(1)Existing law requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years, who is not otherwise exempt, to attend the public full-time day school in the school district in which his or her parent or guardian is a resident. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to accept pupils from other school districts by adopting a resolution to become a school district of choice, as defined, and authorizes the governing board of a school district of choice to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. Existing law authorizes either a pupils school district of residence or a school district of choice to prohibit the transfer of a pupil into a school district of choice or limit the number of pupils transferred into a school district of choice if the governing board of the school district determines that the transfer would negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district or the racial and ethnic balance of the school district. Existing law requires a school district of choice, at its expense, to ensure that the auditor who conducts the annual financial audit of the school district reviews compliance with the requirements for a random, unbiased selection process and appropriate communications at the same time that he or she is conducting the annual audit, and requires the school district to notify the auditor regarding this compliance review prior to the commencement of the annual audit. in accordance with specified procedural requirements and limitations.

(2)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative on July 1, 2017, and repeals the program on January 1, 2018.

This bill would extend the inoperative date to July 1, 2022, and the repeal date to January 1, 2023.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years, who is not otherwise exempt, to attend the public full-time day school in the school district in which his or her parent or guardian is a resident. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to accept pupils from other school districts by adopting a resolution to become a school district of choice, as defined, and authorizes the governing board of a school district of choice to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. Existing law authorizes either a pupils school district of residence or a school district of choice to prohibit the transfer of a pupil into a school district of choice or limit the number of pupils transferred into a school district of choice if the governing board of the school district determines that the transfer would negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district or the racial and ethnic balance of the school district. Existing law requires a school district of choice, at its expense, to ensure that the auditor who conducts the annual financial audit of the school district reviews compliance with the requirements for a random, unbiased selection process and appropriate communications at the same time that he or she is conducting the annual audit, and requires the school district to notify the auditor regarding this compliance review prior to the commencement of the annual audit.

This bill would require, instead of authorize, the governing board of the school district of choice to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. The bill would authorize only a pupils school district of residence to prohibit the transfer of a pupil into a school district of choice or limit the number of pupils transferred into a school district of choice if the governing board of the school district of residence determines that the transfer would negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district of residence or the racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence. The bill would revise the provisions relating to the audit. The bill would also authorize the parent of a pupil who is denied a transfer to appeal that decision to the county superintendent of schools of the county in which the school district issuing the denial is located, as provided. The bill would also authorize a school district of choice to bring a complaint against a school district of residence and a school district of residence to bring a complaint against a school district of choice to a county superintendent of schools, as provided. The bill would require the county superintendent of schools to rely only on certain provisions of existing law and determine only whether they were applied accurately. To the extent this would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law authorizes a school district of residence, as defined, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out each year by a certain percentage, and also authorizes a school district with an average daily attendance of less than 50,000 to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent budget certification, or to limit the number of pupils to a number identified by the county superintendent of schools, as specified, if the county superintendent determines that the school district will not meet the standards and criteria for fiscal stability for the subsequent fiscal year due to the impact of additional pupil transfers in that fiscal year.

This bill would instead authorize a school district of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the maximum number of pupils enrolled in all school districts of choice, at any given time, to 10% of the average daily attendance. The bill would also establish procedures, as provided, by which school districts of residence may implement the other limits.

(3)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to notify a school district of residence when the school district of choice accepts a pupil from that school district of residence.

This bill would instead require a school district of choice to notify a school district of residence when the school district of choice accepts or provisionally accepts a pupil from that school district of residence, as specified.

(4)Existing law authorizes school districts to make information regarding their schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request.

This bill would instead require school districts to make information regarding their schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request and would require a school district of choice to also make public announcements regarding its schools, programs, policies, and procedures during the enrollment period. To the extent this would impose additional duties on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(5)Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst annually to make specified information regarding districts of choice transfers available to the Governor and the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

This bill would instead assign those duties to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

(6)Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst to conduct, after consulting with appropriate legislative staff, a comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program, make recommendations regarding the extension of the program, incorporate in that evaluation the data annually made available by the Department of Finance, and complete and submit the evaluation and the recommendations to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and the Governor by January 31, 2016.

This bill would, instead, require the Legislative Analyst to complete and submit the evaluation and the recommendations to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and the Governor by January 31, 2020.

(7)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative on July 1, 2017, and repeals the program on January 1, 2018.

This bill would extend the inoperative date to July 1, 2022, and the repeal date to January 1, 2023.

(8)This bill would make other related changes, make clarifying changes, recast certain provisions of existing law, and make other nonsubstantive changes.

(9)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years, who is not otherwise exempt, to attend the public full-time day school in the school district in which his or her parent or guardian is a resident. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to accept pupils from other school districts by adopting a resolution to become a school district of choice, as defined, and authorizes the governing board of a school district of choice to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. Existing law authorizes either a pupils school district of residence or a school district of choice to prohibit the transfer of a pupil into a school district of choice or limit the number of pupils transferred into a school district of choice if the governing board of the school district determines that the transfer would negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district or the racial and ethnic balance of the school district. Existing law requires a school district of choice, at its expense, to ensure that the auditor who conducts the annual financial audit of the school district reviews compliance with the requirements for a random, unbiased selection process and appropriate communications at the same time that he or she is conducting the annual audit, and requires the school district to notify the auditor regarding this compliance review prior to the commencement of the annual audit.

This bill would require, instead of authorize, the governing board of the school district of choice to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. The bill would authorize only a pupils school district of residence to prohibit the transfer of a pupil into a school district of choice or limit the number of pupils transferred into a school district of choice if the governing board of the school district of residence determines that the transfer would negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district of residence or the racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence. The bill would revise the provisions relating to the audit. The bill would also authorize the parent of a pupil who is denied a transfer to appeal that decision to the county superintendent of schools of the county in which the school district issuing the denial is located, as provided. The bill would also authorize a school district of choice to bring a complaint against a school district of residence and a school district of residence to bring a complaint against a school district of choice to a county superintendent of schools, as provided. The bill would require the county superintendent of schools to rely only on certain provisions of existing law and determine only whether they were applied accurately. To the extent this would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law authorizes a school district of residence, as defined, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out each year by a certain percentage, and also authorizes a school district with an average daily attendance of less than 50,000 to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent budget certification, or to limit the number of pupils to a number identified by the county superintendent of schools, as specified, if the county superintendent determines that the school district will not meet the standards and criteria for fiscal stability for the subsequent fiscal year due to the impact of additional pupil transfers in that fiscal year.

This bill would delete the authorization of instead authorize a school district of residence with an average daily attendance of less than 50,000 or less to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program enrolled in all school districts of choice, at any given time, to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. attendance. The bill would also establish procedures, as provided, by which school districts of residence may implement the other limits.

(3)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to notify a school district of residence when the school district of choice accepts a pupil from that school district of residence.

This bill would instead require a school district of choice to notify a school district of residence when the school district of choice accepts or provisionally accepts a pupil from that school district of residence, as specified.

(4)Existing law authorizes school districts to make information regarding their schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request.

This bill would instead require school districts to make information regarding their schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request and would require a school district of choice to also make public announcements regarding its schools, programs, policies, and procedures during the enrollment period. To the extent this would impose additional duties on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(5)Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst annually to make specified information regarding districts of choice transfers available to the Governor and the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

This bill would instead assign those duties to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

(6)Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst to conduct, after consulting with appropriate legislative staff, a comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program, make recommendations regarding the extension of the program, incorporate in that evaluation the data annually made available by the Department of Finance, and complete and submit the evaluation and the recommendations to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and the Governor by January 31, 2016.

This bill would delete those requirements. would, instead, require the Legislative Analyst to complete and submit the evaluation and the recommendations to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and the Governor by January 31, 2020.

(7)Existing law makes the provisions governing districts of choice school district of choice program inoperative on July 1, 2017, and repeals them the program on January 1, 2018.

