BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 381
AUTHOR: Pavley
INTRODUCED: February 15, 2011
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: March 30, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : School attendance: residency requirements.
SUMMARY
This bill extends authorization for a pupil to enroll in
school where the parent or guardian of that pupil is
employed, rather than where the pupil resides. The
inoperative date would be extended from July 1, 2012 to
July 1, 2017.
BACKGROUND
Current law provides several means to authorize a pupil who
resides in one school district to attend public school in
another district. The main authorization provides for
inter-district attendance when the district of residence
and district of proposed attendance establish, for period
of up to five years, an interdistrict transfer agreement.
(Education Code � 46600)
In addition to interdistrict attendance agreements, current
law authorizes pupils to attend school in a district where
the pupil's parent works, rather than where the pupil and
parent reside. The district where the parent is employed is
not required to admit the pupil but is prohibited from
refusing admission on the basis of the arbitrary
consideration such as race, ethnicity, sex, parental
income, scholastic achievement. The receiving (parental
employment) district may also refuse the transfer if it
determines that the costs of the transfer would exceed the
added revenues (thus preventing mandated costs). Either
district of residence or parental employment may prohibit
the transfer if it would negatively affect a desegregation
plan and the district of residence is not required to allow
more transfers than specified limits based upon the size of
SB 381
Page 2
the district. (EC � 48204)
ANALYSIS
This bill extends authorization for a pupil to enroll in
school where the parent or guardian of that pupil is
employed, rather than resides. The inoperative date would
be changed from July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2017.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office
continuing to provide parents and legal guardians with
the flexibility of enrolling their children in school
near their workplaces, gives them an opportunity to
participate in their children's education. This
measure extends an option that has been available to
working parents, and does not place any new
requirements on school districts. This option has
proven to be invaluable to families and should be
continued.
2) Continuing to provide parents and guardians with the
flexibility to enroll their children in schools near
their workplace provides parents with the opportunity
to engage in their children's education. However,
there have been reports where a parent obtains
part-time weekend employment within the boundaries of
another school district and uses that employment to
justify school attendance for their child. Therefore,
a strengthening of the nexus between a parent's place
of employment and school of attendance is in
reasonable order. Staff recommends an amendment that
continues to permit "A school district to deem a pupil
has complied with the residency requirements for
school attendance in the district if at least one
parent or the legal guardian of the pupil is
physically employed within the boundaries of that
district during a majority of hours that the pupil is
scheduled to be in school."
The amendment is intended to limit abuses of current
law, which can be interpreted to allow any employment
to qualify under current statute, even if only
part-time on weekends, unassociated with the timing of
a school day. This will also maintain the underlying
SB 381
Page 3
integrity of the statute which is to permit parents
the flexibility to engage in their child's education
if having to commute long distances to their place of
employment.
3) Similar legislation . SB 268 (Wright), among other
things, includes a similar provision to extend the
parental employment interdistrict attendance option by
one year only and clarifies that physical employment
of the parent is for the majority of time that the
pupil is scheduled to be in school.
SUPPORT
Clovis Unified School District
EdVoice
Las Virgenes Unified School District
Long Beach Unified School District
Orange County Department of Education
Oak Park Unified School District
2 individuals
OPPOSITION
None received.