Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. If a school district enters into an agreement, existing law requires, among other things, (1) that the agreement stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance will be permitted or denied, (2) that the school district post on its internet website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit, as provided, (3) the notification of a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days from the date the request was received, and (4) if the school district denies a request for an interdistrict transfer, that the school district advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial.

This bill would require the governing board of a school that has entered into an agreement, on or after January 1, 2027, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils to adopt, and post on its internet website, a policy that includes specified provisions, including that if the school district determines that a request received from a parent is incomplete, the school district is required to notify the parent, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request, identifying any missing information or documentation, as provided. The bill would allow for certain extensions of the above-described 30-day requirement to notify a parent of its final decision when an application is determined to be incomplete or if an individualized education program meeting has been scheduled or is pending, as provided. The bill would require all interdistrict agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027, to also contain those specified provisions, as provided. The bill would authorize the parent or guardian of a pupil to submit an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to the school district of residence and the school district of proposed agreement if there is an interdistrict agreement between the 2 school districts, and would require the school district of proposed enrollment to begin reviewing the request upon receipt, as provided.

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. If a school district enters into an agreement, existing law requires, among other things, (1) that the agreement stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance will be permitted or denied, (2) that the school district post on its internet website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit, as provided, (3) the notification of a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days from the date the request was received, and (4) if the school district denies a request for an interdistrict transfer, that the school district advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial.

This bill would require the governing board of a school that has entered into an agreement, on or after January 1, 2027, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils to adopt, and post on its internet website, a policy that includes specified provisions, including that if the school district determines that a request received from a parent is incomplete, the school district is required to notify the parent, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request, identifying any missing information or documentation, as provided. The bill would allow for certain extensions of the above-described 30-day requirement to notify a parent of its final decision when an application is determined to be incomplete or if an individualized education program meeting has been scheduled or is pending, as provided. The bill would require all interdistrict agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027, to also contain those specified provisions, as provided. The bill would authorize the parent or guardian of a pupil to submit an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to the school district of residence and the school district of proposed agreement if there is an interdistrict agreement between the 2 school districts, and would require the school district of proposed enrollment to begin reviewing the request upon receipt, as provided.

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. If a school district enters into an agreement, existing law requires, among other things, (1) that the agreement stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance will be permitted or denied, (2) that the school district post on its internet website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit, as provided, (3) the notification of a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days from the date the request was received, and (3) (4) if the school district denies a request for an interdistrict transfer, that the school district advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial.

This bill would require the governing board of a school that has entered into an agreement, on or after January 1, 2027, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils to adopt, and post on its internet website, a policy that includes specified provisions, including that if the school district determines that a request received from a parent is incomplete, the school district is required to notify the parent, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request, identifying any missing information or documentation, as provided. The bill would allow for certain extensions of the above-described 30-day requirement to notify a parent of its final decision when an application is determined to be incomplete or if an individualized education program meeting has been scheduled or is pending, as provided. The bill would require all interdistrict agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027, to also contain those specified provisions, as provided. The bill would authorize the parent or guardian of a pupil to submit an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to the school district of residence and the school district of proposed agreement if there is an interdistrict agreement between the 2 school districts, and would require the school district of proposed enrollment to begin reviewing the request upon receipt, as provided.

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. If a school district enters into an agreement, existing law requires, among other things, (1) that the agreement stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance will be permitted or denied, (2) that the school district post on its internet website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit, as provided, and (3) if the school district denies a request for an interdistrict transfer, that the school district advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial.

This bill would require the governing board of a school that has entered into an agreement, on or after January 1, 2027, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils to adopt, and post on its internet website, a policy that includes specified provisions, including that if a response is not issued by the school district of residence within 30 calendar days, the request will be deemed as approved for release. the school district determines that a request received from a parent is incomplete, the school district is required to notify the parent, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request, identifying any missing information or documentation, as provided. The bill would require all interdistrict agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027, to also contain those specified provisions, as provided. The bill would authorize the parent or guardian of a pupil to submit an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to the school district of residence and the school district of proposed agreement if there is an interdistrict agreement between the 2 schools school districts, and would require the school district of proposed enrollment to begin reviewing the request upon receipt, as provided.

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. If a school district enters into an agreement, existing law requires, among other things, (1) that the agreement stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance will be permitted or denied, (2) that the school district post on its internet website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit, as provided, and (3) if the school district denies a request for an interdistrict transfer, that the school district advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial.

This bill would require the governing board of a school that has entered into an agreement, on or after January 1, 2027, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils to adopt, and post on its internet website, a policy that includes specified provisions, including that (1) if a response is not issued by the school district of residence within 30 calendar days, the request will be deemed as approved for release, (2) for a school district of proposed enrollment, the school district will notify a parent of its final decision within 45 calendar days of the request and if the school district fails to respond, the request will be deemed as approved, (3) a pupil who has been expelled or is under consideration for expulsion may be denied an interdistrict transfer, and (4) a school district of proposed enrollment may issue a provisional acceptance in cases where enrollment capacity is impacted, as provided. release. The bill would require all interdistrict agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027, to also contain those specified provisions, as provided. The bill would authorize the parent or guardian of a pupil to submit an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to the school district of residence and the school district of proposed agreement if there is an interdistrict agreement between the 2 schools districts, and would authorize require the school district of proposed enrollment to begin reviewing the request upon receipt, as provided.

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. If a school district enters into an agreement, existing law requires, among other things, (1) that the agreement stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance will be permitted or denied, (2) that the school district post on its internet website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit, as provided, and (3) if the school district denies a request for an interdistrict transfer, that the school district advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial.