This bill would delete those provisions, thereby extending the school district of choice program indefinitely. extend the inoperative date to July 1, 2022, and the repeal date to January 1, 2023.

(8)This bill would make other related changes, make clarifying changes, recast certain provisions of existing law, and make other nonsubstantive changes.

(9)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years, who is not otherwise exempt, to attend the public full-time day school in the school district in which his or her parent or guardian is a resident. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to accept pupils from other school districts by adopting a resolution to become a school district of choice, as defined, and authorizes the governing board of a school district of choice to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. Existing law authorizes either a pupils school district of residence or a school district of choice to prohibit the transfer of a pupil into a school district of choice or limit the number of pupils transferred into a school district of choice if the governing board of the school district determines that the transfer would negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district or the racial and ethnic balance of the school district. Existing law requires a school district of choice, at its expense, to ensure that the auditor who conducts the annual financial audit of the school district reviews compliance with the requirements for a random, unbiased selection process and appropriate communications at the same time that he or she is conducting the annual audit, and requires the school district to notify the auditor regarding this compliance review prior to the commencement of the annual audit.

This bill would require, instead of authorize, the governing board of the school district of choice to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. The bill would authorize only a pupils school district of residence to prohibit the transfer of a pupil into a school district of choice or limit the number of pupils transferred into a school district of choice if the governing board of the school district of residence determines that the transfer would negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district of residence or the racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence. The bill would revise the provisions relating to the audit. The bill would also authorize the parent of a pupil who is denied a transfer to appeal that decision to the county superintendent of schools of the county in which the school district issuing the denial is located, as provided. The bill would also authorize a school district of choice to bring a complaint against a school district of residence and a school district of residence to bring a complaint against a school district of choice to a county superintendent of schools, as provided. The bill would require the county superintendent of schools to rely only on certain provisions of existing law and determine only whether they were applied accurately. To the extent this would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law authorizes a school district of residence, as defined, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out each year by a certain percentage, and also authorizes a school district with an average daily attendance of less than 50,000 to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent budget certification, or to limit the number of pupils to a number identified by the county superintendent of schools, as specified, if the county superintendent determines that the school district will not meet the standards and criteria for fiscal stability for the subsequent fiscal year due to the impact of additional pupil transfers in that fiscal year.

This bill would delete the authorization of a school district with an average daily attendance of less than 50,000 to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. The bill would also establish procedures, as provided, by which school districts of residence may implement the other limits.

(3)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to notify a school district of residence when the school district of choice accepts a pupil from that school district of residence.

This bill would instead require a school district of choice to notify a school district of residence when the school district of choice accepts or provisionally accepts a pupil from that school district of residence, as specified.

(4)Existing law authorizes school districts to make information regarding their schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request.

This bill would instead require school districts to make information regarding their schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request and would require a school district of choice to also make public announcements regarding its schools, programs, policies, and procedures during the enrollment period. To the extent this would impose additional duties on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(5)Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst annually to make specified information regarding districts of choice transfers available to the Governor and the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

This bill would instead assign those duties to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

(6)Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst to conduct, after consulting with appropriate legislative staff, a comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program, make recommendations regarding the extension of the program, incorporate in that evaluation the data annually made available by the Department of Finance, and complete and submit the evaluation and the recommendations to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and the Governor by January 31, 2016.

This bill would delete those requirements.

(7)Existing law makes the provisions governing districts of choice inoperative on July 1, 2017, and repeals them on January 1, 2018.

This bill would delete those provisions, thereby extending the school district of choice program indefinitely.

(8)This bill would make other related changes, make clarifying changes, recast certain provisions of existing law, and make other nonsubstantive changes.

(9)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1432

Author:(Huff) – As Amended Ver:June 30, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill revises and recasts provisions of the District of Choice (DOC) program and extends the program through January 1, 2023. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, on or before July 1, 2017, a school district that chooses to be a DOC, to register this status with the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) through the existing school data system (CALPADS) or another system specified by the SPI. Prohibits a district from enrolling students through the DOC program unless the district has registered with the SPI.
2. Requires a DOC to post student transfer information online, including any applicable forms or timelines and an explanation of the DOC selection process for admittance. Requires communications to be provided in all languages, consistent with provisions of existing law regarding translations. Requires the DOC to make public announcements about programs and policies during the enrollment period.
3. Replaces the 10% hard cap on transfers from a district of residence with an 8% rolling cap. A school district of residence must authorize additional students to participate in the DOC program when current program participants leave or graduate, provided that the total number of pupils does not exceed the school district’s 8% cap. Grandfathers in students enrolled prior to the 2018-19 school year without regard to the 8% cap.
4. Authorizes a school district of residence with a negative fiscal status, by resolution at a public meeting, to limit the number of students who may transfer out of the district in that fiscal year and restrict any further pupils from transferring for the upcoming school year.
5. Provides for an appeal process through the county board of education for students that are denied a transfer, similar to the current interdistrict transfer appeals process and authorizes a district of residence or a DOC to file complaints of law violations with the county board.
6. Requires the DOC to provide free transportation assistance to students eligible for free and reduced price meals starting July 1, 2019, if the parent requests the transportation and the student lives at least two, but not more than 10 miles from the school district boundary. Authorizes a DOC to pursue a waiver of this requirement through the State Board of Education, as specified.
7. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to maintain and post a list of all DOCs in the state; collect specified transfer data from each DOC and post information on the department website. Specifies Legislative intent that the SPI collect data in the manner that minimizes the administrative burden for school districts and the state. Requires the SPI to report their plan for collecting data to the Legislature, Governor, and Legislative Analyst's Office by July 1, 2017.
8. Shifts annual reporting requirements, such as pupil performance and the costs of providing transportation, from the LAO to the SPI, but continues to require the LAO to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the program. The LAO report is due January 31, 2020.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing General Fund costs to the California Department of Education of approximately $154,000 for one consultant to maintain the list of DOCs; collect and report data; post information online; respond to inquiries and provide technical assistance to districts. The CDE indicates some of these activities require more than one consultant but CDE can absorb some of this workload.
2. Unknown, potentially reimbursable, state mandated costs for county boards of education to process appeals made by parents regarding a denied transfer and to process complaints made by school districts of choice and school districts of residence purporting a violation of law.
3. This bill will also result in cost pressures on DOCs to comply with additional program requirements; however, since the DOC program is optional, these requirements would not be eligible for reimbursement under state mandate law.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Under current law, established by AB 19 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993, a school board may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of transfers. Unlike the main interdistrict transfer law, the DOC law does not require agreement between the district of residence and the DOC to admit transfers.

The district of residence has little say in the transfer process, except, districts with 50,000 or less ADA may limit the maximum number of transfers each year to 3% of their ADA and may limit transfers for the duration of the program to 10% of their ADA. Districts with more than 50,000 pupils in attendance may refuse to transfer more than 1% of their ADA. A district of residence may also prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer would have a negative impact on a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan or the racial and ethnic balance of the district.

