BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1575
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1575 (Lara)
As Amended August 21, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-22|(May 31, 2012) |SENATE: |23-13|(August 23, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Codifies the constitutional prohibition on the
imposition of pupil fees and establishes procedures to ensure
compliance with that prohibition. Specifically, this bill :
1)Statutorily prohibits all local education agencies (LEAs) from
imposing pupil fees.
2)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; and,
b) A security deposit or other payment to obtain or
purchase a lock, locker, class apparatus, musical
instrument, uniform, or other materials or equipment.
3)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.
4)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.
5)Provides that the guidance shall not constitute a regulation.
6)States that the provisions regarding the definition of and
AB 1575
Page 2
prohibition against pupil fees are declaratory of existing
law.
7)Authorizes a complaint of noncompliance with the prohibition
against pupil fees to be filed with the principal of a school
under the existing Uniform Complaint Procedures process and
authorizes a complainant who is not satisfied with the
decision of the school to appeal the decision to the
California Department of Education (CDE).
8)Requires, if a complaint is found to be meritorious, the
school to provide a remedy to all affected pupils, parents,
and guardians including, where applicable, reasonable efforts
to ensure full reimbursement of illegally assessed fees.
9)Requires schools to include information regarding the
prohibition against pupil fees and the complaint procedure in
the annual Uniform Complaint Procedure notice distributed to
pupils, parents and guardians.
10)Exempts the cost of reimbursements for illegally assessed
pupil fees from eligibility for state mandated cost
reimbursement.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)$400,000 cost to the CDE for administration and local support.
2)Substantial mandate on local education agencies to adopt and
implement policies regarding the prohibition against pupil
fees, to administer a complaint process, and to train
appropriate staff.
3)Vesting the SPI with the authority to require fee
reimbursement from individual local education agencies could
result in a reimbursable mandate.
COMMENTS : 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.
AB 1575
Page 3
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 2011
the 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). Governor Brown vetoed AB 165 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 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.
After AB 165 was vetoed by the Governor, the court case was
reactivated. On January 26, 2012, the court overruled demurrers
AB 1575
Page 4
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0005214