This bill would require the governing board of a school that has entered into an agreement, on or after January 1, 2027, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils to adopt, and post on its internet website, a policy that includes specified provisions, including that (1) if a response is not issued by the school district of residence within 30 calendar days, the request will be deemed as approved for release, (2) for a school district of proposed enrollment, the school district will notify a parent of its final decision within 45 calendar days of the request and if the school district fails to respond, the request will be deemed as approved, (3) a pupil who has been expelled or is under consideration for expulsion may be denied an interdistrict transfer, and (4) a school district of proposed enrollment may issue a provisional acceptance in cases where enrollment capacity is impacted, as provided. The bill would require all interdistrict agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027, to also contain those specified provisions, as provided. The bill would authorize the parent or guardian of a pupil to submit an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to the school district of residence and the school district of proposed agreement if there is an interdistrict agreement between the 2 schools districts, and would authorize the school district of proposed enrollment to begin reviewing the request upon receipt, as provided.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1082

Author: Niello (R)

Amended: 7/2/26

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/15/26

AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Cabaldon, Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/27/26

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 8/6/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict transfers: agreements: policies

SOURCE: Association of California County Boards of Education

Just Advocates

DIGEST:

This bill (1) requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence; and (2) requires that either school district determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district shall notify the parent within 30 days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation to process the request.

Assembly Amendments

(1) permit school districts to extend the review period of an interdistrict transfer request by 30 calendar days, if a school district determines that the request received from a parent is incomplete and notifies the parent of the missing information or documentation, and (2) restricts the rationale that school districts may use to extend the review period of interdistrict transfer requests to be if an individualized education program meeting has been scheduled or if the meeting is pending.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the governing boards of two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term of up to five school years, for the interdistrict attendance of students who are residents of the school districts. (Education Code (EC) § 46600)
   
2. Authorizes the agreement to provide for the admission to a school district other than the school district of residence of a student who requests a permit to attend a school district of proposed enrollment (that is a party to the agreement). (EC § 46600)
   
3. Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance shall be permitted or denied, and authorizes the agreement to stipulate terms and conditions established by the school district of residence and the school district of enrollment under which the permit may be revoked. (EC § 46600)
4. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to ensure that students who are admitted are selected through an unbiased process that prohibits an inquiry into or evaluation or consideration of whether or not a student should be enrolled based on academic or athletic performance, physical condition, proficiency in English, family income, or any of protected characteristics (race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and immigration status). (EC § 46600)
5. Requires that a student who has been determined by personnel of either the school district of residence or the school district of proposed enrollment to have been the victim of an act of bullying committed by a student of the school district of residence to be given priority for interdistrict attendance. (EC § 46600)
   
6. Requires each school district of residence and school district of proposed enrollment to post on its website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit in a manner that is accessible to the public, including a link to the policy of the governing board of the school district. (EC § 46600.2)
7. Requires that a school district of residence and a school district of proposed enrollment to notify a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days from the date the request was received. (EC § 46600.2)
8. Requires a school district that denies a request for an interdistrict transfer to advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial. (EC § 46600.2)
9. Provides for a process to appeal a request for an interdistrict transfer, including a) requiring a parent to appeal to a county board of education within 30 calendar days should they choose to file an appeal, and b) requiring the county board of education to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment and the applicable period of attendance within 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed. (EC § 46601)

This bill:

1. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, irrespective of the status of the school district of residence’s response, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence.
2. Requires that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district shall notify the parent within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation required by the policies of the school district to process the request.
3. Permits either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment to extend the review period of an interdistrict transfer request by 30 calendar days if a school district determines that the request received from a parent is incomplete pursuant to #2.
4. Authorizes that if an individualized education program meeting has been scheduled or if the meeting is pending, the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment may extend the review period by up to an additional 30 calendar days, if written notice is provided to the parent within 30 calendar days of receiving the request.
5. Requires the governing board of a school district entering into an interdistrict attendance agreement to adopt a policy regarding the relevant procedures and timelines relating to a request for an interdistrict transfer, and to require all agreements entered on or after January 1, 2027 to include the provisions of these policies. The policy shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
   1. The date that the school district will begin accepting and processing interdistrict transfer requests for the subsequent school year and any other applicable timelines for submitting a request.
   2. The criteria the school district will use to approve or deny a request, and any information or documents that must be submitted as supporting evidence.
   3. The process and timelines for which a denial of a request may be appealed within the school district before the school district renders a final decision, and any other relevant information regarding the appeals process.
   4. That failure of the parent to meet any timelines established by the school district shall be deemed an abandonment of that request.
   5. Applicable timelines for processing a request, including:
      1. Notifying a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days of the date the request was received, and that if a response is not issued by the school district of residence within 30 calendar days, the request shall be deemed approved for the school district of residence.
      2. Notifying a parent submitting a future year request of its final decision as soon as possible, but no later than 14 calendar days after the commencement of instruction in the school year for which interdistrict transfer is sought.
   6. The conditions under which an existing interdistrict transfer permit may be revoked or rescinded.
6. Makes findings and declarations stating that timely access to educational opportunities and school choice is a fundamental right for all California pupils and that this bill seeks to clarify and expedite the well-established interdistrict transfer process for school districts.

Comments

Need for this bill. According to the author, “families requesting interdistrict transfers often experience lengthy delays—sometimes 60 to 90 days or longer—from the district of residence. During this time, districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin their own review until a release decision is issued. These delays are rarely intentional and often reflect administrative workload and capacity constraints. However, the impact of families can be significant, leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education.”

The author continues, “SB 1082 builds on existing law by clarifying expectations and ensuring that inaction does not function as an unintended denial. … [This bill] streamlines the interdistrict transfer process by clarifying review timelines … The bill enables districts of residence to waive review and approve an exit request when no response is issued within 30 days … Together, these changes ensure families receive timely decisions while reducing the administrative burden for school districts and county boards of education.”

Process and timelines for interdistrict transfers. The state has several options that allow students to transfer to other school districts, and interdistrict transfers are a longstanding state policy that allows a student to transfer from one district to another when both districts consent to the transfer. A student may wish to transfer for multiple reasons, including seeking certain educational programming not available in their district of residence. For a district of residence, many districts evaluating a request have a limited set of reasons for which they will release a student, and examples may include the availability of childcare in the other district or the attendance of a sibling already enrolled in the other district. For a district of proposed enrollment, they may be evaluating impacted enrollment at the school and within the grade, as well as capacity constraints for the student’s expected courses if they are in middle or high school.

Regarding timelines, for a parent submitting a current year request for an interdistrict transfer, the school district is currently required to notify a parent of its decision within 30 calendar days from when the request was received. For students denied a release, parents may appeal the decision to their county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of final denial, and the county board of education has another 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment, as well as the applicable period of attendance.

