BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1575
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 21, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1575 (Lara) - As Introduced: February 1, 2012
SUBJECT : Pupil fees
SUMMARY : Codifies the constitutional prohibition on the
imposition of pupil fees and establishes procedures to ensure
compliance with that prohibition. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "pupil fee" to include:
a) A fee charged as a condition for registering for or
participating in a school or class or extracurricular
activity that is an integral part of elementary and
secondary education.
b) A security deposit or other payment to obtain or
purchase a lock, locker, class apparatus, musical
instrument, uniform, or other materials or equipment.
2)Requires, within the first eight weeks of the school year, the
district superintendent, the county superintendent of schools,
or the chief executive officer of a charter school to
determine whether prohibited fees have been or are being
assessed.
3)Requires full reimbursement of prohibited fees within the
first 10 weeks of the school year and requires the assessment
of prohibited fees be disclosed in a regularly scheduled
meeting of the school district or county office of education
governing board or governing body of a charter school.
4)Adds compliance with the prohibition against pupil fees to the
annual financial audit required of local education agencies
(LEAs, which include charter schools) and requires this
provision to be added to the K-12 audit guide commencing with
the 2012-13 fiscal year.
5)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to withhold
a specified amount of a local education agency's
administrative expenditures if the LEA has an unresolved or
new audit exception.
6)Requires LEAs to use the existing uniform complaint process to
identify and resolve complaints regarding violations of the
prohibition against pupil fees.
7)Requires the prohibition against pupil fees and the complaint
procedure to be added to the existing notice posted in each
classroom regarding the sufficiency of instructional
AB 1575
Page 2
materials, maintenance of facilities, and teacher assignments
by March 1, 2013.
8)Requires school site administrators or other designees to
investigate and resolve complaints, authorizes a complainant
who is not satisfied with the resolution to appeal to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and requires the
SPI to order the reimbursement of any fees determined to be
unlawful.
9)Clarifies that this bill does not prohibit solicitation of
voluntary donations of funds or property, voluntary
participation in fundraising activities, or school districts,
schools, and other entities from providing pupils prizes or
other recognition for voluntarily participating in fundraising
activities.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires, in the California Constitution, the Legislature to
"provide for a system of common schools by which a free school
shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six
months in every year, after the first year in which a school
has been established."
2)Requires each local education agency to adopt policies and
procedures to ensure compliance with applicable state and
federal laws and regulations, including the establishment of a
uniform system of complaint process for specified programs; to
provide for an annual audit of its books and accounts, as
specified; and to post a notice in each classroom in each
school notifying parents, guardians, pupils and teachers of
specified compliance requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee analysis of a virtually identical bill, AB 165 (Lara),
in 2011, this bill will likely cost the state tens of millions
of dollars in reimbursable mandated costs plus up to $400,000
per year for California Department of Education administrative
costs. If this bill is not enacted, however, the court will
re-open the Doe v. California settlement agreement, which will
likely present different (and unknown) state costs.
COMMENTS : This bill codifies the existing constitutional
prohibition on the assessment of pupil fees and establishes
administrative processes to notify pupils and parents of their
rights, investigate and identify the assessment of prohibited
AB 1575
Page 3
fees, and provide for the reimbursement of prohibited fees. It
is a reintroduction of AB 165 (Lara), which was vetoed by the
Governor last year. The Governor's veto message read:
This bill responds to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU
against the state, alleging that some local school
districts are denying students their right to a free
public education by charting improper fees for classes
and extracurricular activities. Local district
compliance with this right is essential, and those who
fail should be held accountable. But this bill takes
the wrong approach to getting there.
The bill would mandate that every single classroom in
California post a detailed notice and that all 1,042
school districts and over 1,200 charter schools follow
specific complaint, hearing and audit procedures, even
where there have been no complaints, let alone
evidence of any violation. This goes too far.
Background: The California Supreme Court ruled in Hartzell v.
Connell (1984; 35 Cal.3d 899, 201) that pupil fees violate the
constitutional right to a free education. Moreover, the court
ruled that extracurricular activities also must be free, because
they are an integral component of public education and a part of
the educational program. The issue of pupil fees has been
litigated many times since Hartzell, and in nearly all cases the
outcome has been a settlement or court decision favorable to the
plaintiffs.
In September 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
filed a class action lawsuit alleging the unconstitutional
assessment of pupil fees by school districts �Jane Doe, et al.
v. State of California, et al., (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County,
2010, BC445151)]. The lawsuit followed an August 2010 report
from the ACLU that documented more than 50 public school
districts that required pupils to pay fees for textbooks,
workbooks, science labs, physical education uniforms, classroom
materials, and extracurricular activities.
In December 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger and the ACLU announced
a tentative settlement that would have established a monitoring
and enforcement system, but the court did not finalize the
settlement. The following April the ACLU filed an amended
complaint that dropped the Governor as a defendant and added the
AB 1575
Page 4
SPI, the California Department of Education, and the State Board
of Education (the "State Education Defendants"). In May 2011the
State Education Defendants and the ACLU agreed to a stay of
court proceedings to allow for a legislative solution. The
State of California did not agree to the stay and instead
suggested that the case be dismissed pending the outcome of the
legislative process.
The legislative solution, which was supported by the ACLU, was
AB 165 (Lara). After AB 165 was vetoed by the Governor, the
court case was reactivated. On January 26, 2012 the court
overruled demurrers filed by the State of California and the
State Education Defendants, allowing the legal case to move
forward. The courts have consistently ruled against the
imposition of pupil fees. Therefore, if the Legislature does
not enact its own solution, it is almost certain that the court
will order one.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California Association for Bilingual Education
Californians Together
Public Advocates
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087