(1)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, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, including, among other requirements and limitations, that the school district of choice accept all pupils who apply to transfer until the school district of choice is at maximum capacity, and that pupils are selected through an unbiased process, as specified.

Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics.

This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined.

(2)Existing law requires the governing board of each local educational agency to either provide for an audit of the books and accounts of the local educational agency, including an audit of income and expenditures by source of funds, or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the local educational agency to provide for that auditing. Existing law requires that audit to include compliance with the above-described provisions.

This bill would require the audit to instead include compliance with all provisions of the district of choice program.

(3)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner.

This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined.

(4)Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth.

(5)Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence that has a negative status on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year.

This bill would require the 1%, 3%, and 10% transfer caps to be based off the average daily attendance as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year instead of its current year estimated average daily attendance.

The bill would authorize a school district of residence with either a qualified or negative status, instead of only those with a negative status, on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year. The bill would require a county office of education, upon request of a school district of residence to determine the percentage of pupils transferring out of the school district of residence for the duration of the program, and would require the county office of education to request data from the school district of choice regarding the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice. By imposing additional duties on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If the school district of choice does not provide the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice to the county office of education within 30 days, the bill would prohibit the school district of choice from accepting new pupil transfers pursuant to the school district of choice program until the school district of choice complies with the county office of education data request.

(6)Existing law prescribes an application process for the school district of choice program that includes specified deadlines and requires, among other things, that the governing board of the school district of choice include in a written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions by, among other things, (A) requiring the written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied, (B) requiring the school district of choice, on or before January 15, to notify the school district of residence of the number and names of the pupils who are requesting transfers, and (C) requiring the school district of residence, on or before February 15, to notify the school district of choice of the total number and names of the pupils requesting transfers in excess of the above-described caps, as specified.

(7)Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires the local control funding formula, in part, to be based on average daily attendance, as specified.

If an audit identifies a school district of choice as having accepted pupils from a school district of residence after the school district of residence has provided the notice that it has reached one of the above-described caps, this bill would require the auditor to determine the average daily attendance generated by each pupil in excess of the applicable cap whose transfer originated from the school district of residence subsequent to the notice, disaggregated by local control funding formula grade span, to calculate the portion of the school district of choices local control funding formula apportionment attributable to that average daily attendance, and to report that amount to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and would require the Superintendent, notwithstanding any other law, to reduce the school district of choices local control funding formula apportionment each year by the amount calculated and reported by the auditor.

(8)Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school district of choice pursuant to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils.

This bill would add a pupils foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting.

(9)Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the school district of choice program and prepare recommendations regarding the program. Existing law requires the evaluation and recommendations to be submitted to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and to the Department of Finance by September 30, 2026.

This bill would repeal those requirements.

(10)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029.

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

(11)This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes.

(12)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 the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)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, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, including, among other requirements and limitations, that the school district of choice accept all pupils who apply to transfer until the school district of choice is at maximum capacity, and that pupils are selected through an unbiased process, as specified.

Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics.

This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined.

(2)Existing law requires the governing board of each local educational agency to either provide for an audit of the books and accounts of the local educational agency, including an audit of income and expenditures by source of funds, or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the local educational agency to provide for that auditing. Existing law requires that audit to include compliance with the above-described provisions.

This bill would require the audit to instead include compliance with all provisions of the district of choice program.

(3)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner.

This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined.

(4)Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth.

(5)Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence that has a negative status on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year.

This bill would require the 1%, 3%, and 10% transfer caps to be based off the average daily attendance as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year instead of its current year estimated average daily attendance.

The bill would authorize a school district of residence with either a qualified or negative status, instead of only those with a negative status, on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year. The bill would require a county office of education, upon request of a school district of residence to determine the percentage of pupils transferring out of the school district of residence for the duration of the program, and would require the county office of education to request data from the school district of choice regarding the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice. By imposing additional duties on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If the school district of choice does not provide the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice to the county office of education within 30 days, the bill would prohibit the school district of choice from accepting new pupil transfers pursuant to the school district of choice program until the school district of choice complies with the county office of education data request.

(6)Existing law prescribes an application process for the school district of choice program that includes specified deadlines and requires, among other things, that the governing board of the school district of choice include in a written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions by, among other things, (A) requiring the written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied, (B) requiring the school district of choice, on or before January 15, to notify the school district of residence of the number and names of the pupils who are requesting transfers, and (C) requiring the school district of residence, on or before February 15, to notify the school district of choice of the total number and names of the pupils requesting transfers in excess of the above-described caps, as specified.

(7)Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires the local control funding formula, in part, to be based on average daily attendance, as specified.

If an audit identifies a school district of choice as having accepted pupils from a school district of residence after the school district of residence has provided the notice that it has reached one of the above-described caps, this bill would require the auditor to determine the average daily attendance generated by each pupil in excess of the applicable cap whose transfer originated from the school district of residence subsequent to the notice, disaggregated by local control funding formula grade span, to calculate the portion of the school district of choices local control funding formula apportionment attributable to that average daily attendance, and to report that amount to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and would require the Superintendent, notwithstanding any other law, to reduce the school district of choices local control funding formula apportionment each year by the amount calculated and reported by the auditor.

(8)Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school district of choice pursuant to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils.

This bill would add a pupils foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting.

(9)Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the school district of choice program and prepare recommendations regarding the program. Existing law requires the evaluation and recommendations to be submitted to the appropriate education policy committees of the Legislature and to the Department of Finance by September 30, 2026.

This bill would repeal those requirements.

(10)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029.

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

(11)This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes.

(12)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 the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)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, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, including, among other requirements and limitations, that the school district of choice accept all pupils who apply to transfer until the school district of choice is at maximum capacity, and that pupils are selected through an unbiased process, as specified.

Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics.

This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined.

(2)Existing law requires the governing board of each local educational agency to either provide for an audit of the books and accounts of the local educational agency, including an audit of income and expenditures by source of funds, or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the local educational agency to provide for that auditing. Existing law requires that audit to include compliance with the above-described provisions.

This bill would require the audit to instead include compliance with all provisions of the district of choice program.

(3)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner.

This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined.

(4)Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth.

(5)Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence that has a negative status on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year.

This bill would change the 1%, 3%, and 10% transfer caps to be based off the average daily attendance as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year instead of its current year estimated average daily attendance.

The bill would authorize a school district of residence with either a qualified or negative status, instead of only those with a negative status, on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year. The bill would require a county office of education, upon request of a school district of residence to determine the percentage of pupils transferring out of the school district of residence for the duration of the program, and would require the county office of education to request data from the school district of choice regarding the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice. By imposing additional duties on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If the school district of choice does not provide the number of pupils transferring into the school district of choice to the county office of education within 30 days, the bill would prohibit the school district of choice from accepting new pupil transfers pursuant to the school district of choice program until the school district of choice complies with the county office of education data request.

(6)Existing law prescribes an application process for the school district of choice program that includes specified deadlines and requires, among other things, that the governing board of the school district of choice include in a written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions by, among other things, (A) requiring the written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied, (B) requiring the school district of choice, on or before January 15, to notify the school district of residence of the number and names of the pupils who are requesting transfers, and (C) requiring the school district of residence, on or before February 15, to notify the school district of choice of the total number and names of the pupils requesting transfers in excess of the above-described caps, as specified.

(7)Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires the local control funding formula, in part, to be based on average daily attendance, as specified.

If an audit identifies a school district of choice as having accepted pupils from a school district of residence after the school district of residence has provided the notice that it has reached one of the above-described caps, this bill would require the auditor to determine the average daily attendance generated by each pupil in excess of the applicable cap whose transfer originated from the school district of residence subsequent to the notice, disaggregated by local control funding formula grade span, to calculate the portion of the school district of choices local control funding formula apportionment attributable to that average daily attendance, and to report that amount to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and would require the Superintendent, notwithstanding any other law, to reduce the school district of choices local control funding formula apportionment each year by the amount calculated and reported by the auditor.

(8)Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school district of choice pursuant to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils.

This bill would add a pupils foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting.

(10)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029.

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

(11)This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes.

(12)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 the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)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, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, as provided. including, among other requirements and limitations, that the school district of choice accept all pupils who apply to transfer until the school district of choice is at maximum capacity, and that pupils are selected through an unbiased process, as specified.

Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics.

This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined.

(3)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner.

This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined.

(4)Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth.

(5)Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence that has a negative status on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year, regardless of its average daily attendance, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year.

For purposes of the above-described authorization for school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000, the This bill would change the 1% 1%, 3%, and 10% transfer cap caps to be based off the average daily attendance as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year instead of its current year estimated average daily attendance. The bill would authorize school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to instead limit the number of pupils transferring out to 10% of its average daily attendance, as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year, and would also delete the 10% duration-of-the-program limitation.

(6)Existing law prescribes an application process for the school district of choice program that includes specified deadlines and requires, among other things, that the governing board of the school district of choice to include in the a written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing.

This bill would require that revise and recast those provisions by, among other things, (A) requiring the written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied. applied, (B) requiring the school district of choice, on or before January 15, to notify the school district of residence of the number and names of the pupils who are requesting transfers, and (C) requiring the school district of residence, on or before February 15, to notify the school district of choice of the total number and names of the pupils requesting transfers in excess of the above-described caps, as specified.

(8)Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school district of choice pursuant to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils.

This bill would add a pupils foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting.

(9)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029.

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

(10)This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes.

(1)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, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, as provided.

Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics.

This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils' pupils actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined.

(2)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner.

This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined.

(3)Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth.

(4)Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period.