A parent should theoretically be waiting 30 days to learn if their request was approved. If denied and then appealed to a county board of education, this process could take another 30 to 60 days, depending on when the parent files an appeal. In total, according to existing timelines, this means that a parent should be waiting between 1 to 3 months for a final decision on an interdistrict transfer permit. In contrast, the author’s office indicates that families are often waiting 60 to 90 days just for the district of residence.

Lack of data makes it difficult to verify to what extent this is a statewide problem. The author indicates that families requesting an interdistrict permit often experience significant delays far exceeding statutory timelines, which can create unnecessarily burdensome timelines for parents and students. Unfortunately, the state generally does not publish statewide or district-level data for the interdistrict permit system that can verify these claims. A Legislative Analyst’s Office report from February 2021 on the District of Choice Program stated that in 2018-19, 146,109 students used an interdistrict permit and that 635 districts accepted students through interdistrict permits; however, this data relies upon a special data extraction prepared by the California Department of Education (CDE). Without publicly available data on interdistrict transfers—including how many requests are approved or denied every year, how long requests take to be resolved, how often and when appeals are filed, and which districts or county boards of education are seeing longer than expected delays—it is difficult to know to what extent this is a statewide problem without a more in-depth survey of the individual county offices of education.

Could concurrent review expedite the overall process while also creating unnecessary workload for school districts of proposed enrollment? School districts of proposed enrollment often do not begin reviewing interdistrict transfer requests until school districts of residence have approved them. The typical rationale for this is that if the school district of residence denies the request, the request is considered denied regardless of the school district of proposed enrollment’s response, so it is wise to wait for the school district of residence’s decision to avoid unnecessary workload. However, if a parent decides to appeal a denied request, a county board of education would ideally review an appeal with responses from both the school district of residence and the school district of proposed attendance, in order for a more timely resolution and to avoid the possibility of needing a second appeal if the county board of education is receiving information from the two school districts on separate timelines.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 399 (Niello, 2025) would have (1) required school districts to keep record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specified information; (2) required school districts to submit annually the information for the current school year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); and (3) required the SPI to post annually the information on CDE’s website. SB 399 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1127 (Luz Rivas & Robert Rivas, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2019) requires a school district of residence to approve an intradistrict transfer request for a victim of an act of bullying, and requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept an interdistrict transfer to accept all students to apply pursuant to this bill, as specified.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

This bill could result in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs ranging from the tens of thousands of dollars to low hundreds of thousands of dollars for school districts to develop or modify their interdistrict transfer policies and also provide guidance to parents. This estimate assumes that each district would require several hours of personnel time on these activities.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/6/26)

Association of California County Boards of Education (co-source)
Just Advocates (co-source)
California Policy Center
Families in Action for Quality Education
Kern County Office of Education
Lighthouse Community Public Schools
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Monterey County Office of Education
Navigator Schools
Orange County Board of Education
Placer County Office of Education
San Mateo County Office of Education
Seneca Family of Agencies

One Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/6/26)

None received.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 8/6/26

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Castillo, Flora, Fong, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Valencia

Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/14/26 12:57:01

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1082

Author: Niello (R)

Amended: 7/2/26

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/15/26

AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Cabaldon, Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/27/26

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 8/6/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict transfers: agreements: policies

SOURCE: Association of California County Boards of Education

Just Advocates

DIGEST:

This bill (1) requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence; and (2) requires that either school district determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district shall notify the parent within 30 days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation to process the request.

Assembly Amendments

(1) permit school districts to extend the review period of an interdistrict transfer request by 30 calendar days, if a school district determines that the request received from a parent is incomplete and notifies the parent of the missing information or documentation, and (2) restricts the rationale that school districts may use to extend the review period of interdistrict transfer requests to be if an individualized education program meeting has been scheduled or if the meeting is pending.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the governing boards of two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term of up to five school years, for the interdistrict attendance of students who are residents of the school districts. (Education Code (EC) § 46600)
   
2. Authorizes the agreement to provide for the admission to a school district other than the school district of residence of a student who requests a permit to attend a school district of proposed enrollment (that is a party to the agreement). (EC § 46600)
   
3. Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance shall be permitted or denied, and authorizes the agreement to stipulate terms and conditions established by the school district of residence and the school district of enrollment under which the permit may be revoked. (EC § 46600)
4. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to ensure that students who are admitted are selected through an unbiased process that prohibits an inquiry into or evaluation or consideration of whether or not a student should be enrolled based on academic or athletic performance, physical condition, proficiency in English, family income, or any of protected characteristics (race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and immigration status). (EC § 46600)
5. Requires that a student who has been determined by personnel of either the school district of residence or the school district of proposed enrollment to have been the victim of an act of bullying committed by a student of the school district of residence to be given priority for interdistrict attendance. (EC § 46600)
   
6. Requires each school district of residence and school district of proposed enrollment to post on its website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit in a manner that is accessible to the public, including a link to the policy of the governing board of the school district. (EC § 46600.2)
7. Requires that a school district of residence and a school district of proposed enrollment to notify a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days from the date the request was received. (EC § 46600.2)
8. Requires a school district that denies a request for an interdistrict transfer to advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial. (EC § 46600.2)
9. Provides for a process to appeal a request for an interdistrict transfer, including a) requiring a parent to appeal to a county board of education within 30 calendar days should they choose to file an appeal, and b) requiring the county board of education to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment and the applicable period of attendance within 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed. (EC § 46601)

This bill:

1. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, irrespective of the status of the school district of residence’s response, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence.
2. Requires that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district shall notify the parent within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation required by the policies of the school district to process the request.
3. Permits either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment to extend the review period of an interdistrict transfer request by 30 calendar days if a school district determines that the request received from a parent is incomplete pursuant to #2.
4. Authorizes that if an individualized education program meeting has been scheduled or if the meeting is pending, the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment may extend the review period by up to an additional 30 calendar days, if written notice is provided to the parent within 30 calendar days of receiving the request.
5. Requires the governing board of a school district entering into an interdistrict attendance agreement to adopt a policy regarding the relevant procedures and timelines relating to a request for an interdistrict transfer, and to require all agreements entered on or after January 1, 2027 to include the provisions of these policies. The policy shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
   1. The date that the school district will begin accepting and processing interdistrict transfer requests for the subsequent school year and any other applicable timelines for submitting a request.
   2. The criteria the school district will use to approve or deny a request, and any information or documents that must be submitted as supporting evidence.
   3. The process and timelines for which a denial of a request may be appealed within the school district before the school district renders a final decision, and any other relevant information regarding the appeals process.
   4. That failure of the parent to meet any timelines established by the school district shall be deemed an abandonment of that request.
   5. Applicable timelines for processing a request, including:
      1. Notifying a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days of the date the request was received, and that if a response is not issued by the school district of residence within 30 calendar days, the request shall be deemed approved for the school district of residence.
      2. Notifying a parent submitting a future year request of its final decision as soon as possible, but no later than 14 calendar days after the commencement of instruction in the school year for which interdistrict transfer is sought.
   6. The conditions under which an existing interdistrict transfer permit may be revoked or rescinded.
6. Makes findings and declarations stating that timely access to educational opportunities and school choice is a fundamental right for all California pupils and that this bill seeks to clarify and expedite the well-established interdistrict transfer process for school districts.

Comments

Need for this bill. According to the author, “families requesting interdistrict transfers often experience lengthy delays—sometimes 60 to 90 days or longer—from the district of residence. During this time, districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin their own review until a release decision is issued. These delays are rarely intentional and often reflect administrative workload and capacity constraints. However, the impact of families can be significant, leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education.”

The author continues, “SB 1082 builds on existing law by clarifying expectations and ensuring that inaction does not function as an unintended denial. … [This bill] streamlines the interdistrict transfer process by clarifying review timelines … The bill enables districts of residence to waive review and approve an exit request when no response is issued within 30 days … Together, these changes ensure families receive timely decisions while reducing the administrative burden for school districts and county boards of education.”

Process and timelines for interdistrict transfers. The state has several options that allow students to transfer to other school districts, and interdistrict transfers are a longstanding state policy that allows a student to transfer from one district to another when both districts consent to the transfer. A student may wish to transfer for multiple reasons, including seeking certain educational programming not available in their district of residence. For a district of residence, many districts evaluating a request have a limited set of reasons for which they will release a student, and examples may include the availability of childcare in the other district or the attendance of a sibling already enrolled in the other district. For a district of proposed enrollment, they may be evaluating impacted enrollment at the school and within the grade, as well as capacity constraints for the student’s expected courses if they are in middle or high school.

Regarding timelines, for a parent submitting a current year request for an interdistrict transfer, the school district is currently required to notify a parent of its decision within 30 calendar days from when the request was received. For students denied a release, parents may appeal the decision to their county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of final denial, and the county board of education has another 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment, as well as the applicable period of attendance.

A parent should theoretically be waiting 30 days to learn if their request was approved. If denied and then appealed to a county board of education, this process could take another 30 to 60 days, depending on when the parent files an appeal. In total, according to existing timelines, this means that a parent should be waiting between 1 to 3 months for a final decision on an interdistrict transfer permit. In contrast, the author’s office indicates that families are often waiting 60 to 90 days just for the district of residence.

Lack of data makes it difficult to verify to what extent this is a statewide problem. The author indicates that families requesting an interdistrict permit often experience significant delays far exceeding statutory timelines, which can create unnecessarily burdensome timelines for parents and students. Unfortunately, the state generally does not publish statewide or district-level data for the interdistrict permit system that can verify these claims. A Legislative Analyst’s Office report from February 2021 on the District of Choice Program stated that in 2018-19, 146,109 students used an interdistrict permit and that 635 districts accepted students through interdistrict permits; however, this data relies upon a special data extraction prepared by the California Department of Education (CDE). Without publicly available data on interdistrict transfers—including how many requests are approved or denied every year, how long requests take to be resolved, how often and when appeals are filed, and which districts or county boards of education are seeing longer than expected delays—it is difficult to know to what extent this is a statewide problem without a more in-depth survey of the individual county offices of education.

Could concurrent review expedite the overall process while also creating unnecessary workload for school districts of proposed enrollment? School districts of proposed enrollment often do not begin reviewing interdistrict transfer requests until school districts of residence have approved them. The typical rationale for this is that if the school district of residence denies the request, the request is considered denied regardless of the school district of proposed enrollment’s response, so it is wise to wait for the school district of residence’s decision to avoid unnecessary workload. However, if a parent decides to appeal a denied request, a county board of education would ideally review an appeal with responses from both the school district of residence and the school district of proposed attendance, in order for a more timely resolution and to avoid the possibility of needing a second appeal if the county board of education is receiving information from the two school districts on separate timelines.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 399 (Niello, 2025) would have (1) required school districts to keep record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specified information; (2) required school districts to submit annually the information for the current school year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); and (3) required the SPI to post annually the information on CDE’s website. SB 399 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1127 (Luz Rivas & Robert Rivas, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2019) requires a school district of residence to approve an intradistrict transfer request for a victim of an act of bullying, and requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept an interdistrict transfer to accept all students to apply pursuant to this bill, as specified.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

This bill could result in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs ranging from the tens of thousands of dollars to low hundreds of thousands of dollars for school districts to develop or modify their interdistrict transfer policies and also provide guidance to parents. This estimate assumes that each district would require several hours of personnel time on these activities.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/6/26)

Association of California County Boards of Education (co-source)
Just Advocates (co-source)
California Policy Center
Families in Action for Quality Education
Kern County Office of Education
Lighthouse Community Public Schools
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Monterey County Office of Education
Navigator Schools
Orange County Board of Education
Placer County Office of Education
San Mateo County Office of Education
Seneca Family of Agencies

One Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/6/26)

CFT – A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 8/6/26

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Castillo, Flora, Fong, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Valencia

Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/7/26 13:36:12

**** END ****

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Darshana R. Patel, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1082

Author:(Niello) – As Amended Ver:April 22, 2026

SENATE VOTE:

SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict transfers: agreements: policies

