BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1575
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1575 (Lara) - As Introduced: February 1, 2012
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a school district, school, or other entity
working under the supervision of, or in coordination with, a
district or school, from imposing a fee for participation in
education activities. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "pupil fee" as a fee, deposit, or other charge imposed
on pupils or parent/guardians, which require educational
activities to be provided free of charge to all pupils without
regard to their families' ability or willingness to pay fees
or request special waivers, as specified. Further specifies a
pupil fee includes, but is not limited to:
a) A fee charged to a pupil as a condition for registering
for school or classes or as a condition of participating in
an extracurricular activity, as specified.
b) A security deposit or other payment a pupil is required
to make to obtain a lock, locker, book, class apparatus,
musical instrument, uniform, or other materials or
equipment.
c) A purchase that a pupil is required to make to obtain
materials, supplies, equipment, or uniforms associated with
an educational activity.
2)Defines "educational activity" as an activity offered by a
school, district, charter school, or county office of
education (COE) that constitutes an integral part of
elementary and secondary education, including curricular and
extracurricular activities.
3)Requires all supplies, materials, and equipment needed to
AB 1575
Page 2
participate in educational activities to be provided to pupils
free of charge. Further prohibits a fee waiver policy from
making a fee permissible.
4)Prohibits a school district or school from the following:
a) Establishing a two-tier educational system by requiring
a minimal educational standard and also offering a higher
educational standard that pupils may only obtain through
payment of a fee or purchase additional supplies that the
district or school does not provide.
b) Offering a course credit or privileges related to
educational activities in exchange for money or donations
of goods or services from a pupil or a pupil's
parents/guardians, as specified.
5)Specifies this legislation not be interpreted to prohibit
solicitation of voluntary donations of funds or property,
voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or
districts, schools and other entities from providing pupil
prizes or other recognition for voluntarily participating in
fundraising activities.
6)Requires, beginning with the 2012-13 fiscal year, the
superintendent of a school district, COE, or chief executive
officer (CEO) of a charter school to determine (within the
first eight weeks of the school year) whether pupil fees for
participation in educational activities have been charged, or
are being charged, within the current fiscal year (FY), as
specified.
7)Requires the superintendent or CEO, if a unlawful fees were or
are being charged, to present this information at a regularly
scheduled public hearing of the governing board to identify
the nature of the violation and take action to provide full
reimbursement to affected parties within 10 weeks of the
beginning of the school year, as specified.
8)Requires existing financial and compliance audits conducted by
school districts, beginning with audits of the 2012-13 FY, to
include pupil fee requirements. Further requires charter
schools to comply with audits associated with pupil fees, as
specified.
9)Adds compliance with pupil fee requirements to the existing
AB 1575
Page 3
uniform complaint process (UCP) established under the Williams
v. State of California settlement agreement (2004). Further
requires charter schools to utilize its existing uniform
complain process established in regulations, with
modifications.
10)Requires a notice to be posted in each classroom of a charter
school notifying parents/guardians, pupils, and teachers of
the following: (a) pupils are not to be charged fees and (b)
the location in which to obtain a form to file a complaint in
case of a shortage of complaint forms (authorizes a
downloadable notice to satisfy this requirement), as
specified.
11)Requires a district, COE, and charter school to establish
local policies and procedures to post notices and implement
the UCP provisions regarding pupil fees on or before March 1,
2013.
12)Requires the SPI to withhold one percent of administrative
costs of school districts, COEs, or charter schools from the
next principal or general purpose apportionment, if the
auditor finds the entity's violation of pupil fee requirements
has not been corrected or the entity has a new audit exception
for this purpose, as specified. Further requires the SPI to
hold these withholdings in trust until the entity has
reimbursement has been made.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown GF/98 cost pressure, of approximately $20 million, to
school districts, COEs, and charter schools to reimburse
pupils/parents to backfill the loss of fees. This assumes
approximately five percent of students are being assessed a
fee. Since this bill requires districts, COEs, and charter
schools to reimburse pupils/parents, it is possible these
agencies will file a state mandate claim to seek reimbursement
from the state. Previous court cases have determined it is
illegal to charge pupil fees, however, the Commission on State
Mandates (CSM) may determine the requirement to reimburse a
mandate.
AB 1575
Page 4
2)GF/98 costs, likely in excess of $700,000, to school
districts, COEs, and charter schools to meet the requirements
of this bill related to audit compliance requirements.
Depending how large the district or COE, this work is likely
to be extensive due to maintaining information for annual
audits and the gathering of information related to all
educational activities. The costs incurred by school
districts and COEs, at least $600,000, are likely reimbursable
under the state mandate provisions. According to a May 2006
decision by the CSM, charter schools are not eligible to claim
mandate reimbursements. In denying charter schools' mandate
claims, the CSM repeatedly cites the fact that charter schools
are "voluntarily" created. As such, costs to charter schools
are not state reimbursable and considered GF/98 cost pressure.