For purposes of the above-described authorization for school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000, the bill would change the 1% transfer cap to be based off the average daily attendance as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year instead of its current year estimated average daily attendance. The bill would authorize school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to instead limit the number of pupils transferring out to 10% of its average daily attendance, as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year, and would also delete the 10% duration-of-the-program limitation.

(5)Existing law requires an application requesting a transfer pursuant to the school district of choice program to be submitted by the parent of a pupil to the school district of choice before January 1 of the school year preceding the school year for which the pupil is requesting to be transferred, and authorizes an applicant to request enrollment of the pupil in a specific school or program of the school district of choice. If an application is rejected, existing law requires the governing board of the school district of choice to include in the written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing.

This bill would require that written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied.

(6)Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school district of choice pursuant to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils.

This bill would add a pupils foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting.

(7)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029.

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

(8)This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes.

(1)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, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, as provided.

Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics.

This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils' actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined.

(2)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner.

This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined.

(3)Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth.

(4)Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period.

For purposes of the above-described authorization for school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000, the bill would change the 1% transfer cap to be based off the average daily attendance as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year instead of its current year estimated average daily attendance. The bill would revise those authorized limitations to instead be an unspecified percentage, based upon unspecified average daily attendance distinction, authorize school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to instead limit the number of pupils transferring out to 10% of its average daily attendance, as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year. The bill year, and would also delete the 10% duration-of-the-program limitation.

(5)Existing law requires an application requesting a transfer pursuant to the school district of choice program to be submitted by the parent of a pupil to the school district of choice before January 1 of the school year preceding the school year for which the pupil is requesting to be transferred, and authorizes an applicant to request enrollment of the pupil in a specific school or program of the school district of choice. If an application is rejected, existing law requires the governing board of the school district of choice to include in the written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing.

This bill would require that written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied.

(6)Existing law requires the average daily attendance for pupils admitted by a school district of choice to be credited to that school district, as specified. For a school district of choice that is a basic aid school district, existing law requires the apportionment of state funds for average daily attendance credited pursuant to a school district of choice program to be 25% of the school district local control funding formula base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence.

This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, for a school district of choice that is a basic aid school district, for a pupil who is eligible for free or reduced-price meals, a foster youth, or a pupil of limited English proficiency, require the apportionment of state funds for average daily attendance credited pursuant to the school district of choice program to be 70% of the school district local control funding formula base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence.

(7)Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school of choice to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils.

This bill would add a pupils foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting.

(8)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029.

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

(9)This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes.

(1)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, in accordance with various programmatic and procedural requirements and limitations, as provided.

Existing law prohibits school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils actual or perceived academic skill or other personal characteristics.

This bill would expand that prohibition to also prohibit school districts of choice from targeting their communications to individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupils or pupils' actual or perceived proficiency in English, family income, or their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of a hate crime, as defined.

(2)Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the school district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, and an English learner.

This bill would expand that prohibition to further prohibit a school district of choice from rejecting the transfer of a pupil who is a foster youth, as defined, or a homeless child or youth, as defined.

(3)Existing law requires school districts of choice to give first priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in the school district, and requires school districts of choice to give second priority for attendance to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This bill would require school districts of choice to also give second priority for attendance to pupils who are foster youth or homeless children or youth.

(4)Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes school districts of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less to limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance, and to limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the school district of choice program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period.

This bill would revise those authorized limitations to instead be an unspecified percentage, based upon unspecified average daily attendance distinction, as reported as of the first principal apportionment of the prior fiscal year. The bill would also delete the 10% duration-of-the-program limitation.

(5)Existing law requires an application requesting a transfer pursuant to the school district of choice program to be submitted by the parent of a pupil to the school district of choice before January 1 of the school year preceding the school year for which the pupil is requesting to be transferred, and authorizes an applicant to request enrollment of the pupil in a specific school or program of the school district of choice. If an application is rejected, existing law requires the governing board of the school district of choice to include in the written notification to the parent that the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice and that the pupil was not selected during the random drawing.

This bill would require that written notification to specify whether the number of pupils applying to transfer exceeded the capacity of the school district of choice or the specific school or program to which the pupil applied.

(6)Existing law requires the average daily attendance for pupils admitted by a school district of choice to be credited to that school district, as specified. For a school district of choice that is a basic aid school district, existing law requires the apportionment of state funds for average daily attendance credited pursuant to a school district of choice program to be 25% of the school district local control funding formula base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence.

This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, for a school district of choice that is a basic aid school district, for a pupil who is eligible for free or reduced-price meals, a foster youth, or a pupil of limited English proficiency, require the apportionment of state funds for average daily attendance credited pursuant to the school district of choice program to be 70% of the school district local control funding formula base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence.

(7)Existing law requires each school district of choice to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers pursuant to a school district of choice program and records of all disposition of those requests, which are required to include, among other things, the number of pupils transferred out of the school district of choice pursuant to the program, the number of pupils transferred into the school of choice to the program, and the race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, and the school district of residence of each of those pupils.

This bill would add a pupils foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to that required accounting.

(8)Existing law makes the school district of choice program inoperative as of July 1, 2028, and repeals its provisions as of January 1, 2029.

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

(9)This bill also would make other nonsubstantive changes.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 897

Author: Newman (D), et al.

Amended: 8/19/24

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/20/24

AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, Glazer, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Archuleta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/28/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict attendance: school districts of choice

SOURCE: Charter Oak Unified School District

Glendora Unified School District

Oak Park Unified School District

Riverside Unified School District

Walnut Valley Unified School District

DIGEST:

This bill (1) extends the District of Choice (DOC) program in perpetuity, (2) prevents DOCs from discriminating based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes, (3) requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance, (4) allows districts with a qualified or negative budget status to limit students transfers to DOCs, and (5) requires DOC program requirements to be subject to annual audit.

Assembly Amendments (1)

change the transfer caps to be based on average daily attendance (ADA) from the prior fiscal year; (2) allow districts with a qualified or negative budget status to limit student transfers to DOCs; (3) modify the notification process for transfer applications and impose funding penalties for districts exceeding the transfer caps; (4) add foster youth and homeless status to required accounting records; (5) requires DOC program requirements to be subject to annual audit; and (6) remove the requirement for a Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) evaluation.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the governing board of a school district to designate itself as a DOC and accept transfers from other school districts. If a school district chooses this option, it must determine the number of transfers it will accept and admit all applicants until it reaches maximum capacity, ensuring a fair selection process that disregards academic or athletic performance, physical condition, English proficiency, and other personal characteristics.
2. Considers students attending a school in a DOC as having fulfilled residency requirements, and all communication regarding transfer opportunities must be available in languages required by the district of residence.
3. Prohibits DOCs from denying a pupil's transfer based solely on the additional cost of educating them. However, DOCs can reject a transfer if accommodating the pupil would require creating a new program, with exceptions for special needs students and English learners.
4. Requires DOCs to give attendance priority to siblings of children already enrolled, second preference to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and third preference to children of military personnel.
5. Allows districts of residence with average daily attendance (ADA) greater than 50,000 and less than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1 percent and 3 percent of current year estimated ADA, respectively. Further, districts of residence with ADA less than 50,000 may cap the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program at 10 percent of the ADA for that period. Districts of residence may also restrict transfers that would negatively impact desegregation plans, racial and ethnic balance, or fiscal stability. Once a pupil is accepted into a DOC, they are permitted to attend regardless of any subsequent restrictions placed by the district of residence.
6. Specifies that the ADA and state aid for categorical education programs of admitted pupils be credited to the DOC. For basic aid school districts, 25 percent of the local control funding formula (LCFF) base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence shall be apportioned to the DOC.
7. Requires DOCs to maintain detailed records of transfer requests and dispositions, including demographics of transferred pupils and transportation data if applicable, reporting this information to their governing board and adjacent school districts annually. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) is tasked with compiling and disseminating this data statewide, providing comprehensive information on pupil characteristics, academic performance, graduation rates, enrollment trends, fiscal health, and compliance with transfer limits on an annual basis.
8. Renders the DOC program inoperative on July 1, 2028.

This bill (1) extends the District of Choice (DOC) program in perpetuity; (2) prevents DOCs from discriminating based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes; (3) requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance; (4) allows districts with a qualified or negative budget status to limit students transfers to DOCs; and (5) requires DOC program requirements to be subject to annual audit.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author:

“The District of Choice program gives students and families the flexibility to choose a public school setting that is best suited to their educational needs and plans. Making the program permanent will provide much-needed certainty for the thousands of families across California whose children attend school through the District of Choice program. These families have been able to avail themselves of educational opportunities that otherwise would be closed off to them, and they’re entitled to the assurance that their students will be able to graduate alongside their friends and classmates, regardless of home address or the politics here in Sacramento.”

1. This program was created soon after the Charter Schools Act and has been reauthorized seven times. The DOC program was created in the early 1990s to increase the choices available to students within the public school system. Supporters of this program believed more choice within public education would stave off interest in private school by encouraging public schools to be more responsive to community concerns and by allowing parents to choose the instructional setting best suited for their children. As a result, the Legislature enacted three laws. The first, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, allowed the establishment of charter schools that could operate independently from school districts. The second, enacted in 1993, gave students more options to transfer to other schools within the same district. The third law, also enacted in 1993, created the DOC program. Although this law was not the first to allow interdistrict transfers, it was designed to be much less restrictive.

