BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 207
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 207 (Ammiano)
As Amended June 8, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |48-23|(April 25, |SENATE: |23-14|(August 22, |
| | |2011) | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
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 for a
pupil living with his or her parent or legal guardian.
The Senate amendments :
1)Specify that reasonable evidence of district residency shall
include a declaration of residency executed by the parent or
guardian of the pupil.
2)Declare that nothing in this measure shall be construed to
require a parent or legal guardian of a pupil to show all of
the items of documentation identified as reasonable evidence.
3)Specify that compliance with federal and state statutes
includes immediate enrollment and attendance guaranteed to a
homeless child or youth, as defined in the federal
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, without any proof of
residency or other documentation; specify that proof of
residency of a parent within a school district shall not be
required for an unaccompanied youth; and, specify that a
school district shall accept a declaration of residency
executed by the unaccompanied youth in lieu of a declaration
of residency executed by his or her parent or legal guardian.
4)Delete existing law related to residency requirements for
school districts adjacent to an international border.
AB 207
Page 2
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative
Counsel.
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 documents which would very likely
lead to disclosure of a student's immigration status and would
AB 207
Page 3
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's | name and | attached |
| License with | address of | |
| vehicle | parent and | Payroll/Check Stub with name |
| registration | property | & address |
| Current CA | manager | Other form |
| ID | Current | of |
| Current | property tax | identification |
| Military ID | bill | or |
| | Current | correspondence |
| | Homeowner's or | from a |
| | Renter's | government |
| | Insurance |agency |
| | Policy | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Acalanes Union High School District Web site.
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: 0001313