SUMMARY: Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence; requires that either school district determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district notify the parent within 30 days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation to process the request. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, if the governing boards of two or more school districts enter into an agreement for the interdistrict attendance of students, a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence.
2. Requires that if either school district determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district must notify the parent within 30 days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation required to process the request.
3. Requires the governing board of a school district that has entered into an interdistrict agreement, as specified, to adopt and post the policy on its website providing the relevant procedures and timelines regarding interdistrict transfer requests.
4. Requires all interdistrict transfer agreements entered into between school districts on or after January 1, 2027, to include, but not be limited to, the following:
   1. Any applicable timelines for submitting an interdistrict transfer request;
   2. The criteria the school district will use to approve or deny a request;
   3. Relevant information regarding the appeals process if the request is denied;
   4. The requirement to notify the parent, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request, identifying any missing information or documentation required by the policies of the school district to process the request; and
   5. If a school district determines that additional time is necessary to gather required information, including, but not limited to, an individualized education program (IEP) or other relevant record, the school district may extend the review period by up to an additional 30 calendar days, if written notice of the extension is provided to the parent within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the request.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years to attend public school for the full length of the schoolday as designated by the governing board of the school district in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located. (Education Code (EC) 48200)
2. Requires a parent or guardian of a minor between the ages of 6 and 16 years who removes the minor from a school district before the completion of the current school term to enroll the minor in a public full-time school of the school district to which the minor is moved. (EC 48201)
3. Provides that a student complies with the residency requirements for school attendance in a school district if he or she is any of the following:
4. A student placed within the boundaries of that school district in a regularly established licensed children’s institution, a licensed foster home, or a foster family home;
5. A student who is a foster child who remains in his or her school of origin;
6. A student for whom interdistrict attendance has been approved;
7. An emancipated student whose residence is located within the boundaries of that school district;
8. A student who lives in the home of a caregiving adult that is located within the boundaries of that school district; and
9. A student residing in a state hospital located within the boundaries of that school district. (EC 48204)
10. Authorizes a school district to deem a student to have complied with the residency requirements for school attendance if at least one parent or the legal guardian is physically employed within the boundaries of that school district for a minimum of 10 hours during the school week. (EC 48204)
11. Provides that a student complies with the residency requirements for school attendance in a school district if he or she is a student whose parent is transferred or is pending transfer to a military installation within the state while on active military duty pursuant to an official military order. (EC 48204.3)
12. Authorizes two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed five school years, for the interdistrict attendance of students to a school district other than the school district of residence. Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance shall be permitted or denied. (EC 46600)
13. Requires that a student who has been determined to have been the victim of an act of bullying committed by a student of the school district of residence to be given priority for interdistrict attendance under any existing interdistrict attendance agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, be given additional consideration for the creation of an interdistrict attendance agreement. (EC 46600)
14. Prohibits a school district of residence from denying the transfer of a child of an active military family or a victim of an act of bullying if the school district of proposed enrollment approves the application for transfer, as follows:
15. States that if the school district of residence has only one school offering the grade level of the victim of an act of bullying, and therefore there is no option for an intradistrict transfer, the victim of an act of bullying may apply for an interdistrict transfer, and the school district of residence shall not prohibit the transfer;
16. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept an interdistrict transfer, for a child of an active military family or a victim of an act of bullying, to accept all pupils who apply to transfer until the school district is at maximum capacity;
17. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to ensure that pupils admitted are selected through an unbiased process that prohibits an inquiry into or evaluation or consideration of whether or not a pupil should be enrolled based on academic or athletic performance, physical condition, proficiency in English, family income, or any of the individual characteristics set forth in EC 220, including, but not limited to, race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and immigration status; and
18. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to provide transportation for a pupil who has transferred and is eligible for free or reduced-price meals, at the request of the parent. (EC 46600)
19. Requires each school district of residence and school district of enrollment to post on its website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit. Specifies that for current year requests, the school district must notify the parent of its final decision within 30 calendar days, and for future year requests, no later than 14 calendar days after the start of the instructional year. (EC 46600.2)
20. Provides for a process to appeal the denial of a request for an interdistrict transfer and requires the school district to notify the parent in writing of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 days from the date of the final denial. (EC Section 46601)
21. Authorizes the school district of residence or the receiving school district to prohibit transfer if the school district determines that the transfer would negatively impact the court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district. (EC 48204)
22. Authorizes the receiving school district to prohibit a transfer if the school district determines that the additional cost of educating the student would exceed the amount of additional state aid received because of the transfer. (EC 48204)
23. Authorizes the governing board of a school district to operate as a school district of choice (DOC) and accept transfers of students from other school districts; requires the governing board to determine the number of transfers it is willing to accept and requires the district to accept all students who apply to transfer until the DOC is at maximum capacity. (EC 48301)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill could result in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs ranging from tens of thousands of dollars to low hundreds of thousands of dollars for school districts to develop or modify their interdistrict transfer policies and also provide guidance to parents. This estimate assumes that each district would require several hours of personnel time on these activities.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “Senate Bill 1082 is a modest procedural measure that improves the efficiency and transparency of California's interdistrict transfer process. The bill allows concurrent review of transfer requests, clarifies notification requirements when applications are incomplete, and ensures families have access to clear information regarding timelines, criteria, and appeal rights. By reducing unnecessary delays while preserving local decision-making authority and existing appeal rights, SB 1082 helps families receive timely and predictable decisions.”

Major provisions of this bill. It authorizes a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict request concurrently with the school district of residence, rather than waiting for the response of that district. Requires either district to notify the parent within 30 days if the interdistrict transfer request is missing any required information or documentation. It authorizes a district to extend the review period for up to an additional 30 days if time is needed to gather the required information and if the parent is notified of the delay within 30 days.

Interdistrict transfers. California law requires school districts to provide an education to any student who resides within the district’s attendance area. Although students have the right under California law to a free, public education, the law does not guarantee that a student can attend the school of his or her choice, or even the neighborhood school.

An intradistrict transfer is when parents or guardians wish to register their student at a school other than the designated school that is in their attendance area within their district. The basis for this provision is the signing of an agreement between districts. Interdistrict transfer reciprocal agreements must be approved by both the student’s original district of residence and the district to which the student seeks to transfer. Both districts must approve the agreement before it becomes valid. The agreement may extend for a maximum of five consecutive years and may include terms or conditions. It is within the authority of either the home district or the receiving district to revoke an interdistrict transfer/reciprocal agreement at any time for any reason the local board or district superintendent deems appropriate.

If a request for an interdistrict transfer/reciprocal agreement is denied, the student’s parents or guardians may file an appeal to the county office of education (COE) in the student’s district of residence within 30 days of receipt of the official notice of denial of the transfer.