The 1993 legislation implemented the DOC program as a five‑year pilot, with the first transfers occurring in the 1995‑96 school year. The Legislature extended the program for five more years in 1999, followed by additional extensions in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017, and 2022. The most recent extension authorized the program until July 1, 2028. The Legislature has made several changes to the program as part of these reauthorizations, most of which took effect in 2018-19. The most notable changes involved (1) making districts subject to annual audits; (2) requiring the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and report data; (3) adding transfer priority for low‑income students; (4) reducing funding for basic aid districts; and (5) requiring districts to make application information available online.

School district participation in the program involves the district registering with the state and its county board of education, along with adopting a resolution stating the maximum number of transfer students it will accept. The transfer rules dictate that a student's “home district” must permit the transfer unless it would surpass certain caps or negatively impact the district's fiscal condition, court-ordered desegregation plan, or racial balance. Admission procedures for DOCs require them to accept all interested students up to their approved limit, resorting to a lottery if oversubscribed, with priority given to certain groups such as siblings of current students, low-income students, and children from military families. Further, when a student transfers, the funding associated with that student shifts from the home district to the DOC.

1. What other interdistrict transfer options are available for students? In addition to the DOC program, the state has the following other laws allowing students to transfer to other school districts:
   1. Charter Schools. There are over 1,000 public charter schools in the state that provide instruction in any combination of grades kindergarten through grade 12. Parents, teachers, or community members may initiate charter petitions, which include the specific goals and operating procedures for the charter school. While most charter schools offer traditional, classroom-based instruction, about 20 percent offer some form of independent study, such as distance learning or home study.
   2. Magnet Schools. Magnet schools are designed by local authorities to attract parents, guardians, and students who are free to choose the school in which they enroll. These programs and schools are established by district governing boards that can make a wide range of choices depending on their local needs and resources. Magnet schools and programs include those that provide unique instruction in the arts, in various sciences, and in career education. Others reflect a district strategy to achieve racial and ethnic balance. When one or more magnets are established at a particular school, students from across the district may select a magnet with available space.
   3. Interdistrict Permits. These allow a student to transfer from one district to another district provided both districts consent to the transfer and the student meets any locally determined conditions. Districts receiving these transfer students may require students to meet certain attendance and/or academic standards.
   4. Parental employment transfers. These allow a student to transfer into a district if at least one parent is employed within the boundaries of that district and that district has chosen to accept parental employment transfers. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home districts.
   5. The Open Enrollment Act. This option, for low-performing schools, allows a student attending a school with low performance on state tests to transfer to another school inside or outside the district that has a higher level of performance and space available. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home districts.
2. Legislative Analyst Findings and Recommendations. Existing law required the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to publish an evaluation of the DOC program in January 2016. To further assist deliberations about the program, statute required a second evaluation from the LAO, using newly available data, by January 31, 2021.

In its follow-up evaluation of the DOC program, the LAO made the following findings:

• 1. District and Student Characteristics. As of 2018-19, the state has 45 DOCs enrolling nearly 9,600 transfer students. Participating students are 40 percent Latino, 28 percent Asian, 26 percent white, and 6 percent other groups. The program appears to increase racial balance for some districts and reduce it for others, although these changes are typically small—the overall effect appears to be neutral. Low-income students transfer at low rates compared with their share of home district enrollment—the early application deadline (January 1) can be a challenge for these students.
  2. District Finances. The median DOC generates 22 percent of its total enrollment from students transferring through the program. Enrollment decreases among home districts tends to be small—usually less than 1 percent and rarely more than 5 percent. Basic aid districts have reduced the number of students they are willing to take due to the lower funding rate they receive.
  3. Academic Outcomes. Students gained access to an average of five to seven courses not offered by their home districts. Home districts often respond by taking action to retain students, such as adding new programs. The home districts most affected by the program have made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years.
  4. Program Oversight. Auditors did not find any districts improperly denying transfer applications. DOCs approved nearly 90 percent of transfer applications—denials involved districts reaching their locally determined transfer limits. At least four home districts have prohibited all future transfers using the cumulative cap.

The LAO also included the following program recommendations:

• 1. Reauthorize the program, potentially on a permanent basis. The program offers quality educational choices, with recent oversight revealing no significant issues and an increase in disadvantaged student participation. Ending the program would disrupt current users and deny future students opportunities. To ensure stability, a permanent reauthorization is recommended, but if a temporary extension is chosen, a minimum of five years is suggested to gather sufficient data, particularly considering potential anomalies from the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. Repeal cumulative cap. Repealing the cap would allow students to use the program regardless of the previous transfer activity in their districts. Leaving the cap in place, by contrast, seems likely to reduce program participation over the next several years. Even without the cap, districts could limit transfers that exceed 3 percent of their annual enrollment or notably worsen fiscal distress. If the Legislature remained concerned about the immediate effect on home districts, it could phase out the cap gradually.
  3. Allow later application deadline. Moving the application deadline from January 1 to March 1 would enhance program accessibility, providing students with two additional months to consider their transfer options. To accommodate this change, the Legislature could eliminate the requirement for districts to notify students of their acceptance or denial by February 15, while maintaining the May 1 deadline for DOCs to finalize their list of accepted students.
  4. Increase funding for basic aid districts and adjust the rate for disadvantaged students. Adjusting the funding rate for basic aid districts to align with the LCFF, beginning at 60 percent of the formula's base amount, increasing to 80 percent for low-income students and English learners. This adjustment would incentivize districts to attract and retain these students and is estimated to generate similar funding levels as the previous 70 percent rate for all students.
  5. Continue collecting data, consider funding a survey to learn more about transfer decisions. To better understand transfer patterns, especially concerning racial disparities, the Legislature could fund a survey focusing on factors such as awareness of transfer options, motivations for transferring, and overall district satisfaction, which could inform strategies to increase participation among underrepresented groups.
  6. Repeal redundant reporting requirements. Repeal the requirement for districts to prepare their own annual report on the program, as it duplicates information already provided by CDE, and repeal the requirement for participating districts to annually notify adjacent districts of their intent to remain in the program, as registration requirements added in 2017 ensure dissemination of this information.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1) Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant, amount to continue to provide per-student funding to both a student's home district and the school districts of choice program they attend in certain instances.

2) Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund cost shifts from a student's district of residence to a student's school districts of choice program. Assuming current participation in the program of 9,600, this would equate to an ongoing cost shift between districts of about $100 million annually.

3) Minor and absorbable General Fund costs to CDE to reduce per-student funding to districts of choice in certain instances.

4) Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to COEs and school districts of residence. If the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill's requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts or provide funding through the K-12 Mandate Block Grant.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/24)

Glendora Unified School District (co-source)
Oak Park Unified School District (co-source)
Riverside Unified School District (co-source)
Walnut Valley Unified School District (co-source)
Charter Oak Unified School District

Encinitas Union School District
El Nido Elementary School District
Geyserville Unified School District
Hope School District District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Maple School District
Montecito Union School District
Mulberry Elementary School
Nevada City Elementary School District
Vista Del Mar Union School District

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/24)

Pomona Unified School District

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/28/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonta, Cervantes, Ortega

Click here to enter text.

Prepared by: Ian Johnson / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/28/24 23:28:21

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 897

Author:(Newman)

As Amended Ver:August 19, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Eliminates the sunset date and instead extends the District of Choice (DOC) program indefinitely and makes various changes to the program requirements.

Major Provisions

1. Requires DOCs to accept student transfers for foster youth and homeless youth.
2. Authorizes a school district of residence to stop transfers if the school district receives a qualified budget certification.
3. Requires all provisions of the DOC program subject to annual audits.

COMMENTS

Background on the DOC program. Under the DOC program, 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 specified factors. The DOC program was established in 1993 as a five‑year pilot, with the first transfers occurring in the 1995‑96 school year. The Legislature extended the program for five more years in 1999, followed by additional extensions in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017, and 2022. The most recent extension authorized the program until July 1, 2028. The Legislature has made several changes to the program as part of these reauthorizations, most of which took effect in 2018-19. The most notable changes involved:

1. Making some provisions of the DOC program subject to annual audits;
2. Requiring the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and report data;
3. Adding transfer priority for low‑income students;
4. Authorizing DOCs to provide transportation to students upon request;
5. Reducing funding for basic aid districts; and
6. Requiring districts to make application information available online.

Under existing law, when a student transfers to a DOC, the state pays average daily attendance (ADA) for the student at both their district of residence and the DOC for either one or three years, depending on the declining enrollment adjustment calculation done by the district of residence. This means the state is paying twice for every student who transfers under the DOC program.

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 that 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.

DOC program promotes racial segregation. Pomona Unified School District has collected data to show that the DOC program is causing racial segregation in their school district. According to Pomona Unified School District, "Despite the Pomona Unified School District's student population being 85% Hispanic, 60% of the students approved from the local District of Choice were Asian and Caucasian."

Data from the CDE's DOC website reveals that 2,574 students from 68 different districts have transferred into the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Notably, 68% of these students are Asian or Caucasian. Interestingly, many of the 68 contributing districts have demographic profiles similar to the Pomona Unified School District, where the majority of students are Hispanic or Latino.

Similar discrepancies exist in the Las Virgenes Unified School District (LVUSD). Whereas only 5% of LVUSD's enrollment is Asian, 30% of DOC transfers to Oak Park Unified School District identify as Asian. Additionally, 40% of LVUSD students are low-income, English Learner, and/or a student with a disability, but only 20% of DOC transfers to Oak Park include students in these demographics.

Data from Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) also shows that its local DOC is serving high needs students, such as students with disabilities and English Learners at much lower rates.

