BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1575
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1575 (Lara)
As Amended May 30, 2012
Majority vote
EDUCATION 6-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Butler, Carter, Eng, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Williams | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Halderman, Wagner |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
withhold a specified amount of a local education agency's
(LEA's) administrative expenditures if the LEA has an
unresolved or new audit exception.
3)Requires LEAs to use the existing uniform complaint process to
identify and resolve complaints regarding violations of the
prohibition against pupil fees.
4)Requires the prohibition against pupil fees and the complaint
AB 1575
Page 2
procedure to be added to the existing notice posted in each
classroom regarding the sufficiency of instructional
materials, maintenance of facilities, and teacher assignments
by March 1, 2013.
5)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 SPI,
and requires the SPI to order the reimbursement of any fees
determined to be unlawful.
6)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.
7)Requires the California Department of Education, commencing in
2014-15 and every three years thereafter, to develop and
distribute guidance regarding pupil fees and make it available
on its Internet Web site.
8)Provides that the guidance shall not constitute a regulation.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, potential General Fund (Proposition 98) cost pressure
of at least $1 million to county superintendents of schools to
monitor compliant process provisions of this measure.
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
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
AB 1575
Page 3
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.
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., (2010) Super. Ct. Los Angeles
County, 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
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
AB 1575
Page 4
imposition of pupil fees. Therefore, if the Legislature does
not enact its own solution, it is almost certain that the court
will order one.
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0004017