Existing law prohibits a district of residence from denying an interdistrict transfer request in specific instances, including a child of an active duty military parent, homeless youth, migratory children, foster youth, and victims of bullying for which an intradistrict transfer is not an option. In these instances, a school district of enrollment that elects to accept interdistrict transfer students must accept all pupils until they reach maximum capacity. The district must ensure that pupils are selected through an unbiased process and is required to provide transportation for a pupil who has transferred and is eligible for free or reduced-priced meals, at the request of the parent.

Response timing can be delayed. For a parent submitting a request for an interdistrict transfer, the school district is currently required to notify a parent of its decision within 30 calendar days from when the request was received. For students denied a release, parents may appeal the decision to their county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of final denial, and the county board of education has another 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment, as well as the applicable period of attendance.

In theory, a parent should not have to wait more than 30 days to learn if their request was approved. If denied and then appealed to a county board of education, this process could take another 30 to 60 days, depending on when the parent files an appeal. In total, according to existing timelines, this means that a parent should be waiting between 1 to 3 months for a final decision on an interdistrict transfer permit. This bill is intended to streamline the process and reduce delays for parents to receive responses on their interdistrict transfer requests.

Interdistrict transfers based on parent employment. Current law authorizes school districts to deem a student to have complied with the residency requirements for school attendance in the district if at least one parent or guardian is physically employed within the boundaries of that district. Once admitted to residency, the student’s transfer may be revoked only if the parent ceases to be employed within the boundaries of the district. As a resident, the student does not have to reapply each school year for the transfer to be valid.

Districts of Choice (DOC) Absent an interdistrict attendance agreement and the specific instances listed above, a district of residence can deny a request to transfer to another district, unless the district of proposed attendance is a DOC. If a district declares itself to be a DOC, then the district of residence cannot deny a transfer request. A district that elects to operate as a DOC must accept all students who apply to transfer until it is at maximum capacity. If the number of transfer requests exceeds the district's capacity, applications for transfers must be selected through a random drawing. DOCs are specifically prohibited from approving transfers on the basis of academic performance, athletic performance, physical condition, or English proficiency.

Lack of data on interdistrict transfers. A Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) report from February 2021 on the District of Choice Program stated that in 2018-19, 146,109 students used an interdistrict permit and that 635 districts accepted students through interdistrict permits; however, this data relies upon a special data extraction prepared by the California Department of Education (CDE). Without publicly available data on interdistrict transfers, including how many requests are approved or denied every year, how long requests take to be resolved, how often and when appeals are filed, and which districts or county boards of education are seeing longer than expected delays, it is difficult to know to what extent this is a statewide problem.

Recommended Committee Amendments. Staff recommend that the bill be amended as follows:

1. Authorize a school district to extend the review period for an additional 30 days only under two conditions:
   1. An individualized education program (IEP) meeting has been scheduled or is pending; or
   2. The application submitted by the parent, guardian, or educational rights holder is incomplete.
2. Require that prior to extending the review period as noted above, the school district provide written notice to the parent or guardian identifying the specific information required to complete its review.

Arguments in support. The Los Angeles County Office of Education writes, “SB 1082 improves the interdistrict transfer process by requiring school districts to notify families when applications are incomplete and to identify missing information within a specified timeframe. This provision helps reduce denials based on incomplete applications and provides families with a fair opportunity to submit necessary documentation.

The bill also allows concurrent submission of transfer requests to both the district of residence and the district of proposed enrollment, improving efficiency and reducing delays for families navigating the process. These changes promote greater clarity and consistency in how transfer requests are handled.

By establishing clearer expectations and timelines, the bill helps ensure that families receive timely and transparent communication throughout the transfer process. This can reduce confusion and frustration while supporting more equitable access to educational options.

Additionally, the bill supports more thoughtful engagement between districts and families by allowing sufficient time to review requests, address concerns, and explore available options. This can help strengthen relationships and ensure decisions are made with a full understanding of student needs, ultimately leading to more equitable outcomes.”

Related legislation. SB 399 (Niello) of the 2025-26 Session, would have required school districts to keep a record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specified information; required school districts to submit annually, by June 30, the information for the current school year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); and required the SPI to post annually, by August 1, the information on the CDE website. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 897 (Newman) Chapter 865, Statutes of 2024, extends the DOC program in perpetuity, prevents DOCs from discriminating based on various student characteristics in their communication and admission processes, requires DOCs to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and give them second priority for attendance, allows districts with a qualified or negative budget status to limit students transfers to DOCs, and requires DOC program requirements to be subject to annual audit.

AB 1984 (Weber) Chapter 368, Statutes of 2024, requires, commencing with the 2026-27 school year, LEAs to provide to the CDE data on student transfers due to disciplinary reasons, and the CDE to publish the information on it’s website. Requires the CDE, when providing guidance on its website about reducing disproportionate discipline of pupil subgroups in schools, to advise LEAs against the use of transfers to avoid reporting suspensions and expulsions.

SB 413 (Bradford) Chapter 606, Statutes of 2023, requires county boards of education to decide interdistrict appeals within 30 calendar days and authorizes a class 1 and 2 counties to decide interdistrict appeals within 60 calendar days in specific instances that involve delays and scheduling conflicts initiated by the parent or home school district; and in cases where the application was filed outside the home school district transfer window.

AB 237 (Wallis and Hoover) of the 2023-24 Session would have prohibited a school district from denying an interdistrict or intradistrict transfer request for a low performing pupil who attends a school identified for comprehensive support and improvement; required a pupil to transfer to a school that has not been identified for comprehensive support and improvement; and, required that if a school district of enrollment accepts transfers, the school district have an unbiased selection process, accept all pupils until they reach maximum enrollment, and provide transportation for pupils who qualify for the free and reduced price meal program. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1127 (Luz Rivas) Chapter 781, Statutes of 2019, requires a school district of residence to approve an intradistrict transfer request for a victim of bullying. States that if a school district only has one school, the student’s school district of residence must not prohibit the student’s interdistrict transfer. Requires, upon request of a parent or guardian on behalf of the student, the school district of enrollment to provide transportation assistance if the student is considered low-income. States the intent of the Legislature that the costs of transportation not exceed the amount of supplemental funding school districts already receive to serve low-income students.