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

History of District of Choice evaluations. Under current law, districts establish themselves as DOCs by adopting a local school board resolution. Required data collection on DOCs and the number of transfers they accept or deny began in 2008, and this data is required to be reported to the 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 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 DOCs. It is important to note that 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 2003 report by the CDE, 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 of 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 11 basic aid districts 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 a lack of data sharing between various agencies, the evaluation did not get completed. That 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 DOCs statewide, and the report recommends the program's sunset date be extended. Because the data in the report was collected through a 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% of the students attending home districts but only 32% of participating transfer students. Conversely, white students and Asian students transfer at relatively high rates."

2021 LAO evaluation. The LAO made the following findings regarding the DOC program in 2021:

1. District and Student Characteristics. As of 2018-19, the state has 45 DOCs enrolling nearly 9,600 transfer students. Participating students are 40% Latino, 28% Asian, 26% white, and 6% other groups. The program appears to increase racial balance for some districts and reduce it for others, although these changes are typically small—the overall effect appears to be neutral. Low-income students transfer at low rates compared with their share of home district enrollment—the early application deadline (January 1) can be a challenge for these students.
2. District Finances. The median DOC generates 22% of its total enrollment from students transferring through the program. Enrollment decreases among home districts tends to be small—usually less than 1% and rarely more than 5%. Basic aid districts have reduced the number of students they are willing to take due to the lower funding rate they receive.
3. Academic Outcomes. Students gained access to an average of five to seven courses not offered by their home districts. Home districts often respond by taking action to retain students, such as adding new programs. The home districts most affected by the program have made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years.
4. Program Oversight. Auditors did not find any districts improperly denying transfer applications. DOCs approved nearly 90% of transfer applications—denials involved districts reaching their locally determined transfer limits. At least four home districts have prohibited all future transfers using the cumulative cap.

According to the Author

"The District of Choice program gives students and families the flexibility to choose a public school setting that is best suited to their educational needs and plans. Making the program permanent will provide much-needed certainty for the thousands of families across California whose children attend school through the District of Choice program. These families have been able to avail themselves of educational opportunities that otherwise would be closed off to them, and they're entitled to the assurance that their students will be able to graduate alongside their friends and classmates, regardless of home address or the politics here in Sacramento."

Arguments in Support

Walnut Valley Unified School District states, "We are pleased to cosponsor Senate Bill (SB) 897 (Newman), which will build upon decades of documented and ongoing student success through District of Choice (DOC) programs. The bill will provide certainty to students and their families that they will continue to have access to the high-quality educational opportunities DOC programs offer and enable DOC districts to engage in long-term strategic planning of the programs and supports they offer students and their families. SB 897 also promotes equity for the most marginalized students by updating current DOC provisions.

Specifically, SB 897 will remove the current sunset provision and permanently authorize DOC programs. For decades, the DOC program has allowed students and their families to choose educational options that suit their needs and that yield positive student outcomes that otherwise may not be available to them. The Legislative Analyst's Office has completed two comprehensive evaluations of DOC programs that identify their educational benefits."

Arguments in Opposition

Pomona Unified School District states, "We are writing a collaborative letter to express our strong opposition to the reauthorization of SB 897 which is the District of Choice program in California. We believe SB 897 would undermine the integrity of our school district, exacerbates existing inequalities, segregates schools, financially harms districts and forces school closures.

The reauthorization of SB 897 would allow students to transfer out of their home districts and enroll in schools of their choosing, regardless of residency. While this may seem like a solution to provide families with more options, it ultimately creates a host of issues that adversely impacts our students and schools.

First and foremost, it exacerbates educational inequalities. By allowing students to leave their home districts, it drains resources from already underfunded schools, further widening the gap between affluent and disadvantaged communities. Schools in low-income areas already struggle with limited resources, and this program only serves to divert much-needed funding away from them. Despite the Pomona Unified School District's (PUSD) student population being 85% Hispanic, 60% of the students approved from the local District of Choice were Asian and Caucasian."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant, amount to continue to provide per-student funding to both a student's home district and the school districts of choice program they attend in certain instances.
2. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund cost shifts from a student's district of residence to a student's school districts of choice program. Assuming current participation in the program of 9,600, this would equate to an ongoing cost shift between districts of about $100 million annually.
3. Minor and absorbable General Fund costs to CDE to reduce per-student funding to districts of choice in certain instances.
4. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to COEs and school districts of residence. If the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill's requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts or provide funding through the K-12 Mandate Block Grant.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Archuleta

ASM EDUCATION: 6-0-1

YES: Muratsuchi, Addis, Alvarez, Flora, Hoover, McCarty

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bonta

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: August 19, 2024

CONSULTANT: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003983

Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 897

Author:(Newman) – As Amended Ver:July 1, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill makes various changes to the school districts of choice program and eliminates the sunset of program, therefore continuing the program indefinitely.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a county office of education (COE) to determine the percentage of students transferring out of a school district of residence to a school districts of choice program, at the request of a school district of residence in its jurisdiction, in certain instances. The bill also requires a COE to request data from the school districts of choice program in its jurisdiction regarding the number of students transferring into the school districts of choice program.
2. Prohibits a school districts of choice program, if it does not respond to a data request as described in 1, above, from a COE within 30 days, from accepting new student transfers into the school districts of choice program until it complies with the request.
3. Requires a school district of residence, within 60 days of receiving the determination from a COE that a school districts of choice program has reached its statutory enrollment cap, to issue a letter to the COE and the school districts of choice program notifying them the cap has been reached and further student transfers are prohibited.
4. Requires a COE to determine per-student funding provided to districts of choice in excess of enrollment caps, to calculate associated costs, and to report this information to the California Department of Education (CDE) in situations when a school districts of choice program is identified as having accepted students from a school district of residence after a school district of residence has provided a notice that they have reached their enrollment cap. CDE is then to reduce per-student funding to districts of choice commensurate with these findings.
5. Modifies reporting requirements related to school districts of choice reporting information to districts of residence related to the students it accepts and enrolls into its program. Specifically, the bill adjusts timelines and requires additional information.
6. Prohibits a school districts of choice program from prohibiting the transfer of a foster youth, or a homeless child or youth based on those characteristics and expands priority status for the school districts of choice program programs to foster youth or homeless children or youth.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant, amount to continue to provide per-student funding to both a student’s home district and the school districts of choice program they attend.

The state provides about $11,000 per student to a school district annually to serve the student, with additional funding for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth. In the 2018-19 school year, about 9,600 students participated in the school districts of choice program.

Current law credits school districts with the higher of their current‑ or prior‑year attendance for funding purposes or the average of the last three years. This means, when a student transfers from their district of residence to a school districts of choice program, in many cases, both districts will receive funding for serving that student for a period of time.

Holding school districts of choice program participation constant, assuming a school district is using prior-year attendance for funding purposes, and assuming 5% of the school districts of choice program population exits the program annually, either by graduating or for other reasons, therefore making way for an equivalent number of students into the program, costs to provide funding for these students at both districts would result in additional Proposition 98 General Fund costs of about $5 million annually.

1. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund cost shifts from a student’s district of residence to a student’s school districts of choice program. While these shifts are mitigated in the short term by the funding protections described in item 1, above, on an ongoing basis, a district of residence would lose funding for these students and a school district of choice program would gain it. Assuming current participation in the program of 9,600, this would equate to an ongoing cost shift between districts of about $100 million annually.
2. Minor and absorbable General Fund costs to CDE to reduce per-student funding to districts of choice in certain instances.
3. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to COEs and school districts of residence. Specifically, to COEs (a) to, upon request of a school district of residence and in certain instances, determine the percentage of students transferring out of school districts of residence in their county for the duration of the program, (b) to request data from associated school districts of choice regarding the number of students transferring into the school districts of choice program, and (c) for audits to determine per-student funding provided to districts of choice in excess of enrollment caps, to calculate associated costs, and to report this information to CDE. Costs to school districts of residence to issue a letter to their COE and school districts of choice program notifying them if the school districts of choice program enrollment cap has been reached and that further student transfers are prohibited.

If the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts or provide funding through the K-12 Mandate Block Grant.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

The school districts of choice program gives students and families the flexibility to choose a public school setting that is best suited to their educational needs and plans. Making the program permanent will provide much-needed certainty for the thousands of families across California whose children attend school through the School districts of choice program.

1. Background. A state law adopted in 1993 temporarily established the school districts of choice program. The program allows a student to transfer from their school district of residence to another school district that has chosen to participate in the school districts of choice program. Since the program’s authorization, the program’s sunset has been extended multiple times, most recently until January 1, 2028. The program requires school districts participating in the school districts of choice program to accept interested students regardless of their academic abilities or personal characteristics. Unlike other interdistrict transfer laws, the program also allows students to transfer without seeking permission from their home districts, with certain limitations. Specifically, a school district of residence with an average daily attendance greater than 50,000 may limit the number of students transferring out to a school districts of choice program each year to 1% of its current year estimated average daily attendance. A school district of residence with an average daily attendance of 50,000 or less may limit the number of students transferring out to a school districts of choice program each year to 3% of its current year estimated average daily attendance and may limit the maximum number of students transferring out for the duration of the program to 10% of the average daily attendance for that period. In addition, a school district may restrict a student from participating in the program if certain conditions are met, such as if a transfer would negatively impact the court-ordered desegregation plan of the school district of residence.

In the 2018-19 school year, according to LAO’s 2021 evaluation of the school districts of choice program, the program consisted of 45 participating school districts enrolling nearly 9,600 transfer students. Participating districts are located throughout the state, with the highest concentrations in the Counties of Los Angeles, Kern, and Sonoma.

Current law requires LAO to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the school districts of choice program and to prepare recommendations regarding the extension of the program by September 30, 2026.