1. Purpose. This bill recasts and revises the DOC program and extends the sunset on the program for an additional five years. This bill also includes several LAO recommendations from a 2015 report of the program. Specifically, the bill repeals the hard cap on program participation and instead provides for a rolling cap; assigns the CDE with more administrative responsibilities, such as maintaining a list of DOCs. This bill also includes a process to allow DOCs and districts of residence to bring concerns of law violations to the county board of education and an appeal process for parents whose children are denied a transfer.
2. Comments. Data from districts of residence that have lost significant numbers of students to DOCs show racial and socio-economic disparities among those who transfer. A recent LAO review of the program confirmed that low income and minority students are not utilizing the DOC program at the same rates as wealthy students, potentially due to lack of transportation or other program challenges. Recent amendments to the bill attempt to address barriers to participation. For example, the bill now requires DOCs to provide transportation services to low income students who request the service.
3. Opposition. The Azusa Unified School District and Duarte Unified School District are opposed to this bill. Both districts note they have instituted the 10% hard cap to limit students from transferring out of their districts. They are opposed to the 8% rolling cap which will allow additional transfers from their district to adjacent DOCs. Both districts are declining in enrollment and are concerned about unpredictable and perpetual unlimited loss of ADA.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 22, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1432

Author:(Huff) – As Amended Ver:May 31, 2016

SENATE VOTE: 38-1

SUBJECT: School attendance: pupil transfer options: school districts of choice

SUMMARY: Extends the sunset and repeal dates for District of Choice (DOC) program, deletes the 10% cap for the total number of students transferring out of districts of residence over time and instead creates a rolling 10% cap, requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to evaluate the program and reassigns certain reporting requirements to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends the sunset of the DOC program to July 1, 2022.
2. Requires, instead of authorizes, the governing board of the DOC to:
   1. Notify parents in writing regarding the status of the application, no later than February 15 of the school year preceding the request for transfer.
   2. If an application is rejected, include the specific reason for the rejection of an application, as provided.
   3. Notify the district of residence if an application is accepted or provisionally accepted no later than March 1 of the school year proceeding the school year for which the student is requesting transfer.
   4. Ensure, by resolution, that students accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process, as specified.
   5. By resolution, determine and adopt the number of transfers it is willing to accept.
3. Makes changes to the audit requirement, specifying that the compliance review be incorporated into the district’s annual audit.
4. Requires DOCs to make public announcements during the enrollment period regarding its schools, programs, policies and procedures.
5. Requires a DOC to post application information on its Internet Web site and include at a minimum all of the following:
   1. Any applicable form and timeline for transfer.
   2. An explanation of the selection process.
6. Authorizes a school district of residence, instead of authorizing both districts of residence and DOCs, to prohibit or limit transfers when the governing board determines that the transfer would negatively impact:
   1. A court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan.
   2. The racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence.
7. Makes changes to the authorization for districts of residence with an average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000, to cap the maximum number of students transferring out at 10 percent based on ADA at a point in time, instead of for the duration of the program. Requires districts of residence to authorize additional students within the cap to participate in the program as current program participants leave or graduate.
8. Modifies the authorization provided to school districts of residence for implementing transfer caps related to the district’s fiscal condition by requiring a board adopted resolution at a public meeting.
9. Specifies that a student may continue to attend a DOC, regardless of transfer restrictions if he or she is attending or has received a notice of acceptance before action is taken by a governing board to restrict further transfers.
10. Requires the SPI to do all of the following:
    1. Maintain a list of the DOCs in the state.
    2. Collect certain information from each DOC.
    3. Post information on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Internet Web site including:
       1. A list of DOCs.
       2. An accounting of all requests made for transfer, as specified.
       3. A single list of all school choice programs.
    4. Report to the Legislature, Governor and LAO a description of the plan for collecting data by July 1, 2017.
    5. Annually make information regarding student transfers under the district of choice program available to the Governor and Legislature and LAO.
11. Authorizes the SPI to require the information collected by DOCs to be provided through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) or another system administered by CDE.
12. Requires LAO to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the program, as specified, and provide recommendations regarding the extension of the program by January 31, 2020.
13. Removes the requirement for the DOF to report specified information to the LAO.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Under the DOC authorization, established by AB 19 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993, a school board may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. A DOC 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 DOC may prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. Each DOC is required to keep records of: 1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The number of pupils transferred into the district; 4) The race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status and the district of residence for each student in #2 and #3 above; and, 5) The number of pupils in #2 and #3 above who are English Learners or individuals with exceptional needs. The DOC program becomes inoperative on July 1, 2017 and repealed on January 1, 2018. (Education Code Section 48300-48316)
2. Requires a DOC to give priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in that district, and authorizes a DOC to give priority for attendance to children of military personnel. (Education Code 48306)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the California Department of Education estimates costs of $132,000 for one position to gather and report specified information required by this bill. (General Fund)

COMMENTS: Under the DOC law, the governing board of any school district may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. A DOC is not required to admit pupils but is required to select those pupils that it does elect to admit through a random process and they are prohibited from choosing pupils based upon academic or athletic talent.

Racial Inequities in the DOC program: Azusa Unified School District has collected data to show that there is a significant difference in the percentages for low-income students who utilize this program--only 18% of students that used DOC were low-income vs 82% total of students in Azusa are considered low-income as they qualify for the free and reduced priced meal program (FRPM).  Azusa Unified's data also shows an overrepresentation of White and Asian students that utilize DOC, and underrepresentation of Hispanic students that utilize DOC.  According to Glendora Unified School District, they receive 37% low income students from Azusa Unified School District, not the 18% that was reported by Azusa Unified.

Other districts of residence can demonstrate similar variances in the demographics of the students who transfer out of their district to attend DOCs. Rowland Unified School District borders Walnut Valley Unified School District, which is a DOC. As of 2009, 1,649 students had transferred out of Rowland Unified and transferred into Walnut Valley Unified under the DOC law. According to CDE data, the overall demographic characteristics of Rowland Unified in 2008-09 included 60.9% Hispanic students and 20.9% Asian students. Rowland Unified School District calculated, based on 727 students of the 1,649 total students who had transferred out of the district under the DOC law in 2009, that Walnut Valley had enrolled 52% Asian students and only 20% Hispanic students from Rowland Unified. One could argue that the percentages of students, by ethnic background, who transferred out of Rowland Unified do not appear to be random since they do not reflect the demographic characteristics of the district overall. In fact, the percentage of Asian students who transferred out of Rowland Unified was more than twice the total percentage of Asian students in the entire district. Conversely, the percentage of Hispanic students who transferred out of Rowland Unified was 1/3 of the total percentage of Hispanic students in the entire district. In 2006-07, Rowland Unified reached the maximum cap of 10%, and the district utilized the authority granted in statute to stop any future students from transferring out of their district under the DOC law, due to concerns that Walnut Valley’s DOC program had negatively impacted the demographic profile of Rowland Unified.

Kern County Office of Education: Data from several Districts of Choice in Kern County show that Hispanic students and low income (Free and Reduced Price eligible) students are not utilizing the District of Choice program at the same rates as wealthy students.

Elk Hills School District:

Elk Hills receives approximately 5% Hispanic students from Taft City, but the population of Hispanic students at Taft City is approximately 54%. Similarly, Elk Hills receives approximately 57% low income students from Taft City, but the population of low income students at Taft City is 83%.

McKittrick Elementary School District:

McKittrick receives approximately 10% low income students from Taft City, but the population of low income students at Taft City is 83%.

Maple Elementary School District:

Maple receives approximately 30% low income students from Wasco, but Wasco's population is 89% low income. Similarly, Maple receives approximately 47% low income students from Richland, but Richland's population of low income students is approximately 87%.

These examples are consistent with the 2016 analysis done by the LAO, and they highlight the long time concerns of the DOC program, that low income and minority students are not able to access to benefits of the program due to a lack of transportation and other program challenges. Based on this evidence, one could argue that the DOC program is segregating California public schools.

Busing. Pond Union School District is a District of Choice and the data from their district tells a different story. In some cases, Pond enrolls a higher percentage of low income and Hispanic students than the sending district's corresponding percentage of those student populations. Pond pays for a bus to pick up students in the districts where they enroll children. Pond receives 94% Hispanic students from Delano, and the population of Hispanic students in Delano is 88%. Pond also receives 96% low income students from Delano, and the population of low income students at Delano is 92%. Pond receives 80% low income students from McFarland, and the population of low income students at McFarland is 87%. Pond receives 76% Hispanic students from McFarland, and the population of Hispanic students at McFarland is 98%.

The committee should consider whether busing provides more equitable access to the District of Choice program for low income and minority students. The committee should consider requiring Districts of Choice to provide transportation to students, particularly those eligible for free and reduced priced meals, upon their request.

