BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 745|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 745
Author: Hernandez (D)
Amended: 6/30/11
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-3, 5/11/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Vargas
NOES: Runner, Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Simitian, Vacancy
SENATE FLOOR : 21-14, 6/1/11
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n,
DeSaulnier, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Pavley, Price, Steinberg,
Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Cannella, Dutton,
Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa,
Strickland, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Evans, Padilla, Rubio, Runner, Simitian
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-30, 7/11/11 - See last page for vote
SENATE FLOOR : 22-13, 8/22/11
AYES: Alquist, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier,
Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Rubio,
Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Cannella, Dutton,
Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa, Runner,
Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Price, Simitian, Strickland,
Wyland
CONTINUED
SB 745
Page
2
SUBJECT : Pupils: school attendance: school districts
of choice
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes second tier priorities for
attendance in a district of choice to include English
learners, pupils who are individuals with exceptional
needs, as specified, and pupils who are eligible for free
and reduced-price meals.
Assembly Amendments add a provision requiring a district of
choice to ensure that a pupil who transfers into a school
district is enrolled in a school with a higher Academic
Performance Index score than the school in which the pupil
was previously enrolled.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
1.Authorizes districts to become a district of choice and
accept interdistrict transfers. A district of choice is
not required to admit pupils but it is required to select
those pupils that it does elect to admit through a random
process that does not choose pupils based upon academic
or athletic talent. Either the district of residence or
district of choice may prevent a transfer under this law
if the transfer exacerbates racial segregation.
2.Requires that if the number of transfer applications
exceeds the number of transfers under the district of
choice program, the governing board must conduct a random
drawing held in public at a regularly scheduled meeting
of the governing board.
3.Prohibits a district of choice from rejecting a transfer
of a pupil based upon a determination that the additional
cost of educating the pupil exceeds the amount of
additional state aid received as a result of the
transfer. A school district may reject the transfer of a
CONTINUED
SB 745
Page
3
pupil if the transfer of that pupil requires the district
to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that
a district of choice shall not reject the transfer of a
special needs pupil, including an individual with
exceptional needs and an English learner.
4.Requires a district of choice to give priority for
attendance to siblings of children already in attendance
in that district, and authorizes a district of choice to
give priority for attendance to children of military
personnel.
5.Specifies that districts of residence that have a
negative budget certification, as determined by the
county office of education, may limit the number of
pupils transferring out in that fiscal year. Districts
of residence may limit the number of pupils who transfer
out of the district if the county superintendent of
schools determines that the district will not meet the
standards and criteria for fiscal stability due to such
transfers, as specified; and specifies that students who
have already been accepted to transfer to a district of
choice before a district of residence takes action to
limit the number of transfers, shall be permitted to
attend the district of choice, as specified.
6.Requires each district of choice to keep records of
various information on, among other things, the number of
requests granted, denied, or withdrawn, as well as the
reasons for the denials. The district of choice program
becomes inoperative on July 1, 2016, and repealed on
January 1, 2017.
This bill establishes a second tier priorities for
attendance in a district of choice. Specifically, this
bill:
1.Requires a district of choice to give priority for
attendance as follows:
A. First priority to siblings of pupils already in
attendance in that district (current law).
B. Second priority to all of the following:
CONTINUED
SB 745
Page
4
(1) English learners.
(2) Pupils who are individuals with exceptional
needs.
(3) Pupils who are eligible for free and reduced
price meals.
2.Requires the school district to conduct a lottery in the
group priority order to select pupils at random if the
number of priority pupils who request to attend a
particular school exceeds the number of spaces available
at that school.
3.Requires a district of choice to comply with the priority
requirements before admitting other pupils who request to
transfer into the district.
4.Requires a district of choice to ensure that a pupil who
transfers into a school district is enrolled in a school
with a higher Academic Performance Index score than the
school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
Comments
California law provides that a student may attend a
district of choice without obtaining an interdistrict
transfer. Unlike the main interdistrict transfer law, the
district of choice law does not require an agreement
between the district of residence and the receiving
district in order for receiving district of choice to admit
interdistrict transfers. Some educational advocates have
credited the district of choice program with expanding
parental choice by removing geographical restrictions,
thereby expanding educational opportunities for children.
Others, however, maintain that the district of choice
program limits educational opportunities and choice for
students, as some districts employ selective processes and
recruitment.
Prior Legislation
AB 2370 (Hernandez), 2009-10 Session, is very similar to
this bill; however, it also included a requirement that
pupils who transfer into the district be enrolled in a
CONTINUED
SB 745
Page
5
school with an Academic Performance Index score that is
higher than the school in which the pupil was previously
enrolled. (Failed passage in Senate Education Committee)
SB 680 (Romero), Chapter 198, Statutes of 2009, extended
the district of choice program to July 1, 2016, repealed
the prohibition on new districts selecting to become
districts of choice, and required the Legislative Analyst's
Office to complete an evaluation of this program by
November 1, 2014. Passed the Senate with a vote of 38-0 on
September 2, 2009.
AB 1407 (Huffman), 2009-10 Session, would have extended the
district of choice program from July 1, 2009 until July
1,2014, and would have required the California Department
of Education to prepare and submit a census report to the
Legislature that evaluates interdistrict transfer options
within the state. (Held in Assembly Appropriations
Committee)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/12/11)
Alhambra Unified School District
Azusa Unified School District
Baldwin Park Unified School District
Bassett Unified School District
Californians Together
Charter Oak Unified School District
Disability Rights California
El Monte Union High School District
Fillmore Unified School District
Mountain View School District
Pasadena Unified School District
Rowland Unified School District
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Whittier City School District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"SB 745 will guarantee the same priority for attendance to
the most vulnerable, socio-economically disadvantaged
CONTINUED
SB 745
Page
6
students, and students with special needs. It will allow
parents to secure for their children the best public
education available in a traditional public school setting.
Expanding priority to this group of pupils will also
prevent districts of choice from cherry picking students -
enrolling top students while avoiding those who score
historically lower and cost more to educate."
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
"I am returning Senate Bill 745 without my signature.
While I support the author's intent to protect students
from potentially disparate admissions treatment under
district of choice programs, current law already contains
appropriate safeguards and I have not been presented with
evidence that demonstrates that a problem exists that
warrants a statewide directive."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Block, Blumenfield,
Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Butler, Charles Calderon,
Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon,
Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Buchanan, Conway, Cook,
Donnelly, Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman,
Halderman, Harkey, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beall, Gorell, Mitchell
CPM:cm 1/4/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 745
Page
7
CONTINUED