This bill would eliminate the school districts of choice program’s sunset and make various other changes to the program.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Al Muratsuchi, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 897

Author:(Newman) – As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict attendance: school districts of choice

SUMMARY: Eliminates the sunset date and instead extends the District of Choice (DOC) program indefinitely; eliminates the 10% lifetime cap on student transfers out of a district of residence with less than 50,000 average daily attendance (ADA); increases the annual cap on student transfers out of a district of residence with less than 50,000 ADA to 10%; and requires DOCs to accept student transfers for foster youth and homeless youth. Specifically, this bill:

1. Deletes the sunset date for the DOC program and instead authorizes the DOC program indefinitely.
2. Deletes the 10% lifetime cap on student transfers out of a district of residence with less than 50,000 ADA.
3. Raises the annual cap on student transfers out of a district of residence with less than 50,000 ADA from 3% to 10%.
4. Prohibits a DOC from denying admission to a foster or homeless youth.
5. Requires a DOC to provide second attendance priority to foster youth and homeless youth.
6. Requires a DOC to collect information on the number of students transferring into and out of the DOC who are foster youth and homeless youth.
7. Requires communications to parents by DOCs to be factually accurate and not target individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a pupil’s proficiency in English, any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section 200, or family income. 

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes a school board to declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers without the approval of the district of residence. 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, physical condition, proficiency in English, any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section 200, and family income.
2. Requires each DOC to register with the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the county board of education prior to admitting pupils.
3. Authorizes a DOC to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a DOC is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, and an English learner.
4. Requires a DOC to give attendance priority as follows:
   1. First priority to siblings of children already in attendance in that district;
   2. Second priority to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals; and
   3. Third priority to children of military personnel.
5. Authorizes a school district of residence to limit transfers to a DOC as follows:
   1. A school district of residence with an ADA greater than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1% of its current year estimated ADA;
   2. A school district of residence with an ADA of 50,000 or less may limit the number of pupils transferring out to 3% of its current year estimated ADA and may limit the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program authorized by this article to 10% of the ADA for that period; and
   3. A school district of residence that has a negative status on the most recent budget certification completed by the county superintendent of schools in any fiscal year may limit the number of pupils who transfer out of the district in that fiscal year.
6. Establishes, for a DOC that is a basic aid school district, the apportionment of state funds for ADA credited to be 25% of the school district Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence.
7. Requires each DOC 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 district of residence for each student in b and c above; and,
   5. The number of pupils in b and c above who are English Learners or individuals with exceptional needs.
8. Requires each DOC to notify each district of residence by February 15^th regarding the number of accepted students by grade level.
9. Upon request of the pupil’s parent, each school district of choice that admits a pupil to any school or program of the school district may provide to the pupil transportation assistance to that school or program, to the extent that the school district otherwise provides transportation assistance to pupils.
10. Authorizes a district of residence to prevent a student transfer if the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation.
11. Sunsets the DOC program on July 1, 2028, and repeals the program on January 1, 2029. (Education Code (EC) 48300-48316)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there will be no significant costs to the state associated with the extension of the DOC program. However, there would be a local impact to a participating school district’s ADA, which could vary depending on the type of district, the number of students that transfer, and whether the student qualifies for supplemental or concentration grant funding under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “The District of Choice program gives students and families the flexibility to choose a public school setting that is best suited to their educational needs and plans. Making the program permanent will provide much-needed certainty for the thousands of families across California whose children attend school through the District of Choice program. These families have been able to avail themselves of educational opportunities that otherwise would be closed off to them, and they’re entitled to the assurance that their students will be able to graduate alongside their friends and classmates, regardless of home address or the politics here in Sacramento.”

Background on the DOC program. Under the DOC program, 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 specified factors. The DOC program was established in 1993 as a five‑year pilot, with the first transfers occurring in the 1995‑96 school year. The Legislature extended the program for five more years in 1999, followed by additional extensions in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017, and 2022. The most recent extension authorized the program until July 1, 2028. The Legislature has made several changes to the program as part of these reauthorizations, most of which took effect in 2018-19. The most notable changes involved:

1. Making DOCs subject to annual audits;
2. Requiring the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and report data;
3. Adding transfer priority for low‑income students;
4. Authorizing DOCs to provide transportation to students upon request;
5. Reducing funding for basic aid districts; and
6. Requiring districts to make application information available online.

Under existing law, when a student transfers to a DOC, the state pays average daily attendance (ADA) for the student at both their district of residence and the DOC for either one or three years, depending on the declining enrollment adjustment calculation done by the district of residence. This means the state is paying twice for every student who transfers under the DOC program.

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 that 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.

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 an annual 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 may wish to 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 may wish to consider whether to maintain the 10% lifetime cap.

DOC program promotes racial segregation. Pomona Unified School District has collected data to show that the DOC program is causing racial segregation in their school district. According to Pomona Unified School District, “Despite the Pomona Unified School District's student population being 85% Hispanic, 60% of the students approved from the local District of Choice were Asian and Caucasian.”

Data from the CDE’s DOC website reveals that 2,574 students from 68 different districts have transferred into the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Notably, 68% of these students are Asian or Caucasian. Interestingly, many of the 68 contributing districts have demographic profiles similar to the Pomona Unified School District, where the majority of students are Hispanic or Latino.

Similar discrepancies exist in the Las Virgenes Unified School District (LVUSD). Whereas only 5% of LVUSD's enrollment is Asian, 30% of DOC transfers to Oak Park Unified School District identify as Asian. Additionally, 40% of LVUSD students are low-income, English Learner, and/or a student with a disability, but only 20% of DOC transfers to Oak Park include students in these demographics.

Data from Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) also shows that its local DOC is serving high needs students, such as students with disabilities and English Learners at much lower rates.

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

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), “Asian Students Participate at the Highest Levels Relative to Their Share of Home District Enrollment. After analyzing trends in overall participation, we examined relative participation levels for the three largest groups of students using the program. Figure 7 compares the share of students using the program with the average among home districts. Although Latino students account for the largest users of the program, they participate at relatively low levels compared with their overall share of home district enrollment. Specifically, they average 68 percent of home district enrollment but only 40 percent of participating transfer students. By contrast, Asian students have relatively high participation, accounting for 9 percent of home district enrollment and 28 percent of participating transfer students. White students also have relatively high participation, accounting for 17 percent of home district enrollment and 26 percent of participating students. As the figure shows, these trends are not unique to the District of Choice program. Similar differences in participation are evident in the interdistrict permit system.”

Busing reduces segregating effect on the DOC program. Pond Union School District is a DOC, and the data from their district tells a different story. 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. In years past, Pond received 94% Hispanic students from Delano, and the population of Hispanic students in Delano was 88%. Pond also received 96% low-income students from Delano, and the population of low-income students at Delano was 92%. Pond received 80% low income students from McFarland, and the population of low-income students at McFarland was 87%. Pond received 76% Hispanic students from McFarland, and the population of Hispanic students at McFarland was 98%.

Existing law authorizes a DOC to provide transportation to pupils but does not require transportation to be provided. The Committee may wish to consider whether busing provides more equitable access to the DOC program for low-income and minority students and requires DOCs 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 DOCs by adopting a local school board resolution. Required data collection on DOCs and the number of transfers they accept or deny began in 2008, and this data is required to be reported to the 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 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 DOCs. It is important to note that 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 2003 report by the CDE, 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 of 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 11 basic aid districts 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 a lack of data sharing between various agencies, the evaluation did not get completed. That 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 DOCs statewide, and the report recommends the program's sunset date be extended. Because the data in the report was collected through a 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."

2021 LAO evaluation. The LAO made the following findings regarding the DOC program in 2021:

• District and Student Characteristics. As of 2018-19, the state has 45 DOCs enrolling nearly 9,600 transfer students. Participating students are 40 percent Latino, 28 percent Asian, 26 percent white, and 6 percent other groups. The program appears to increase racial balance for some districts and reduce it for others, although these changes are typically small—the overall effect appears to be neutral. Low-income students transfer at low rates compared with their share of home district enrollment—the early application deadline (January 1) can be a challenge for these students.
• District Finances. The median DOC generates 22 percent of its total enrollment from students transferring through the program. Enrollment decreases among home districts tends to be small—usually less than 1 percent and rarely more than 5 percent. Basic aid districts have reduced the number of students they are willing to take due to the lower funding rate they receive.
• Academic Outcomes. Students gained access to an average of five to seven courses not offered by their home districts. Home districts often respond by taking action to retain students, such as adding new programs. The home districts most affected by the program have made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years.
• Program Oversight. Auditors did not find any districts improperly denying transfer applications. DOCs approved nearly 90 percent of transfer applications—denials involved districts reaching their locally determined transfer limits. At least four home districts have prohibited all future transfers using the cumulative cap.

Arguments in support. Walnut Valley Unified School District states, “We are pleased to cosponsor Senate Bill (SB) 897 (Newman), which will build upon decades of documented and ongoing student success through District of Choice (DOC) programs. The bill will provide certainty to students and their families that they will continue to have access to the high-quality educational opportunities DOC programs offer and enable DOC districts to engage in long-term strategic planning of the programs and supports they offer students and their families. SB 897 also promotes equity for the most marginalized students by updating current DOC provisions.

Specifically, SB 897 will remove the current sunset provision and permanently authorize DOC programs. For decades, the DOC program has allowed students and their families to choose educational options that suit their needs and that yield positive student outcomes that otherwise may not be available to them. The Legislative Analyst's Office has completed two comprehensive evaluations of DOC programs that identify their educational benefits.”

