BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1575|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1575
Author: Lara (D), et al.
Amended: 8/21/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-1, 6/27/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian, Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Hancock, Huff, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/16/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-22, 5/31/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Pupil fees
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill codifies the Constitutional
prohibition on the imposition of pupil fees and establishes
policies to ensure compliance with the prohibition.
ANALYSIS : The California Constitution (Cal. Const.)
requires 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. (Cal. Const., Article IX, Section 5)
CONTINUED
AB 1575
Page
2
Existing law establishes that state-supported educational
opportunities are a right to be enjoyed without regard to
economic status and prohibits school officials from
requiring any pupil, except for pupils in classes for
adults, to purchase any instructional material for the
pupils' use in the school.
(Education Code (ED) Section 51004 and Section 60070)
Existing law specifies that a pupil enrolled in a school
shall not be required to pay any fee, deposit, or other
charge not specifically authorized by law.
(California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Section
350)
Existing law, through the CCR, requires school districts to
adopt Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) that provide a
process by which the public can file written statements
alleging discrimination or a violation of a federal or
state law and that delineate the responsibilities of the
complainant, the local educational agency, and the
California Department of Education (CDE). Existing law,
through statute, establishes a UCP for complaints regarding
instructional materials, emergency or urgent facilities
conditions that pose a threat to the health and safety of
pupils, and teacher vacancy or misassignment.
(CCR, Title 5, Section 4600 and ED Section 35186)
This bill:
1. Specifies a pupil enrolled in a public school shall not
be required to pay a pupil fee for participation in an
educational activity.
2. Defines "pupil fee" as a fee, deposit, or other charge
imposed on pupils, or a pupil's parents or guardians in
violation of Section 49011 of the Cal. Const. 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 that a fee
includes but is not limited to:
CONTINUED
AB 1575
Page
3
A. A fee charged to a pupil as a condition for
registering for school or classes or as a condition
for participation in a class or an extracurricular
activity, regardless of whether the class or activity
is elective or compulsory, or is for credit.
B. A security deposit or other payment that 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 educational activities.
3. Requires all supplies, materials, and equipment needed
to participate in educational activities to be provided
to pupils free of charge and specifies that a fee-waiver
policy shall not make a pupil fee permissible.
4. Prohibits school districts and schools from establishing
a two-tier educational system or offering 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 or guardians.
5. Prohibits a school district or school from offering
course credit or privileges related to educational
activities in exchange for money or donations of goods
or services from a pupil or pupil's parents or
guardians, and prohibits a school district or school
from removing course credit or privileges related to
educational activities, or otherwise discriminate
against a pupil because the pupil or the pupil's parents
or guardians did not or will not provide money or
donations of goods or services to the school district or
school.
6. Specifies that this legislation not be interpreted to
prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations of funds or
property, voluntary participation in fundraising
activities, or school districts and schools from
providing pupils prizes or other recognition for
voluntarily participating in fundraising activities.
CONTINUED
AB 1575
Page
4
7. Specifies that the prohibition against pupil fees
applies to all public schools, including, but not
limited to, charter schools and alternative schools.
8. Specifies a complaint of noncompliance with the
requirements of this article may be filed with the
principal of a school under the UCP.
9. Specifies that a complaint may be filed anonymously if
the complaint provides evidence or information leading
to evidence to support an allegation of noncompliance
with the requirements of this article.
10.Specifies that a complainant not satisfied with the
decision of a public school may appeal the decision to
the CDE and shall receive a written appeal decision
within 60 days of the CDE's receipt of the appeal.
11.States that if a public school finds merit in a
complaint, or the CDE finds merit in an appeal, the
public school shall provide a remedy to all affected
pupils, parents, and guardians that, where applicable,
includes reasonable efforts by the public school to
ensure full reimbursement to all affected pupils,
parents, and guardians, subject to procedures
established through regulations adopted by the state
board.
12.States that information regarding the requirements of
this article shall be included in the annual
notification distributed to pupils, parents and
guardians, employees, and other interested parties.
13.Requires public schools to establish local policies and
procedures to implement the provisions of this section
on or before March 1, 2013.
14.Provides for local educational agencies to be reimbursed
for costs associated with complying with this bill if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that the act
contains mandated costs.
Background
CONTINUED
AB 1575
Page
5
The Cal. Const. entitles public school pupils to a free and
equal education and current law specifies that
state-supported educational opportunities are a right to be
enjoyed without regard to economic status. Additionally,
the CCR prohibits schools from charging pupils fees,
deposits, or other charges not specifically authorized by
law. In 1984, the California Supreme Court ruled in
Hartzell v. Connell that public schools cannot charge
students or families fees as a condition for participating
in educational programs, including extracurricular
activities. The Court opined that because extracurricular
activities are an integral component of public education
and are therefore part of the educational program, they
must be free. The opinion further stated that "imposition
of fees as a precondition for participation in
non-statutory educational programs offered by public high
school districts on a non-credit basis violates the free
school guarantee."
In August 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
released a report that detailed the results of an
investigation that found more than 50 public school
districts that charge pupil fees for participating in
educational programs. The types of fees ranged from
charges for text books, workbooks, science lab fees,
material fees for fine arts classes, and required purchases
of physical education uniforms. The study found that
charges for participation in extracurricular activities
were often in the hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of
dollars.
In September 2010, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit
against the state (Jane Doe, et al. v. State of California,
et al., Super. Court, Los Angeles County, 2010, BC445151)
claiming that many of the fees charged for school
activities and supplies violate the Cal. Const. and various
provisions of the ED and seeking an injunction directing
the State of California to develop a monitoring and
enforcement system to prevent the imposition of
unconstitutional fees.
In December 2010, former Governor Schwarzenegger and the
ACLU announced a tentative settlement in Doe v. California.
CONTINUED
AB 1575
Page
6
The settlement 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 Superintendent of Public Instruction, the CDE,
and the State Board of Education (State Defendants). In
May 2011, the State 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 suggested that the action be dismissed, pending
movement of AB 165 (Lara, 2012), through the legislative
process. However, AB 165, which was passed by the Senate
Education Committee on a 6-1 vote, was subsequently vetoed
by Governor Brown. The 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 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."
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 case is
pending before the court.
Administrative and fiscal impact . The administrative
requirements of
this bill are substantially reduced from those proposed by
AB 165. While this bill still requires notices posted in
classrooms to include information about how to file a
complaint about the imposition of fees for participation in
educational activities, supporters maintain that the
uniform complaint procedure is an appropriate enforcement
mechanism and one that works well for local educational
agencies.
CONTINUED
AB 1575
Page
7
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/21/12)
ACLU of California
Association of American Publishers
Association of California School Administrators
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California Catholic Conference
California Federation of Teachers
Californian's Together
Los Angeles Unified School District
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-22, 5/31/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis,
Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani,
Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill,
Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, Beth Gaines,
Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Logue, Miller, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen,
Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Charles Calderon,
Fletcher, Gorell, Mansoor, Mendoza, Norby, Valadao
PQ/RM:k 8/21/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 1575
Page
8
CONTINUED