Racial Segregation in Schools. According to an April 2016 Government Accountability Office report entitled, Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination, "The percentage of K-12 public schools in the United States with students who are poor and are mostly Black or Hispanic is growing and these schools share a number of challenging characteristics. From school years 2000-01 to 2013-14 (the most recent data available), the percentage of all K-12 public schools that had high percentages of poor and Black or Hispanic students grew from 9 to 16 percent, according to GAO’s analysis of data from the Department of Education (Education). These schools were the most racially and economically concentrated: 75 to 100 percent of the students were Black or Hispanic and eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—a commonly used indicator of poverty. GAO’s analysis of Education data also found that compared with other schools, these schools offered disproportionately fewer math, science, and college preparatory courses and had disproportionately higher rates of students who were held back in 9th grade, suspended, or expelled."

History of District of Choice Evaluations. Under current law, districts establish themselves as a DOC by adopting a local school board resolution. Required data collection on DOCs and the numbers of transfers they accept or deny began in 2008 and this data is required to be reported to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), the county board of education and the Department of Finance annually.

SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174, Statutes of 2007, required the California Department of Education (CDE) to report to the Legislature by November 30, 2008 on the effectiveness of the interdistrict transfer program using data provided by school districts to the SPI on the disposition of all interdistrict transfer requests. CDE did not provide the complete report due to lack of funding. In lieu of the report, CDE conducted a survey of 100 schools that receive the most inter-district transfers in the state and found only three districts that have elected to declare themselves a DOC. It is important to note the survey was not a complete assessment of all DOCs. The CDE report recommends, however, “Given that only 3.9% of the responding districts indicated an active participation in the DOC program, it seems to be a small program with very limited impact. The CDE sees no significant negative consequences to the program’s lapse as scheduled for July 1, 2009.”

Interestingly, in a report by the CDE in 2003, the only solid indicator of a district being a DOC was if the district was a basic aid district that received state apportionment for its transfer students. CDE had to use district self-identification and a survey done by the California Association of School Business Officials to determine the total number or DOCs. As of 2002, CDE was able to identify 18 small, mostly rural districts as DOCs. One-half of these districts were basic aid districts. In 2007, it was reported that there were 11 basic aid districts that were DOCs, according to CDE.

An evaluation was due to the Legislature by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) on November 1, 2014. Due to lack of data sharing between various agencies, the evaluation did not get completed. Last year the sunset date of the DOC program was extended by one year, so that the LAO's evaluation could be completed by January 31, 2016.

2016 LAO Evaluation: As the LAO compiled the 2016 report, once again, insufficient data was collected due to DOC's not reporting the required data to the State. The LAO's report found there to be 47 DOC's statewide and the report recommends the program's sunset date be extended. Because the data in the report was collected by statewide survey and direct communication between the LAO and 100 districts, it is unclear whether the number of DOCs statewide is an accurate number. Despite the potentially limited data, the LAO found evidence of higher rates of student transfers among certain racial populations. The LAO report states, "Overall, participating transfer students tend to mirror the profile of the Districts of Choice they attend. Some differences emerged when we compared these students with their home districts. As shown…Hispanic students transfer at relatively low rates compared with their share of home district enrollment. These students account for 66 percent of the students attending home districts but only 32 percent of participating transfer students. Conversely, white students and Asian students transfer at relatively high rates."

One could argue that if DOC's are failing to report the transfer data that has been required to be reported annually since 2008, that the program may not be having a significant impact at the local level, and should be allowed to sunset. The committee should consider whether to make it a requirement for DOC's to report the necessary data as a condition of continuing as a District of Choice.

Differences between the DOC program and other interdistrict transfer options. Unlike the main interdistrict transfer law, the DOC law does not require agreement between the district of residence and the receiving district in order for the receiving district (DOC) to admit interdistrict transfers. The district of residence has little say in the transfer process, except, districts with 50,000 or less ADA may limit the maximum number of transfers each year to 3% of their ADA and may limit transfers for the duration of the program to 10% of their ADA. Districts with more than 50,000 pupils in attendance may refuse to transfer more than 1% of their ADA. A district of residence may also prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer would have a negative impact on a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan or the racial and ethnic balance of the district.

Other differences include: A DOC that is also a basic aid district is apportioned 70% of the amount the state revenue limit for ADA that otherwise would have gone to the district of residence (the remaining 30% is a savings in revenue for the state). Transfer priority is given to the siblings of transfer students already attending school in the DOC. Students with special needs are admitted despite additional incurred costs unless the transfer of those students would require the creation of a new program. This exception does not apply to special education students or English learners.

Repealing the 10% Lifetime Cap. The bill repeals the authorization for districts with less than 50,000 ADA to cap the maximum number of students transferring out at 10% for the duration of the program and instead makes the cap a 10% rolling cap. This means that as seniors graduate, more students could transfer out of the district. Without a maximum cap for the duration of the program, districts will be unable to cap the total number of students transferring out of their district over time. The committee should consider the negative fiscal impacts on districts this change will bring. A handful of districts have hit the 10% lifetime cap and have stopped transfers. For those districts, this policy change would be like pulling the fiscal rug out from under them. Their enrollment has only recently started to recover and this will end that financial stability. The committee should consider whether to reinstate the 10% lifetime cap or reduce the rolling cap to a lower percentage of ADA.

Committee Amendments:

1. Require DOCs to track and report the number of students who qualify for the FRPM.
2. Require all communication produced by a DOC regarding the DOC program be translated into the necessary languages for parents in the district of residence pursuant to Section 48985.
3. Require DOCs to provide transportation to pupils who are eligible for free and reduced priced meals transferring into the district, upon the student's request.
4. Require DOCs to register as a DOC through the CDE and the County office of education (COE) by July 1, 2017.
5. Prohibit the participation in the DOC program for any district that has not registered through the CDE and the COE as a DOC and that has not submitted the annual data required.
6. Implement a 6% rolling cap on the number of students transferring out of a district of residence.
7. Clarify that a school district of residence governing board can certify at a board meeting that further transfers as part of the DOC program will cause the district to receive a qualified or negative certification by the county superintendent of schools, and limit transfers under the DOC program. Clarify that if the county office of education determines the district of residence will receive qualified or negative certification in the subsequent year, the district of residence may stop all further transfers under the DOC program.
8. Prohibit a DOC from making any inquiry into, evaluation or consideration of academic or athletic performance, physical condition, proficiency in the English language, family income, or any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section 200.
9. Clarify that a DOC must accept all students until they are at capacity, and then must implement a random drawing.
10. Clarify that DOCs have only one reason to deny a transfer: The number of students exceeded the capacity of the DOC and the student did not win the lottery.
11. Reinstate an appeal process through the county board of education, similar to the current interdistrict transfer appeals process.

Previous legislation: SB 597 (Huff), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015, provided a one year extension of the sunset date for the District of Choice (DOC) Program and requires the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) to complete their evaluation of the program by January 31, 2016.

SB 680 (Romero & Huff), Chapter 198, Statutes of 2009, extended the sunset and repeal date for the School District of Choice (DOC) program from July 1, 2009 to July 1, 2016 and January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, respectively; repealed the prohibition on new districts electing to become DOCs; and, required the Legislative Analyst (LAO) to complete an evaluation of the DOC program and report to the Legislature by November 1, 2014.

AB 1407 (Huffman) from 2009, was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense file, would have extended the sunset and repeal dates for the DOC program for 5 years and required a census report on DOC by CDE by November 2010.

AB 270 (Huff) from 2007, extended the authority for DOC inter-district transfers from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2009, prohibited additional districts from becoming DOCs, and required school districts (electing to accept transfers) to maintain records on the number of requests it receives and annually report the number of requests it receives to the SPI. The language in this bill was incorporated into SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 174, Statutes of 2007.

AB 97 (Nation), Chapter 21, Statutes of 2004, extended the sunset date for one year for the DOC authorization and required the SPI to continue the calculation for the Special Disabilities Adjustment using the current incidence multiplier to allow special education local plan areas to continue to receive funds provided through 2003-04 until a new multiplier is calculated.