Arguments in opposition. Pomona Unified School District states, “We are writing a collaborative letter to express our strong opposition to the reauthorization of SB 897 which is the District of Choice program in California. We believe SB 897 would undermine the integrity of our school district, exacerbates existing inequalities, segregates schools, financially harms districts and forces school closures.

The reauthorization of SB 897 would allow students to transfer out of their home districts and enroll in schools of their choosing, regardless of residency. While this may seem like a solution to provide families with more options, it ultimately creates a host of issues that adversely impacts our students and schools.

First and foremost, it exacerbates educational inequalities. By allowing students to leave their home districts, it drains resources from already underfunded schools, further widening the gap between affluent and disadvantaged communities. Schools in low-income areas already struggle with limited resources, and this program only serves to divert much-needed funding away from them. Despite the Pomona Unified School District's (PUSD) student population being 85% Hispanic, 60% of the students approved from the local District of Choice were Asian and Caucasian.”

Recommended Committee Amendments. Staff recommends the bill be amended to:

1. Reinstate the 3% annual cap and the 10% lifetime cap on students transferring out of the district of residence with less than 50,000 ADA.
2. Expand the portions of the DOC program that are subject to an annual audit, and prohibit school districts from participating in the DOC program if they are found out of compliance.
3. Authorize districts of residence to stop transfers under the DOC program if the district has a qualified budget certification.
4. Require DOCs to offer transportation to admitted pupils upon request.

Related legislation. SB 114 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 48, Statutes of 2021, extended the sunset date for the DOC program until January 1, 2028, and made several changes to the program.

AB 99 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of 2017, extended the sunset date for the DOC program until January 1, 2023, and made several changes to the program.

SB 1432 (Huff) of the 2015-16 Session, would have revised provisions of the DOC program and extended the program through January 1, 2023. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 597 (Huff), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015, provided a one-year extension of the sunset date for the DOC program and requires the 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 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 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

Association of Regional Center Agencies
California Catholic Conference
Charter Oak Unified School District
El Nido Elementary School District
Geyserville Unified School District
Glendora Unified School District
Hope School District District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Maple School District
Montecito Union School District
Mulberry Elementary School
Nevada City Elementary School District
Oak Park Unified School District
Riverside Unified School District
Vista Del Mar Union School District
Walnut Valley Unified School District

Opposition

Azusa Unified School District
Classified Schools Employee Association, Chapter Rowland 133
Conejo Valley Unified School District
Las Virgenes Unified School District
Pomona Unified School District
Public Advocates
Rowland Unified School District
Simi Valley Unified School District

Associated Pomona Teachers

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 897

Author: Newman (D), et al.

Amended: 5/16/24

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/20/24

AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, Glazer, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict attendance: school districts of choice

SOURCE: Charter Oak Unified School District (co-source)

Glendora Unified School District (co-source)

Oak Park Unified School District (co-source)

Riverside Unified School District (co-source)

Walnut Valley Unified School District (co-source)

DIGEST:

This bill: (1) extends the District of Choice (DOC) program in perpetuity, (2) changes the limits on the annual and total number of students transferring from their districts of residence over time, (3) prevents DOCs from discriminating based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes, and (4) requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the governing board of a school district to designate itself as a DOC and accept transfers from other school districts. If a school district chooses this option, it must determine the number of transfers it will accept and admit all applicants until it reaches maximum capacity, ensuring a fair selection process that disregards academic or athletic performance, physical condition, English proficiency, and other personal characteristics.
2. Considers students attending a school in a DOC as having fulfilled residency requirements, and all communication regarding transfer opportunities must be available in languages required by the district of residence.
3. Prohibits DOCs from denying a pupil's transfer based solely on the additional cost of educating them. However, DOCs can reject a transfer if accommodating the pupil would require creating a new program, with exceptions for special needs students and English learners.
4. Requires DOCs to give attendance priority to siblings of children already enrolled, second preference to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and third preference to children of military personnel.
5. Allows districts of residence with average daily attendance (ADA) greater than 50,000 and less than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1 percent and 3 percent of current year estimated ADA, respectively. Further, districts of residence with ADA less than 50,000 may cap the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program at 10 percent of the ADA for that period. Districts of residence may also restrict transfers that would negatively impact desegregation plans, racial and ethnic balance, or fiscal stability. Once a pupil is accepted into a DOC, they are permitted to attend regardless of any subsequent restrictions placed by the district of residence.
6. Specifies that the ADA and state aid for categorical education programs of admitted pupils be credited to the DOC. For basic aid school districts, 25 percent of the local control funding formula (LCFF) base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence shall be apportioned to the DOC.
7. Requires DOCs to maintain detailed records of transfer requests and dispositions, including demographics of transferred pupils and transportation data if applicable, reporting this information to their governing board and adjacent school districts annually. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) is tasked with compiling and disseminating this data statewide, providing comprehensive information on pupil characteristics, academic performance, graduation rates, enrollment trends, fiscal health, and compliance with transfer limits on an annual basis.
8. Renders the DOC program inoperative on July 1, 2028.

This bill:

1. Extends the DOC program in perpetuity.
2. For districts of residence with ADA of 50,000 or less, deletes the cumulative cap on the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program and increases the annual cap on the number of pupils transferring out each year from 3 percent to 10 percent of prior year ADA.
3. Specifies that DOCs may not discriminate based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes.
4. Requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance.
5. Adds foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to the DOC requirement to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers and records of all disposition of those requests.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author:

“The District of Choice program gives students and families the flexibility to choose a public school setting that is best suited to their educational needs and plans. Making the program permanent will provide much-needed certainty for the thousands of families across California whose children attend school through the District of Choice program. These families have been able to avail themselves of educational opportunities that otherwise would be closed off to them, and they’re entitled to the assurance that their students will be able to graduate alongside their friends and classmates, regardless of home address or the politics here in Sacramento.”

1. This program was created soon after the Charter Schools Act and has been reauthorized seven times. The DOC program was created in the early 1990s to increase the choices available to students within the public school system. Supporters of this program believed more choice within public education would stave off interest in private school by encouraging public schools to be more responsive to community concerns and by allowing parents to choose the instructional setting best suited for their children. As a result, the Legislature enacted three laws. The first, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, allowed the establishment of charter schools that could operate independently from school districts. The second, enacted in 1993, gave students more options to transfer to other schools within the same district. The third law, also enacted in 1993, created the DOC program. Although this law was not the first to allow interdistrict transfers, it was designed to be much less restrictive.

The 1993 legislation implemented the DOC program as a five‑year pilot, with the first transfers occurring in the 1995‑96 school year. The Legislature extended the program for five more years in 1999, followed by additional extensions in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017, and 2022. The most recent extension authorized the program until July 1, 2028. The Legislature has made several changes to the program as part of these reauthorizations, most of which took effect in 2018-19. The most notable changes involved (1) making districts subject to annual audits, (2) requiring the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and report data, (3) adding transfer priority for low‑income students, (4) reducing funding for basic aid districts, and (5) requiring districts to make application information available online.

School district participation in the program involves the district registering with the state and its county board of education, along with adopting a resolution stating the maximum number of transfer students it will accept. The transfer rules dictate that a student's “home district” must permit the transfer unless it would surpass certain caps or negatively impact the district's fiscal condition, court-ordered desegregation plan, or racial balance. Admission procedures for DOCs require them to accept all interested students up to their approved limit, resorting to a lottery if oversubscribed, with priority given to certain groups such as siblings of current students, low-income students, and children from military families. Further, when a student transfers, the funding associated with that student shifts from the home district to the DOC.

1. What other interdistrict transfer options are available for students? In addition to the DOC program, the state has the following other laws allowing students to transfer to other school districts:
   1. Charter Schools. There are over 1,000 public charter schools in the state that provide instruction in any combination of grades kindergarten through grade 12. Parents, teachers, or community members may initiate charter petitions, which include the specific goals and operating procedures for the charter school. While most charter schools offer traditional, classroom-based instruction, about 20 percent offer some form of independent study, such as distance learning or home study.
   2. Magnet Schools. Magnet schools are designed by local authorities to attract parents, guardians, and students who are free to choose the school in which they enroll. These programs and schools are established by district governing boards that can make a wide range of choices depending on their local needs and resources. Magnet schools and programs include those that provide unique instruction in the arts, in various sciences, and in career education. Others reflect a district strategy to achieve racial and ethnic balance. When one or more magnets are established at a particular school, students from across the district may select a magnet with available space.
   3. Interdistrict Permits. These allow a student to transfer from one district to another district provided both districts consent to the transfer and the student meets any locally determined conditions. Districts receiving these transfer students may require students to meet certain attendance and/or academic standards.
   4. Parental employment transfers. These allow a student to transfer into a district if at least one parent is employed within the boundaries of that district and that district has chosen to accept parental employment transfers. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home districts.
   5. The Open Enrollment Act. This option, for low-performing schools, allows a student attending a school with low performance on state tests to transfer to another school inside or outside the district that has a higher level of performance and space available. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home districts.
2. Legislative Analyst Findings and Recommendations. Existing law required the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to publish an evaluation of the DOC program in January 2016. To further assist deliberations about the program, statute required a second evaluation from the LAO, using newly available data, by January 31, 2021.