AB 3086 (Kiley) of the 2017-18 Session would have extended interdistrict, open enrollment to pupils who are either homeless, in foster care, migrant, or victims of bullying. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the following message:

It is unclear what problem this bill is trying to solve and whether there is a statewide issue requiring a solution. There are already many other existing school choice options available to parents. This bill will only further complicate an already complicated array of statutes without evidence that parents need or will utilize this option.

AB 2826 (Friedman) Chapter 550, Statutes of 2018, requires each school district of residence and school district of proposed enrollment to post on its website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit. Further requires a school district that denies a request for an interdistrict transfer to advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Look / ED. / (916) 319-2087

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1082

Author: Niello (R)

Amended: 4/22/26

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/15/26

AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Cabaldon, Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SUBJECT: Pupil attendance: interdistrict transfers: agreements: policies

SOURCE: Association of California County Boards of Education

Just Advocates

DIGEST:

This bill (1) requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence; (2) requires that either school district determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district shall notify the parent within 30 days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation to process the request.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the governing boards of two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term of up to five school years, for the interdistrict attendance of students who are residents of the school districts. (Education Code (EC) § 46600)
   
2. Authorizes the agreement to provide for the admission to a school district other than the school district of residence of a student who requests a permit to attend a school district of proposed enrollment (that is a party to the agreement). (EC § 46600)
   
3. Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance shall be permitted or denied, and authorizes the agreement to stipulate terms and conditions established by the school district of residence and the school district of enrollment under which the permit may be revoked. (EC § 46600)
4. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to ensure that students who are admitted are selected through an unbiased process that prohibits an inquiry into or evaluation or consideration of whether or not a student should be enrolled based on academic or athletic performance, physical condition, proficiency in English, family income, or any of protected characteristics (race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and immigration status). (EC § 46600)
5. Requires that a student who has been determined by personnel of either the school district of residence or the school district of proposed enrollment to have been the victim of an act of bullying committed by a student of the school district of residence to be given priority for interdistrict attendance. (EC § 46600)
   
6. Requires each school district of residence and school district of proposed enrollment to post on its website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit in a manner that is accessible to the public, including a link to the policy of the governing board of the school district. (EC § 46600.2)
7. Requires that a school district of residence and a school district of proposed enrollment to notify a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days from the date the request was received. (EC § 46600.2)
8. Requires a school district that denies a request for an interdistrict transfer to advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial. (EC § 46600.2)
9. Provides for a process to appeal a request for an interdistrict transfer, including a) requiring a parent to appeal to a county board of education within 30 calendar days should they choose to file an appeal, and b) requiring the county board of education to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment and the applicable period of attendance within 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed. (EC § 46601)

This bill:

1. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, irrespective of the status of the school district of residence’s response, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence.
2. Requires that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete, the school district shall notify the parent within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation required by the policies of the school district to process the request.
3. Authorizes that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines additional time is necessary to gather required information, including, but not limited to, an individualized education program or other relevant record, the school district may extend the review period by up to an additional 30 calendar days, if written notice is provided to the parent within 30 calendar days of receiving the request.
4. Requires the governing board of a school district entering into an interdistrict attendance agreement to adopt a policy regarding the relevant procedures and timelines relating to a request for an interdistrict transfer, and to require all agreements entered on or after January 1, 2027 to include the provisions of these policies. The policy shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
   1. The date that the school district will begin accepting and processing interdistrict transfer requests for the subsequent school year and any other applicable timelines for submitting a request.
   2. The criteria the school district will use to approve or deny a request, and any information or documents that must be submitted as supporting evidence.
   3. The process and timelines for which a denial of a request may be appealed within the school district before the school district renders a final decision, and any other relevant information regarding the appeals process.
   4. That failure of the parent to meet any timelines established by the school district shall be deemed an abandonment of that request.
   5. Applicable timelines for processing a request, including:
      1. Notifying a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days of the date the request was received, and that if a response is not issued by the school district of residence within 30 calendar days, the request shall be deemed approved for the school district of residence.
      2. Notifying a parent submitting a future year request of its final decision as soon as possible, but no later than 14 calendar days after the commencement of instruction in the school year for which interdistrict transfer is sought.
   6. The conditions under which an existing interdistrict transfer permit may be revoked or rescinded.
5. Makes findings and declarations stating that timely access to educational opportunities and school choice is a fundamental right for all California pupils and that this bill seeks to clarify and expedite the well-established interdistrict transfer process for school districts.

Comments

1. Need for this bill. According to the author, “families requesting interdistrict transfers “often experience lengthy delays—sometimes 60 to 90 days or longer—from the district of residence. During this time, districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin their own review until a release decision is issued. These delays are rarely intentional and often reflect administrative workload and capacity constraints. However, the impact of families can be significant, leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education.

SB 1082 builds on existing law by clarifying expectations and ensuring that inaction does not function as an unintended denial. … [This bill] streamlines the interdistrict transfer process by clarifying review timelines … The bill enables districts of residence to waive review and approve an exit request when no response is issued within 30 days … Together, these changes ensure families receive timely decisions while reducing the administrative burden for school districts and county boards of education.”

1. Process and timelines for interdistrict transfers. The state has several options that allow students to transfer to other school districts, and interdistrict transfers are a longstanding state policy that allows a student to transfer from one district to another when both districts consent to the transfer. A student may wish to transfer for multiple reasons, including seeking certain educational programming not available in their district of residence. For a district of residence, many districts evaluating a request have a limited set of reasons for which they will release a student, and examples may include the availability of childcare in the other district or the attendance of a sibling already enrolled in the other district. For a district of proposed enrollment, they may be evaluating impacted enrollment at the school and within the grade, as well as capacity constraints for the student’s expected courses if they are in middle or high school.

Regarding timelines, for a parent submitting a current year request for an interdistrict transfer, the school district is currently required to notify a parent of its decision within 30 calendar days from when the request was received. For students denied a release, parents may appeal the decision to their county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of final denial, and the county board of education has another 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment, as well as the applicable period of attendance.

A parent should theoretically be waiting 30 days to learn if their request was approved. If denied and then appealed to a county board of education, this process could take another 30 to 60 days, depending on when the parent files an appeal. In total, according to existing timelines, this means that a parent should be waiting between 1 to 3 months for a final decision on an interdistrict transfer permit. In contrast, the author’s office indicates that families are often waiting 60 to 90 days just for the district of residence.