AB 1993 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993, established school DOC and allowed the governing board of any school district to declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alexander Valley Union School District

Big Creek School District

College School District

EdVoice

Elk Hills School District

Geyserville Unified School District

Glendora Unified School District

Gorman Joint School District

Kenwood School District

Marin County Superintendent of Schools

Riverside Unified School District

Small School Districts Association

Opposition

Association of Rowland Educators

Azusa Unified School District

Californians Together

Public Advocates

Rowland Unified School District

Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1432

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/6/16

AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill (1) extends the sunset and repeal dates for “school district of choice,” program, (2) authorizes a 10% cap for the total number students transferring out of school districts of residence at a point in time, (3) requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to evaluate the program and (4) reassigns certain reporting requirements to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires students to attend the public full-time day school or continuation school or classes in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located. (Education Code § 48200)
2. Authorizes the governing board of a school board to declare themselves a school district of choice willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. As a condition of participating in the program, either the district of residence or district of choice may prevent a transfer if the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. (EC § 48300, et seq.)
3. Requires a school district of choice to select students through a random and unbiased process that prohibits enrollment based upon academic or athletic talent. It is incumbent upon the school district of choice to ensure that the auditor who conducts its annual financial audit also reviews compliance with the specified selection requirements. (EC § 48301)
4. Authorizes a school district of residence with an average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000 to cap outbound transfers each year to 3% of its ADA for that year and to cap the maximum number at 10% of its ADA for the duration of the program. A school district of residence is also authorized to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent budget certification or if a determination is made by the county superintendent determines that the school district will not meet standards for fiscal stability due to the impact of additional transfers, as specified. (EC § 48307)
5. Requires each school district of choice to keep records of:
   1. The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials;
   2. The number of pupils transferred out of the district, as specified; and
   3. The number of pupils transferred into the district, as specified. (EC § 48301)
6. Requires, further, school districts of choice to annually report this information to neighboring school districts, their county office of education, the SPI and Department of Finance (DOF), as specified. The DOF is required to make the information available to the Legislative Analyst. The Legislative Analyst is required to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program, as specified, and submit the evaluation, along with recommendations, to the appropriate legislative education policy committees, and the Governor, by January 31, 2016. This section is scheduled to sunset July 1, 2017. (EC § 48300, et seq.)

This bill extends the sunset and repeal dates for “school district of choice” program, authorizes a 10% cap for the total number students transferring out of school districts of residence at a point in time, requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to evaluate the program and reassigns certain reporting requirements to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends the sunset of the district of choice program to July 1, 2022.
2. Requires, instead of authorizes, the governing board of the school district of choice to:
   1. Notify parents in writing regarding the status of the application, no later than February 15 of the school year preceding the request for transfer.
   2. If an application is rejected, include the specific reason for the rejection of an application, as provided.
   3. Notify the district of residence if an application is accepted or provisionally accepted no later than March 1 of the school year proceeding the school year for which the student is requesting transfer.
   4. Ensure, by resolution, that students accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process, as specified.
   5. By resolution, determine and adopt the number of transfers it is willing to accept.
3. Amends the audit requirement, clarifying that the compliance review be incorporated into the district’s annual audit already required by current law.
4. Requires school districts of choice to make public announcements during the enrollment period regarding its, schools, programs, policies and procedures during the enrollment period.
5. Requires a school district of choice to post application information on its Internet Web site and include at a minimum all of the following:
   1. Any applicable form and timeline for transfer.
   2. An explanation of the selection process.
6. Authorizes only a school district of residence, instead of authorizing both districts of residence and districts of choice, to prohibit or limit transfers when the governing board determines that the transfer would negatively impact:
   1. A court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan.
   2. The racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence.
7. Amends the authorization for districts of residence with an ADA of less than 50,000, to cap the maximum number of students transferring out at 10 percent based on ADA at a point in time, instead of for the duration of the program. It requires districts of residence to authorize additional students within the cap to participate in the program as current program participants leave or graduate.
8. Modifies the authorization provided to school districts of residence for implementing transfer caps related to the district’s fiscal condition by establishing new procedures that require action by the governing board, as specified.
9. Specifies that a student may continue to attend a school district of choice, regardless of transfer restrictions if he or she is attending or has received a notice of acceptance before action is taken by a governing board to restrict further transfers.
10. Requires the SPI to do all of the following:
    1. Maintain a list of the school districts of choice in the state.
    2. Collect certain information from each school district of choice.
    3. Post information on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Internet Web site including:
       1. A list of school districts of choice.
       2. An accounting of all requests made for transfer, as specified.
       3. A single list of all school choice programs.
    4. Report to the Legislature, Governor and LAO a description of the plan for collecting data by July 1, 2017.
    5. Annually make information regarding student transfers under the district of choice program available to the Governor and Legislature and LAO.
11. Authorizes the SPI to require the information collected by school districts of choice to be provided through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) or another system administered by CDE.
12. Requires LAO to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the program, as specified, and provide recommendations regarding the extension of the program by January 31, 2020.
13. Removes the requirement for the DOF to report specified information to the LAO.
14. Recasts certain provisions and makes numerous non-substantive changes.
15. Establishes if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, the state will reimburse applicable entities.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. Established in 1993, the District of Choice program is scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2017. There are approximately 10,000 students served by 47 districts of choice. According to the author, allowing the program to sunset would leave transfer students unprotected and their ability to remain in their district of choice could be jeopardized. The author asserts, many school districts enroll a significant number of students from outside of their district boundaries through the District of Choice program. As a result, ending the program could cause a decline in enrollment for several small school districts. This bill extends the sunset for the District of Choice program and seeks to incorporate recommendations made by LAO in its evaluation of the program.
2. Program evaluation. Existing law requires the LAO to submit a comprehensive report and make recommendations regarding the extension of the District of Choice program, by January 31, 2016. Existing law requires the evaluation to incorporate the following information; the number and characteristics of pupils who use the school district of choice option, the enrollment of school districts of residence and school districts of choice and the fiscal health of school districts of residence and school districts of choice, as specified.

The report, “Evaluation of the School District of Choice Program,” was released on January 27, 2016, and highlighted several points: transfer students have varied by demographic backgrounds (i.e. race/ethnic and income); the program provides transfer students with additional educational options; almost all students transfer to districts with higher test scores and; districts of residence often respond by improving instructional offerings.

However, the report also highlights: program oversight has been limited by a lack of data and flaws in the audit procedure and; participation in the program is relatively low (5% of all school districts and 0.2% of students statewide).

1. LAO recommendations. This report made several recommendations many of which are related to provisions of this bill. Those recommendations include:
   1. Reauthorize program for a minimum of five years. The LAO recommends reauthorizing the district of choice program as it provides students with additional educational options and motivates districts to improve their programs. The report also provides that a five-year extension of the program would allow for the collection of better data and an assessment of other recommended changes.

The District of Choice program has a long legislative history as it has been reauthorized five times since 1993. In 2015, SB 527 (Huff Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015) extended the life of the District of Choice program for one year. This short extension was needed as delays in the data collection process stalled the District of Choice program evaluation, along with recommendations for its extension, required by SB 680 (Romero and Huff, Chapter 198, Statute of 2009).

This bill extends the sunset of the district of choice program to July 1, 2022 and requires LAO to conduct a second comprehensive evaluation of the program and provide recommendations regarding its extension by January 31, 2020.

• 1. Assign CDE specific administrative responsibilities, including to maintain a list of districts of choice, ensuring all districts submit annual reports and other efforts that would help the Legislature monitor the program and assist families learn about the program. Existing law requires districts to report to DOF and SPI. This line of reporting created confusion among districts and state agencies. This bill streamlines reporting by clarifying that information collected by districts of choice must be reported to the SPI annually. In turn the SPI is responsible for ensuring information is reported and making it available to the Legislature, Governor, LAO and on the CDE Web site.

This bill also requires the SPI to create a plan for the collection of data and make that plan available to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, Governor and the LAO.