In its follow-up evaluation of the DOC program, the LAO made the following findings:

• 1. District and Student Characteristics. As of 2018-19, the state has 45 DOCs enrolling nearly 9,600 transfer students. Participating students are 40 percent Latino, 28 percent Asian, 26 percent white, and 6 percent other groups. The program appears to increase racial balance for some districts and reduce it for others, although these changes are typically small—the overall effect appears to be neutral. Low-income students transfer at low rates compared with their share of home district enrollment—the early application deadline (January 1) can be a challenge for these students.
  2. District Finances. The median DOC generates 22 percent of its total enrollment from students transferring through the program. Enrollment decreases among home districts tends to be small—usually less than 1 percent and rarely more than 5 percent. Basic aid districts have reduced the number of students they are willing to take due to the lower funding rate they receive.
  3. Academic Outcomes. Students gained access to an average of five to seven courses not offered by their home districts. Home districts often respond by taking action to retain students, such as adding new programs. The home districts most affected by the program have made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years.
  4. Program Oversight. Auditors did not find any districts improperly denying transfer applications. DOCs approved nearly 90 percent of transfer applications—denials involved districts reaching their locally determined transfer limits. At least four home districts have prohibited all future transfers using the cumulative cap.

The LAO also included the following program recommendations:

• 1. Reauthorize the program, potentially on a permanent basis. The program offers quality educational choices, with recent oversight revealing no significant issues and an increase in disadvantaged student participation. Ending the program would disrupt current users and deny future students opportunities. To ensure stability, a permanent reauthorization is recommended, but if a temporary extension is chosen, a minimum of five years is suggested to gather sufficient data, particularly considering potential anomalies from the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. Repeal cumulative cap. Repealing the cap would allow students to use the program regardless of the previous transfer activity in their districts. Leaving the cap in place, by contrast, seems likely to reduce program participation over the next several years. Even without the cap, districts could limit transfers that exceed 3 percent of their annual enrollment or notably worsen fiscal distress. If the Legislature remained concerned about the immediate effect on home districts, it could phase out the cap gradually.
  3. Allow later application deadline. Moving the application deadline from January 1 to March 1 would enhance program accessibility, providing students with two additional months to consider their transfer options. To accommodate this change, the Legislature could eliminate the requirement for districts to notify students of their acceptance or denial by February 15, while maintaining the May 1 deadline for DOCs to finalize their list of accepted students.
  4. Increase funding for basic aid districts and adjust the rate for disadvantaged students. Adjusting the funding rate for basic aid districts to align with the LCFF, beginning at 60 percent of the formula's base amount, increasing to 80 percent for low-income students and English learners. This adjustment would incentivize districts to attract and retain these students and is estimated to generate similar funding levels as the previous 70 percent rate for all students.
  5. Continue collecting data, consider funding a survey to learn more about transfer decisions. To better understand transfer patterns, especially concerning racial disparities, the Legislature could fund a survey focusing on factors such as awareness of transfer options, motivations for transferring, and overall district satisfaction, which could inform strategies to increase participation among underrepresented groups.
  6. Repeal redundant reporting requirements. Repeal the requirement for districts to prepare their own annual report on the program, as it duplicates information already provided by CDE, and repeal the requirement for participating districts to annually notify adjacent districts of their intent to remain in the program, as registration requirements added in 2017 ensure dissemination of this information.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

There will be no significant costs to the state associated with the extension of the DOC program. However, there would be a local impact to a participating school district’s average daily attendance (ADA) which could vary depending on the type of district, the number of students that transfer, and whether the student qualifies for supplemental or concentration grant funding under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/24)

Charter Oak Unified School District (co-source)

Glendora Unified School District (co-source)

Oak Park Unified School District (co-source)

Riverside Unified School District (co-source)

Walnut Valley Unified School District (co-source)

El Nido Elementary School District
Geyserville Unified School District
Hope School District District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Maple School District
Montecito Union School District
Mulberry Elementary School
Nevada City Elementary School District
Vista Del Mar Union School District

2 individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/24)

Pomona Unified School District

Prepared by: Ian Johnson / ED. / (916) 651-4105

5/18/24 12:26:47

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 897 (Newman) - Pupil attendance: interdistrict attendance: school districts of choice

Bill Summary:

This bill extends the District of Choice (DOC) program in perpetuity (currently scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2028) and changes the limits on the number of students that may transfer from their districts of residence over time. This bill also prevents DOCs from discriminating based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes and requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance.

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

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 16, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

There will be no significant costs to the state associated with the extension of the DOC program. However, there would be a local impact to a participating school district’s average daily attendance (ADA) which could vary depending on the type of district, the number of students that transfer, and whether the student qualifies for supplemental or concentration grant funding under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

Author Amendments:

Remove the provision that would increase the funding formula for basic aid DOCs, as specified.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 897 (Newman) - Pupil attendance: interdistrict attendance: school districts of choice

Bill Summary:

This bill extends the District of Choice (DOC) program in perpetuity (currently scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2028) and changes the limits on the number of students that may transfer from their districts of residence over time. This bill also prevents DOCs from discriminating based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes and requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance.

Fiscal Impact:

• There will be no significant costs to the state associated with the extension of the DOC program. However, there would be a local impact to a participating school district’s average daily attendance (ADA) which could vary depending on the type of district, the number of students that transfer, and whether the student qualifies for supplemental or concentration grant funding under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
• By increasing the funding formula for basic aid DOCs to accommodate foster youth, homeless children, and students with limited English proficiency, this bill would enable these districts to receive a higher percentage of the LCFF base grant (increase from 25 percent to 70 percent) that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence. The Proposition 98 General Fund costs associated with this change is unknown and would ultimately depend on the number of students that transfer to a basic aid DOC.

Background:

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to designate itself as a DOC and accept transfers from other school districts. If a school district chooses this option, it must determine the number of transfers it will accept and admit all applicants until it reaches maximum capacity, ensuring a fair selection process that disregards academic or athletic performance, physical condition, English proficiency, and other personal characteristics.

Existing law prohibits DOCs from denying a pupil's transfer based solely on the additional cost of educating them. However, DOCs can reject a transfer if accommodating the pupil would require creating a new program, with exceptions for special needs students and English learners. The law also requires DOCs to give attendance priority to siblings of children already enrolled, second preference to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and third preference to children of military personnel.

Existing law allows districts of residence with average daily attendance (ADA) greater than 50,000 and less than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1 percent and 3 percent of current year estimated ADA, respectively. Further, districts of residence with ADA less than 50,000 may cap the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program at 10 percent of the ADA for that period. Districts of residence may also restrict transfers that would negatively impact desegregation plans, racial and ethnic balance, or fiscal stability. Once a pupil is accepted into a DOC, they are permitted to attend regardless of any subsequent restrictions placed by the district of residence.

Existing law provides that the ADA and state aid for categorical education programs of admitted pupils shall be credited to the DOC. For basic aid school districts, 25 percent of the local control funding formula (LCFF) base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence shall be apportioned to the DOC.

The DOC program is operative until July 1, 2028.

Proposed Law:

This bill extends the DOC program in perpetuity. Additionally, for districts of residence with ADA of 50,000 or less, this bill deletes the cumulative cap on the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program and increases the annual cap on the number of pupils transferring out each year from 3 percent to 10 percent of prior year ADA.

This bill provides that DOCs may not discriminate based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes, and requires them to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance.

This bill increases the funding formula for basic aid DOCs serving students who are English-learners, low-income, foster youth, or a pupil with limited English proficiency, to 70 percent of the LCFF base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence. The bill also adds foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to the DOC requirement to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers and records of all disposition of those requests.

Related Legislation:

AB 185 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 571, Statutes of 2022), extended the DOC program through July 1, 2028.

AB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 15, Statutes of 2017), extended the DOC program through the 2022-2023 fiscal year; implemented program equity and accessibility changes; required the SPI to provide specified information on the program; required the LAO to provide an evaluation of the program by January 31, 2021.

SB 597 (Huff, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015), provided a one year extension of the sunset date for the DOC program and requires the LAO to complete their evaluation of the program by January 31, 2016.

Staff Comments:

The DOC program was created in 1993 along with several other pieces of legislation to increase the choices available to students within the public school system. The DOC program was established as a five‑year pilot, with the first transfers occurring in the 1995‑96 school year. The Legislature extended the program for five more years in 1999, followed by additional extensions in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017, and 2022. The most recent extension authorizes the program until July 1, 2028.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 897 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024

Subject: Pupil attendance: interdistrict attendance: school districts of choice.

SUMMARY

This bill: (1) extends the District of Choice (DOC) program in perpetuity, (2) changes the limits on the annual and total number of students transferring from their districts of residence over time, (3) prevents DOCs from discriminating based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes, (4) requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance, and (5) adjusts the funding formula for basic aid DOCs to accommodate foster youth, homeless children, and pupils with limited English proficiency.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the governing board of a school district to designate itself as a DOC and accept transfers from other school districts. If a school district chooses this option, it must determine the number of transfers it will accept and admit all applicants until it reaches maximum capacity, ensuring a fair selection process that disregards academic or athletic performance, physical condition, English proficiency, and other personal characteristics.
2. Considers students attending a school in a DOC as having fulfilled residency requirements, and all communication regarding transfer opportunities must be available in languages required by the district of residence.
3. Prohibits DOCs from denying a pupil's transfer based solely on the additional cost of educating them. However, DOCs can reject a transfer if accommodating the pupil would require creating a new program, with exceptions for special needs students and English learners.
4. Requires DOCs to give attendance priority to siblings of children already enrolled, second preference to pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and third preference to children of military personnel.
5. Allows districts of residence with average daily attendance (ADA) greater than 50,000 and less than 50,000 to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year to 1 percent and 3 percent of current year estimated ADA, respectively. Further, districts of residence with ADA less than 50,000 may cap the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program at 10 percent of the ADA for that period. Districts of residence may also restrict transfers that would negatively impact desegregation plans, racial and ethnic balance, or fiscal stability. Once a pupil is accepted into a DOC, they are permitted to attend regardless of any subsequent restrictions placed by the district of residence.
6. Specifies that the ADA and state aid for categorical education programs of admitted pupils be credited to the DOC. For basic aid school districts, 25 percent of the local control funding formula (LCFF) base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence shall be apportioned to the DOC.
7. Requires DOCs to maintain detailed records of transfer requests and dispositions, including demographics of transferred pupils and transportation data if applicable, reporting this information to their governing board and adjacent school districts annually. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) is tasked with compiling and disseminating this data statewide, providing comprehensive information on pupil characteristics, academic performance, graduation rates, enrollment trends, fiscal health, and compliance with transfer limits on an annual basis.
8. Renders the DOC program inoperative on July 1, 2028.

