High School District website.
Previous legislation: AB 1854 (Ammiano) of 2010, was substantially
similar to this bill. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed this bill with
the following message:
This bill would undermine and potentially limit a local
district's current residency verification process.
Determining what proofs of residency should be accepted should
continue to remain a local decision. Nothing in current law
prohibits a school district from using any type of
documentation that fits its local circumstances. For these
reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.
AB 207
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0000149