• 1. Implement a new oversight mechanism that replaces the existing audit requirement with a new system of oversight administration by county offices of education. This bill modifies the audit requirement by allowing the specified compliance review to be a regular component of the district’s annual audit process.
  2. Improve local communication by requiring districts of choice to provide nearby districts of residence with timely notification of the students accepted through the program. This bill requires school districts of choice to notify the district of residence if an application is accepted or provisionally accepted no later than March 1 of the school year proceeding the school year for which the student is requesting transfer. This bill also requires school districts of choice to make public announcements during the enrollment period regarding its schools, programs, policies and procedures during the enrollment period.
  3. Repeal the 10% cumulative cap. Current law authorizes a school district of residence with an ADA of less than 50,000 to cap the maximum number of outbound transfers at 3 % of ADA per year and/or 10% of its ADA for the duration of the program. This “cumulative” cap results from a 2011 appellate court ruling that the cap is equal to 10 percent of a district’s average ADA over the life of the program, i.e. every student who has participated in the program counts toward the cap, even if that student has graduated or left the program. The LAO report notes that absent the repeal of this cap, the program becomes unavailable to certain districts and that districts of residence could still prohibit transfers that have a negative impact on desegregation efforts, or if it is in severe fiscal distress. The Senate Education Committee staff notes that a school district of residence would need to approach dire financial conditions in order to impose such a cap.

This bill instead of repealing the cap modifies the existing 10% cap to authorize a district of choice to enroll additional students within the cap as current program participants leave or graduate.

In addition, this bill modifies the authorization provided to school districts of residence for implementing other transfer caps related to the district’s fiscal condition by establishing new procedures that require action by the governing board, as specified.

Prior Legislation

SB 597 (Huff, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015) extended, for one year, the sunset and repeal dates of the statute that allows the governing board of a school district to permit the enrollment of pupils who reside in another district by declaring to be a District of Choice (DOC).

SB 680 (Romero and Huff, Chapter 198, Statute of 2009) extended the inoperative and repeal dates for which school districts are permitted to enroll pupils who reside in another school district by declaring to be a “school district of choice,” and repealed the prohibition on new districts electing to become a DOC.

AB 1407 (Huff, 2009) would have extended the sunset and repeal dates for the DOC programs for five years and required a census report on DOC by CDE by November 2010. The bill was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.

AB 270 (Huff, 2007) would have extended the authority for DOC inter-district transfers from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2009, prohibited additional districts from becoming DOCs, and required school districts (electing to accept transfers) to maintain records on the number of requests it receives and annually report the number of requests it receives to the SPI. The language of this bill was incorporated into SB 80 (Budget Bill, 2007).

AB 97 (Nation, Chapter 21, Statutes of 2004) extended the sunset date for one year for the DOC authorization and required the Superintendent of Public Instruction to continue the calculation for the Special Disabilities Adjustment using the current incidence multiplier to allow special-education local plan areas to continue to receive funds provided through 2003-04 until a new multiplier is calculated.

AB 19 (Quackenbush, Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993) established school DOC and allowed the governing board of any school district to declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriation Committee, CDE estimates costs of $132,000 for one position to gather and report specified information required by this bill. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/31/16)

Alexander Valley Union School District

Big Creek School District

College School District

EdVoice

Elk Hills School District

Geyserville Unified School District

Glendora Unified School District

Gorman Joint School District

Inyo County Superintendent of Schools

Kenwood School District

Maple School District

McKittrick School District

Mendocino Unified School District

Monte Rio Union School District

Oak Park Unified School District

Pine Ridge Elementary School District

Pond Union Elementary School District

Round Valley Joint Elementary School District

Round Valley Parent Teacher Organization

Round Valley School Step Foundation

Semitropic Elementary School District

St. Helena Unified School District

Vista Del Mar Union School District

Walnut Valley Unified School District

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/31/16)

None received

Prepared by:

5/31/16 21:51:59

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1432 (Huff) - School attendance: pupil transfer options: school districts of choice

Bill Summary:

This bill extends the sunset of the “school district of choice” program to July 1, 2022. It also, among other things, allows a 10 percent cap on the total number of students enrolled in a district of choice at a point in time; requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to submit an evaluation of the program to the Legislature and to the Governor; reassigns certain reporting requirements to the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and expands various oversight responsibilities to county superintendents.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 27, 2016

Fiscal Impact:

The California Department of Education estimates costs of $132,000 for one position to gather and report specified information required by this bill. (General Fund)

Author Amendments:

Revert the one percent and three percent cap provisions to existing law. Delete the appeals process for students that are denied a transfer. Delete mandate for each school district to make specified information available and make other technical changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1432 (Huff) - School attendance: pupil transfer options: school districts of choice

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

This bill extends the sunset of the “school district of choice” program to July 1, 2022. It also, among other things, allows a 10 percent cap on the total number of students enrolled in a district of choice at a point in time; requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to submit an evaluation of the program to the Legislature and the Governor; reassigns certain reporting requirements to the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and expands various oversight responsibilities to county superintendents.

Fiscal Impact:

• Administrative costs: The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates costs of $132,000 for one position to gather and report specified information required by this bill. (General Fund)
  
• Mandate: The requirement for each school district to make information regarding its schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request, could impose a potentially significant reimbursable state mandate. If this requirement took each school district one hour, provided a request was made, costs would be in the tens of thousands. (Proposition 98)
  
• Cost pressure: This bill provides authority for appeals to be made by parents and complaints to be made by school districts of choice and school districts of residence to the county superintendent of schools. The superintendent would incur an unknown cost pressure to take time to address any potential appeal or complaint brought forth. It is unclear whether the Commission on State Mandates would determine this to be a state mandate.

Background:

Existing law:

1. Requires students to attend the public full-time day school or continuation school or classes in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located. (Education Code § 48200)
2. Authorizes the governing board of a school board to declare themselves a school district of choice willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. As a condition of participating in the program, either the district of residence or district of choice may prevent a transfer if the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. (EC § 48300, et seq.)
3. Requires a school district of choice to select students through a random and unbiased process that prohibits enrollment based upon academic or athletic talent. It is incumbent upon the school district of choice to ensure that the auditor who conducts its annual financial audit also reviews compliance with the specified selection requirements. (EC § 48301)
4. Authorizes a school district of residence with an average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000 to cap outbound transfers each year to 3% of its ADA for that year and to cap the maximum number at 10% of its ADA for the duration of the program. A school district of residence is also authorized to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent budget certification or if a determination is made by the county superintendent determines that the school district will not meet standards for fiscal stability due to the impact of additional transfers, as specified. (EC § 48307)
5. Authorizes a school district of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1 percent of its current year estimated ADA.
6. Requires each school district of choice to keep records of:
   1. The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials;
   2. The number of pupils transferred out of the district, as specified; and
   3. The number of pupils transferred into the district, as specified.

(EC § 48301)

1. Further requires, school districts of choice to annually report this information to neighboring school districts, their county office of education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and Department of Finance (DOF), as specified. The DOF is required to make the information available to the Legislative Analyst. The Legislative Analyst is required to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program, as specified, and submit the evaluation, along with recommendations, to the appropriate legislative education policy committees, and the Governor, by January 31, 2016. This section is scheduled to sunset July 1, 2017. (EC § 48300, et seq.)