3)GF administrative costs, of approximately $350,000, to the
State Department of Education (SDE) to administer the
provisions of this bill. Specifically, SDE asserts it needs
staff to conduct appeals and implement any penalties incurred
to school districts, COEs, and charter schools for not
complying with this measure.
4)Potential GF/98 cost pressure, of at least $1 million, to
county superintendents to monitor complaint process provisions
of this measure.
The 2011 Budget Act allocates approximately $8 million to COEs
to conduct monitoring of the uniform compliant process
requirements established by the Williams v. State of
California (2004) settlement agreement and the Valenzuela v.
O'Connell (2007) settlement agreement, as specified.
COMMENTS
1)Background . In September 2010, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court
on behalf of public school students against the State of
California and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The complaint
was letter refilled against SPI Tom Torlakson, the SDE, and
the State Board of Education (SBE). The complaint states: "By
allowing its public school districts to condition access to
educational services and the quality of educational services
offered to students dependent upon payment of student fees,
AB 1575
Page 5
the state has failed to perform its constitutional duty of
ensuring basic educational equality irrespective of economic
status. It thereby sanctions a dual school system which
deliberately favors students from families of means over
students from disadvantaged households. Although the State
may currently be operating under difficult budgetary
constraints, 'financial hardship is no defense to a violation
of the free school guarantee.' Hartzell, 35 Cal. 3d at 9l2.
The California Constitution's guarantee to a free and equal
public education is absolute and cannot be qualified by the
finances of either the State or the students' families."
In May 2011, the ACLU met with the defendants in the case (SPI
and SBE) and submitted a Joint Status Statement to the court
stating: "Plaintiffs and the State Education Defendants would
agree to a temporary stay of all proceedings to allow for
movement of Assembly Bill 165 through the legislative process.
If AB 165 (Lara), which was pursued in 2011, passes through
the Assembly and Senate and is signed by the Governor, it may
provide the full relief sought in Plaintiff s First Amended
Complaint, and therefore this litigation would no longer be
necessary. In light of the legislative timeline described
above, Plaintiffs and the State Education Defendants believe
that extending the stay for, at most, the several months
necessary to ascertain the bill's prospects for passage is
appropriate."
In September 2011, the governor vetoed AB 165. As a result,
the validity of the Joint Status Statement is unclear as well
as the stay. In January 2012, the Los Angeles Superior Court
overruled demurrers, which test the legal sufficiency of the
complaint filed by the defendants (state and SDE). As a
result, the lawsuit moves forward.
According to the author, the provisions of this bill provide
what is necessary to settle the complaint.
2)The Williams v. State of California case (2004) concerned
three aspects of K-12 education: instructional materials,
teacher qualifications, and facilities. The settlement obliges
schools to take steps to ensure (a) all students have
sufficient textbooks and materials; (b) teachers have
appropriate qualifications for their assignments; and (c)
facilities are clean, safe, and maintained in good repair
AB 1575
Page 6
In order to enforce requirements related to the issues
referenced above, a uniform complaint process in every
district with schools subject to the settlement was
established. The county superintendent of schools is required
to monitor districts' compliance with this complaint process.
3)AB 347 (Nava), Chapter 526, Statutes of 2007 , established
requirements stipulated in the Valenzuela v. O'Connell et al.
settlement agreement. Specifically, this bill required each
county superintendent of schools to annually verify that
pupils who have not passed the high school exit examination by
the end of grade 12 are informed they are entitled to receive
intensive instruction and services, as specified. These
requirements were added to the existing Williams Settlement
complaint process.
Chapter 526 also established a funding mechanism for county
superintendents to be compensated for monitoring duties
related to the high school exit examination, as specified.
4)Opposition . Education organizations (California Association
of School Business Officials, Association of California School
Administrators, and the Riverside County School
Superintendents Association) argue the bill imposes burdensome
requirements in a time when school districts are experiencing
severe financial hardships. These organizations agree it is
reasonable to determine if illegal fees are being charged.
They argue, however, the enforcement mechanisms outlined in
the bill over reach and establish new costs that cannot be
absorbed.
Specifically, the California Association of School Business
Officials (CASBO) states, "AB 1575 would expand the annual
audit process to include review of fees. This will increase
the costs of annual audits, and require additional time
commitments from a part of our staff that has been reduced
dramatically over the past few years due to budget reductions.
Using the UCP and requiring superintendents to identify fees
and arrange for reimbursements is more than enough to enforce
the provision of the bill; adding millions of dollars of
central office staff is unreasonable and unnecessary."
5)Previous legislation . AB 165 (Lara), substantially
similar to this bill, was vetoed by Gov. Brown in
AB 1575
Page 7
September 2011 with the following message:
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 charging 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081