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Extends the DOC program in perpetuity.
2. For districts of residence with ADA of 50,000 or less, deletes the cumulative cap on the maximum number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program and increases the annual cap on the number of pupils transferring out each year from 3 percent to 10 percent of prior year ADA.
3. Specifies that DOCs may not discriminate based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes.
4. Requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance.
5. Increases the funding formula for basic aid DOCs serving students who are English-learners, low-income, foster youth, or a pupil with limited English proficiency, to 70 percent of the LCFF base grant that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence.
6. Adds foster youth status and homeless child or youth status to the DOC requirement to keep an accounting of all requests made for transfers and records of all disposition of those requests.
   

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “The District of Choice program gives students and families the flexibility to choose a public school setting that is best suited to their educational needs and plans. Making the program permanent will provide much-needed certainty for the thousands of families across California whose children attend school through the District of Choice program. These families have been able to avail themselves of educational opportunities that otherwise would be closed off to them, and they’re entitled to the assurance that their students will be able to graduate alongside their friends and classmates, regardless of home address or the politics here in Sacramento.”
2. This program was created soon after the Charter Schools Act and has been reauthorized seven times. The DOC program was created in the early 1990s to increase the choices available to students within the public school system. Supporters of this program believed more choice within public education would stave off interest in private school by encouraging public schools to be more responsive to community concerns and by allowing parents to choose the instructional setting best suited for their children. As a result, the Legislature enacted three laws. The first, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, allowed the establishment of charter schools that could operate independently from school districts. The second, enacted in 1993, gave students more options to transfer to other schools within the same district. The third law, also enacted in 1993, created the DOC program. Although this law was not the first to allow interdistrict transfers, it was designed to be much less restrictive.

The 1993 legislation implemented the DOC program as a five‑year pilot, with the first transfers occurring in the 1995‑96 school year. The Legislature extended the program for five more years in 1999, followed by additional extensions in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017, and 2022. The most recent extension authorized the program until July 1, 2028. The Legislature has made several changes to the program as part of these reauthorizations, most of which took effect in 2018-19. The most notable changes involved (1) making districts subject to annual audits, (2) requiring the California Department of Education (CDE) to collect and report data, (3) adding transfer priority for low‑income students, (4) reducing funding for basic aid districts, and (5) requiring districts to make application information available online.

School district participation in the program involves the district registering with the state and its county board of education, along with adopting a resolution stating the maximum number of transfer students it will accept. The transfer rules dictate that a student's “home district”" must permit the transfer unless it would surpass certain caps or negatively impact the district's fiscal condition, court-ordered desegregation plan, or racial balance. Admission procedures for DOCs require them to accept all interested students up to their approved limit, resorting to a lottery if oversubscribed, with priority given to certain groups such as siblings of current students, low-income students, and children from military families. Further, when a student transfers, the funding associated with that student shifts from the home district to the DOC.

1. What other interdistrict transfer options are available for students? In addition to the DOC program, the state has the following other laws allowing students to transfer to other school districts:
   1. Charter Schools. There are over 1,000 public charter schools in the state that provide instruction in any combination of grades kindergarten through grade 12. Parents, teachers, or community members may initiate charter petitions, which include the specific goals and operating procedures for the charter school. While most charter schools offer traditional, classroom-based instruction, about 20 percent offer some form of independent study, such as distance learning or home study.
   2. Magnet Schools. Magnet schools are designed by local authorities to attract parents, guardians, and students who are free to choose the school in which they enroll. These programs and schools are established by district governing boards that can make a wide range of choices depending on their local needs and resources. Magnet schools and programs include those that provide unique instruction in the arts, in various sciences, and in career education. Others reflect a district strategy to achieve racial and ethnic balance. When one or more magnets are established at a particular school, students from across the district may select a magnet with available space.
   3. Interdistrict Permits. These allow a student to transfer from one district to another district provided both districts consent to the transfer and the student meets any locally determined conditions. Districts receiving these transfer students may require students to meet certain attendance and/or academic standards.
   4. Parental employment transfers. These allow a student to transfer into a district if at least one parent is employed within the boundaries of that district and that district has chosen to accept parental employment transfers. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home districts.
   5. The Open Enrollment Act. This option, for low-performing schools, allows a student attending a school with low performance on state tests to transfer to another school inside or outside the district that has a higher level of performance and space available. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home districts.
2. Legislative Analyst Findings and Recommendations. Existing law required the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) to publish an evaluation of the DOC program in January 2016. To further assist deliberations about the program, statute required a second evaluation from the LAO, using newly available data, by January 31, 2021.

In its follow-up evaluation of the DOC program, the LAO made the following findings:

• 1. District and Student Characteristics. As of 2018-19, the state has 45 DOCs enrolling nearly 9,600 transfer students. Participating students are 40 percent Latino, 28 percent Asian, 26 percent white, and 6 percent other groups. The program appears to increase racial balance for some districts and reduce it for others, although these changes are typically small—the overall effect appears to be neutral. Low-income students transfer at low rates compared with their share of home district enrollment—the early application deadline (January 1) can be a challenge for these students.
  2. District Finances. The median DOC generates 22 percent of its total enrollment from students transferring through the program. Enrollment decreases among home districts tends to be small—usually less than 1 percent and rarely more than 5 percent. Basic aid districts have reduced the number of students they are willing to take due to the lower funding rate they receive.
  3. Academic Outcomes. Students gained access to an average of five to seven courses not offered by their home districts. Home districts often respond by taking action to retain students, such as adding new programs. The home districts most affected by the program have made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years.
  4. Program Oversight. Auditors did not find any districts improperly denying transfer applications. DOCs approved nearly 90 percent of transfer applications—denials involved districts reaching their locally determined transfer limits. At least four home districts have prohibited all future transfers using the cumulative cap.

The LAO also included the following program recommendations:

• 1. Reauthorize the program, potentially on a permanent basis. The program offers quality educational choices, with recent oversight revealing no significant issues and an increase in disadvantaged student participation. Ending the program would disrupt current users and deny future students opportunities. To ensure stability, a permanent reauthorization is recommended, but if a temporary extension is chosen, a minimum of five years is suggested to gather sufficient data, particularly considering potential anomalies from the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. Repeal cumulative cap. Repealing the cap would allow students to use the program regardless of the previous transfer activity in their districts. Leaving the cap in place, by contrast, seems likely to reduce program participation over the next several years. Even without the cap, districts could limit transfers that exceed 3 percent of their annual enrollment or notably worsen fiscal distress. If the Legislature remained concerned about the immediate effect on home districts, it could phase out the cap gradually.
  3. Allow later application deadline. Moving the application deadline from January 1 to March 1 would enhance program accessibility, providing students with two additional months to consider their transfer options. To accommodate this change, the Legislature could eliminate the requirement for districts to notify students of their acceptance or denial by February 15, while maintaining the May 1 deadline for DOCs to finalize their list of accepted students.
  4. Increase funding for basic aid districts and adjust the rate for disadvantaged students. Adjusting the funding rate for basic aid districts to align with the LCFF, beginning at 60 percent of the formula's base amount, increasing to 80 percent for low-income students and English learners. This adjustment would incentivize districts to attract and retain these students and is estimated to generate similar funding levels as the previous 70 percent rate for all students.
  5. Continue collecting data, consider funding a survey to learn more about transfer decisions. To better understand transfer patterns, especially concerning racial disparities, the Legislature could fund a survey focusing on factors such as awareness of transfer options, motivations for transferring, and overall district satisfaction, which could inform strategies to increase participation among underrepresented groups.
  6. Repeal redundant reporting requirements. Repeal the requirement for districts to prepare their own annual report on the program, as it duplicates information already provided by CDE, and repeal the requirement for participating districts to annually notify adjacent districts of their intent to remain in the program, as registration requirements added in 2017 ensure dissemination of this information.

1. Previous Legislation.

AB 185 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 571, Statutes of 2022), extended the DOC program through July 1, 2028.

AB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 15, Statutes of 2017), extended the DOC program through the 2022-2023 fiscal year; implemented program equity and accessibility changes; required the SPI to provide specified information on the program; required the LAO to provide an evaluation of the program by January 31, 2021.

SB 597 (Huff, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2015), provided a one year extension of the sunset date for the DOC program and requires the 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 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 LAO to complete an evaluation of the DOC program and report to the Legislature by November 1, 2014.

SB 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 174, Statutes of 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.

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.

SUPPORT

Charter Oak Unified School District (co-sponsor)

Glendora Unified School District (co-sponsor)

Oak Park Unified School District (co-sponsor)

Riverside Unified School District (co-sponsor)

Walnut Valley Unified School District (co-sponsor)

El Nido Elementary School District

Geyserville Unified School District

Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office

Los Angeles County Office of Education

Maple School District

Mulberry Elementary School

Vista Del Mar Union School District

OPPOSITION

Pomona Unified School District

-- END --