Proposed Law:

This bill:

1. Extends the sunset of the district of choice program to July 1, 2022.
2. Requires, instead of authorizes, all school districts to make information regarding its schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request. Also it requires, school districts of choice to make public announcements regarding its schools, programs, policies, and procedures during the enrollment period.
3. Requires, instead of authorizes, if a governing board of a school district elects to operate as a school district of choice and accept transfers, the governing board to adopt a resolution to determine and adopt the number of transfers it is willing to accept and ensure that students that are admitted through this program are selected through a random, unbiased process.
4. Requires a school district of choice to post application information on its website, including a form and timeline for a transfer and an explanation of the selection process at the school district.
5. Amends the audit requirement, clarifying that the compliance review be incorporated into the district’s annual audit already required by current law.
6. Modifies the authorization provided to school districts of residence for implementing existing transfer caps by (1) establishing new procedures by requiring districts of choice to notify districts of residence once a certain percentage of transfers are accepted to that district of choice, and (2) require action by the governing board.
7. Amends the authorization for districts with an average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000, to cap the maximum number of students transferring out at 10 percent based on ADA at a point in time, instead of for the duration of the program. It requires the district to authorize additional students to participate in the program as current program participants leave or graduate.
8. Authorizes only a school district of residence to prohibit or limit transfers when the governing board determines that the transfer would likely negatively impact a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence.
9. Requires, instead of authorizes, the notification to parents regarding the status of the application, the explanation for a rejected application, and the notification to the district of residence if an application is accepted or provisionally accepted, as specified.
10. Authorizes a parent of a student that is denied a transfer under this program to appeal that decision to the county superintendent of schools; and authorizes a school district of choice and a school district of residence to bring a complaint alleging a violation of the provisions of the program against one another to the county superintendent of schools. The bill requires the county superintendent of schools to rely only on the provisions established under this program to determine whether they were applied accurately.
11. Streamlines the reporting required by school districts of choice to go to the CDE, instead of also to the Department of Finance.
12. Requires the Superintendent to (1) maintain a list of the school districts of choice in the state; (2) collect specified information from each district of choice; (3) post the previously stated information on the CDE’s website; (4) post a single list of all school choice programs on the CDE’s website; and (5) report to the Legislature and the Legislative Analyst’s Office a description of the plan for collecting data currently required by school districts of choice to collect by July 1, 2017.
13. Allows the Superintendent to require the information collected by school districts of choice to be provided through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), or another system administered by the CDE.
14. Requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the program, as specified, and provide recommendations regarding the extension of the program by January 31, 2020.

Related Legislation:

SB 597 (Huff, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015) extended, for one year, the sunset and repeal dates of statute that allows the governing board of a school district to permit the enrollment of pupils who reside in another district by declaring to be a District of Choice (DOC).

SB 680 (Romero and Huff, Chapter 198, Statute of 2009) extended the inoperative and repeal dates for which school districts are permitted to enroll pupils who reside in another school district by declaring to be a “school district of choice,” and repealed the prohibition on new districts electing to become a DOC.

AB 1407 (Huff, 2009) would have extended the sunset and repeal dates for the DOC programs for 5 years and required a census report on DOC by California Department of Education by November 2010. The bill was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.

Staff Comments: The CDE notes that due to the changes necessary to be made to the CALPADS system, the earliest that data pertaining to school districts of choice could be reported would be the 2017-18 fiscal year. This bill requires the data to be reported annually. If the bill is enacted, the operative date would be January 2017.

Also, staff notes that the school district of choice program is an option available to school districts. Therefore any requirements as a condition of operating the program would not be eligible for reimbursement under state mandate law. Finally, to the extent additional students transfer from non-basic aid districts to a basic aid districts due to this bill, this could generate Proposition 98 savings to the state in an unknown amount. A basic aid district is a district whose allotment calculated under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) is met entirely with local property tax funds which they get to keep and treat like general purpose funding. Therefore, the state does not contribute LCFF funding to these districts but under the school district of choice program, these district receive 70 percent of the base funding a student would have generated at the home district.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 1432

Subject: School attendance: pupil transfer options: school districts of choice

SUMMARY

This bill deletes the sunset and repeal dates for “school district of choice,” program, repeals the cumulative 10% cap for students transferring out of specified school districts of residence, reassigns certain reporting requirements to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and expands various oversight responsibilities to county superintendents, among other things.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Requires students to attend the public full-time day school or continuation school or classes in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located. (Education Code § 48200)
2. Authorizes the governing board of a school board to declare themselves a school district of choice willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. As a condition of participating in the program, either the district of residence or district of choice may prevent a transfer if the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. (EC § 48300, et seq.)
3. Requires a school district of choice to select students through a random and unbiased process that prohibits enrollment based upon academic or athletic talent. It is incumbent upon the school district of choice to ensure that the auditor who conducts its annual financial audit also reviews compliance with the specified selection requirements. (EC § 48301)
4. Authorizes a school district of residence with an average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000 to cap outbound transfers each year to 3% of its ADA for that year and to cap the maximum number at 10% of its ADA for the duration of the program. A school district of residence is also authorized to limit transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent budget certification or if a determination is made by the county superintendent determines that the school district will not meet standards for fiscal stability due to the impact of additional transfers, as specified. (EC § 48307)
5. Requires each school district of choice to keep records of:
   1. The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials;
   2. The number of pupils transferred out of the district, as specified; and
   3. The number of pupils transferred into the district, as specified.

(EC § 48301)

1. Further requires, school districts of choice to annually report this information to neighboring school districts, their county office of education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and Department of Finance (DOF), as specified. The DOF is required to make the information available to the Legislative Analyst. The Legislative Analyst is required to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program, as specified, and submit the evaluation, along with recommendations, to the appropriate legislative education policy committees, and the Governor, by January 31, 2016. This section is scheduled to sunset July 1, 2017. (EC § 48300, et seq.)

ANALYSIS

This bill deletes the sunset and repeal dates for “school district of choice,” program; repeals the cumulative 10% cap for students transferring out of specified school districts of residence; reassigns certain reporting requirements to the SPI; and expands various oversight responsibilities to county superintendents. Specifically, it:

1. Deletes the July 1, 2017 repeal of the district of choice program thereby extending the operation of the program indefinitely.
2. Requires, instead of authorizes, the governing board of the school district of choice to:
   1. Notify parents in writing regarding the status of the application, no later than February 15 of the school year preceding the request for transfer, instead of 90 days after the receipt of an application.
   2. If an application is rejected, include the specific reason for the rejection of an application, as provided.
   3. Notify the district of residence if an application is accepted or provisionally accepted no later than March 1 of the school year proceeding the school year for which the student is requesting transfer.
   4. Ensure, by resolution, that students accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not a student should be enrolled based upon academic or athletic performance.
   5. By resolution, determine and adopt the number of transfers it is willing to accept.
3. Modifies provisions related to the audit by striking the requirement for districts of choice to request a compliance review of specified components of the district of choice program and clarifies that this compliance review be incorporated into the district’s annual audit already required by current law.
4. Requires, instead of authorizes, all school districts to make information regarding their schools, programs, policies, and procedures available to any interested person upon request and adds the requirement for school districts to make public announcements during the enrollment period with that information.

1. Requires a school district of choice to post application information on its Internet Web site and include at a minimum all of the following:
   1. Any applicable form and timeline for transfer.
   2. An explanation of the selection process.
2. Authorizes only a school district of residence, instead of authorizing both districts of residence and districts of choice, to prohibit or limit transfers when the governing board determines that the transfer would negatively impact:
   1. A court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan.
   2. The racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence.
3. Deletes the authorization for districts with an average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 50,000 to cap the maximum number of students transferring out at 10% based on ADA for the duration of the program.
4. Modifies the authorization provided to school districts of residence for implementing existing transfer caps by establishing new procedures that:
   1. Require districts of choice to notify districts of residence once a certain percentage of transfers are accepted into that district of choice, as specified.
   2. Require action by the governing board, as specified.
5. Modifies the requirement, for which a student may continue to attend a school district of choice, regardless of transfer restrictions, to clarify that the student may continue to attend if he or she is attending or has received a notice of acceptance before action is taken by a governing board to restrict further transfers.
6. Authorizes county superintendents to:
   1. Accept complaints from school districts and appeals from parents of students who are denied transfer.
   2. Make determinations on those complaints and appeals based only on whether certain provisions of existing law related to the District of Choice program were applied accurately.
7. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to do all of the following:
   1. Maintain and update a list of the school districts of choice in the state, as specified.
   2. Collect certain information from each school district of choice and ensure information is provided in a consistent format, as described.
   3. Post all of the following information on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Internet Web site:
      1. A list of school districts of choice.
      2. A plan for collecting information, as specified.
      3. A single list of all school choice programs, including but not limited to, school district of choice.
   4. Report by July 1, 2017, a plan for collecting data, to the education policy committees of the Legislature, the Department of Finance (DOF), and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).
   5. Annually make specified information regarding districts of choice transfers available to the Governor and appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, instead of the LAO.
8. Authorizes the SPI to collect specified information reported by the district of choice through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System or another manner that minimizes the administrative burden.
9. Deletes the requirement for the LAO to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program.
10. Removes the requirement for the DOF to report specified information to the LAO.

1. Recast certain provisions and makes numerous non-substantive changes.
2. Establishes if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, the state will reimburse applicable entities.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. Established in 1993, the District of Choice program is scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2017. There are approximately 10,000 students served by 47 districts of choice. According to the author, allowing the program to sunset would leave transfer students unprotected and their ability to remain in their district of choice could be jeopardized. The author asserts, many school districts enroll a significant number of students from outside of their district boundaries through the District of Choice program. As a result, ending the program could cause a decline in enrollment for several small school districts. This bill makes the District of Choice program permanent and seeks to incorporate recommendations made by Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) in its evaluation of the program.
2. Program evaluation. Existing law requires the LAO to submit a comprehensive report and make recommendations regarding the extension of the District of Choice program, by January 31, 2016. The report, “Evaluation of the School District of Choice Program,” was released on January 27, 2016, and highlighted several points: transfer students have varied by demographic backgrounds (i.e. race/ethnic and income); the program provides transfer students with additional educational options; almost all students transfer to districts with higher test scores and; districts of residence often respond by improving instructional offerings.

However, the report also highlights: program oversight has been limited by a lack of data and flaws in the audit procedure and; participation in the program is relatively low (5% of all school districts and 0.2% of students statewide).

1. LAO recommendations. This report made several recommendations all of which are related to provisions of this bill. Those recommendations include:
   1. Reauthorize program for a minimum of five years. The District of Choice program has a long legislative history as it has been reauthorized five times since 1993. In 2015, SB 527 (Huff Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015) extended the life of the District of Choice program for one year. This extension was needed as delays in the data collection process stalled the District of Choice program evaluation, along with recommendations for its extension, required by SB 680 (Romero and Huff, Chapter 198, Statute of 2009).

In addition to the records mentioned in the background of this analysis, existing law required the evaluation to incorporate the following information; the number and characteristics of pupils who use the school district of choice option, the enrollment of school districts of residence and school districts of choice and the fiscal health of school districts of residence and school districts of choice, as specified. The 2009 statute required the evaluation to be completed and submitted by November 1, 2014. However, although a one-year extension was provided, minimal information was collected from the letter disseminated from the California Department of Education (CDE) to all school districts that requesting districts of choice to self-identify and provide data required by existing law.

This bill makes the district of choice program permanent. The ability to provide additional educational options for students and improve district programs are two reasons for the recommendation of reauthorization. However, the report also provides that a five-year extension would allow for the collection of better data and the assessment of the effects of the other recommendations. For this reason, staff recommends the bill be amended to extend the program sunset and repeal dates by five years.

Staff further recommends the bill be amended to reinstate provisions related to the comprehensive evaluation of the district of choice program pursuant to section 48316 of the education code and extend completion and submission date by five years.

• 1. Assign the California Department of Education (CDE) specific administrative responsibilities, including to maintain a list of districts of choice, ensuring all districts submit annual reports and other efforts that would help the legislature monitor the program and assist families learn about the program. This bill clarifies that information collected by districts of choice must be reported only to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) annually. In turn the SPI is responsible for ensuring information is reported to them and make certain information available to the legislature, Governor and on its website. Existing law requires districts to report to the Department of Finance (DOF) and SPI which created confusion among districts and state agencies.

This bill also requires the SPI to create a plan for the collection of data and make that plan available to the DOF, the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the legislature and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. For consistency purposes and to streamline the reporting process staff recommends the bill be amended to require both the plan pursuant to subsection 48313(d)(2) and specified information pursuant to subsection 48313(e) be reported to the same entities (i.e. appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, Governor and the Legislative Analyst’s Office).

• 1. Implement a new oversight mechanism that replaces the existing audit requirement with a new system of oversight administration by county offices of education. This bill modifies the audit by allowing the specified compliance review to be a regular component of the district’s annual audit process. This bill adds language to authorize parents and districts to submit complaints to the specified county superintendent. After a complaint is received the superintendent may make a determination based only on provisions in existing law related to the district of choice program. This bill is silent with regard to any repercussion should a violation occur.
  2. Improve local communication by requiring districts of choice to provide nearby districts of residence with timely notification of the students accepted through the program. This bill establishes new notification procedures for school districts regarding its schools’ programs and policies and requires certain information to be available upon request and on its website.
  3. Repeal the 10% cumulative cap. Repeal the 10% cumulative cap. As described in the background of this analysis, current law authorizes a school district of residence with an ADA of less than 50,000 to cap the maximum number of outbound transfers at 3 % of ADA per year and/or 10% of its ADA for the duration of the program. This “cumulative” cap results from a 2011 appellate court ruling that the cap is equal to 10 percent of a district’s average ADA over the life of the program, i.e every student who has participated in the program counts toward the cap, even if that student has graduated or left the program. The LAO report notes that absent the repeal of this cap, the program becomes unavailable to certain districts and that districts of residence could still prohibit transfers that have a negative impact on desegregation efforts or if it is in severe fiscal distress. Staff notes that a school district of residence would need to approach dire financial conditions in order to impose such a cap. For this reason staff recommends that the bill be amended to, reinstate the 10% cap, but authorize a district of choice to enroll additional students within the cap as current program participants leave or graduate.

1. Related and prior legislation.

SB 597 (Huff, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015) extended, for one year, the sunset and repeal dates of statute that allows the governing board of a school district to permit the enrollment of pupils who reside in another district by declaring to be a District of Choice (DOC).

SB 680 (Romero and Huff, Chapter 198, Statute of 2009) extended the inoperative and repeal dates for which school districts are permitted to enroll pupils who reside in another school district by declaring to be a “school district of choice,” and repealed the prohibition on new districts electing to become a DOC.

AB 1407 (Huff, 2009) would have extended the sunset and repeal dates for the DOC programs for 5 years and required a census report on DOC by California Department of Education by November 2010. The bill was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.

AB 270 (Huff, 2007) would have extended the authority for DOC inter-district transfers from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2009, prohibited additional districts from becoming DOCs, and required school districts (electing to accept transfers) to maintain records on the number of requests it receives and annually report the number of requests it receives to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The language of this bill was incorporated into SB 80 (Budget Bill, 2007).

AB 97 (Nation, Chapter 21, Statutes of 2004) extended the sunset date for one year for the DOC authorization and required the Superintendent of Public Instruction to continue the calculation for the Special Disabilities Adjustment using the current incidence multiplier to allow special education local plan areas to continue to receive funds provided through 2003-04 until a new multiplier is calculated.

AB 19 (Quackenbush, Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993) established school DOC and allowed the governing board of any school district to declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers.

SUPPORT

Alexander Valley Union School District

Big Creek School District

California Catholic Conference

California State PTA

College School District

Ed Voice

Elk Hills School District

Encinitas Union School District

Glendora Unified School District

Gorman Joint School District

Inyo County Superintendent of Schools

Kenwood School District

Monte Rio Union School District

Oak Park Unified School District

Pine Ridge Elementary School District

Riverside Unified School District

Riverside Unified School District

Round Valley Joint Elementary School District

Round Valley Parent Teacher Organization

Round Valley School Step Foundation

San Rafael City Schools

Semitropic Elementary School District

Small School Districts’ Association

St. Helena Unified School District

Vista del Mar Union School District

OPPOSITION

Rowland Unified School District

-- END --