1. Lack of data makes it difficult to verify to what extent this is a statewide problem. The author indicates that families requesting an interdistrict permit often experience significant delays far exceeding statutory timelines, which can create unnecessarily burdensome timelines for parents and students. Unfortunately, the state generally does not publish statewide or district-level data for the interdistrict permit system that can verify these claims. A Legislative Analyst’s Office report from February 2021 on the District of Choice Program stated that in 2018-19, 146,109 students used an interdistrict permit and that 635 districts accepted students through interdistrict permits; however, this data relies upon a special data extraction prepared by the California Department of Education (CDE). Without publicly available data on interdistrict transfers—including how many requests are approved or denied every year, how long requests take to be resolved, how often and when appeals are filed, and which districts or county boards of education are seeing longer than expected delays—it is difficult to know to what extent this is a statewide problem without a more in-depth survey of the individual county offices of education.
2. Could concurrent review expedite the overall process while also creating unnecessary workload for school districts of proposed enrollment? School districts of proposed enrollment often do not begin reviewing interdistrict transfer requests until school districts of residence have approved them. The typical rationale for this is that if the school district of residence denies the request, the request is considered denied regardless of the school district of proposed enrollment’s response, so it is wise to wait for the school district of residence’s decision to avoid unnecessary workload. However, if a parent decides to appeal a denied request, a county board of education would ideally review an appeal with responses from both the school district of residence and the school district of proposed attendance, in order for a more timely resolution and to avoid the possibility of needing a second appeal if the county board of education is receiving information from the two school districts on separate timelines.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 399 (Niello, 2025) would have (1) required school districts to keep record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specified information; (2) required school districts to submit annually the information for the current school year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); and (3) required the SPI to post annually the information on CDE’s website. SB 399 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1127 (Luz Rivas & Robert Rivas, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2019) requires a school district of residence to approve an intradistrict transfer request for a victim of an act of bullying, and requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept an interdistrict transfer to accept all students to apply pursuant to this bill, as specified.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

This bill could result in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs ranging from the tens of thousands of dollars to low hundreds of thousands of dollars for school districts to develop or modify their interdistrict transfer policies and also provide guidance to parents. This estimate assumes that each district would require several hours of personnel time on these activities.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/14/26)

Association of California County Boards of Education (co-source)
Just Advocates (co-source)
California Policy Center
Families in Action for Quality Education
Kern County Office of Education
Lighthouse Community Public Schools
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Monterey County Office of Education
Navigator Schools
Orange County Board of Education
Placer County Office of Education
San Mateo County Office of Education
Seneca Family of Agencies

One Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/14/26)

CFT – A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO

Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen / ED. / (916) 651-4105

5/16/26 10:20:16

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 1082 (Niello) - Pupil attendance: interdistrict transfers: agreements: policies

Bill Summary:

This bill proposes various changes to the procedures for school interdistrict transfer requests.

Fiscal Impact:

This bill could result in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs ranging from the tens of thousands of dollars to low hundreds of thousands of dollars for school districts to develop or modify their interdistrict transfer policies and also provide guidance to parents. This estimate assumes that each district would require several hours of personnel time on these activities.

Background:

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term of up to five school years, for the inter-district attendance of students who are residents of the school districts. It authorizes the agreement to provide for the admission to a school district other than the school district of residence of a student who requests a permit to attend a school district of proposed enrollment (that is a party to the agreement). The law also requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which inter-district attendance shall be permitted or denied and authorizes the agreement to stipulate terms and conditions established by the school district of residence and the school district of enrollment under which the permit may be revoked.

Existing law requires that a student who has been determined by personnel of either the school district of residence or the school district of proposed enrollment to have been the victim of an act of bullying (committed by a student of the school district of residence), to be given priority for inter-district attendance, at the request of the parent. A school district of residence shall approve an intra-district transfer request for a victim of an act of bullying unless the requested school is at maximum capacity, in which case the school district shall accept an intra-district transfer request for a different school in the school district. A school district of residence is prohibited from prohibiting the transfer of a student who is the victim of an act of bullying if the district only has one school offering the student’s grade level (so there is no option for intra-district transfer), regardless of whether an agreement exists or a permit for inter-district transfer is issued, if the school district of proposed enrollment approves the application for transfer.

Existing law requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept inter-district transfers to accept all students who apply to transfer until the school district is at maximum capacity. A school district of proposed enrollment shall ensure that students are selected through an unbiased process that prohibits an inquiry into or evaluation or consideration of whether or not a student should be enrolled based on academic or athletic performance, physical condition, proficiency in English, family income, or any of the individual characteristics for protected classes (race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and immigration status).

Proposed Law:

This bill modifies the existing requirement for the governing board of a school district entering into an interdistrict attendance agreement to adopt a policy regarding the relevant procedures and timelines relating to a request for an interdistrict transfer. Specifically, the bill provides that all agreements entered on or after January 1, 2027, shall include the following provisions:

1. Applicable timelines that the school district will begin accepting and processing interdistrict transfer requests for the subsequent school year.
2. The criteria the school district will use to approve or deny a request, and any information or documents that must be submitted as supporting evidence.
3. Any other relevant information regarding the appeals process for requests that are denied.

This bill provides that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete with regard to the application and materials required by the policies of the school districts, the school district shall notify the parent within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation required to process the request.

This bill provides that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines that additional time is needed to gather required information, as specified, the school district may extend the review period by up to an additional 30 calendar days if written notice is provided to the student and parent within 30 days of receiving the request.

Related Legislation:

SB 399 (Niello, 2025) would have required school districts to keep a record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests and to annually submit the information for the current school year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. SB 399 was held on the Suspense File in this committee.

AB 1127 (Luz Rivas & Robert Rivas, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2019) requires a school district of residence to approve an intradistrict transfer request for a victim of an act of bullying and requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept an interdistrict transfer to accept all students to apply pursuant to this bill, as specified.

Staff Comments:

This bill makes various changes to the existing processes that allow students to transfer to other school districts. Interdistrict transfers are a mechanism that allows a student to transfer from one district to another when both districts consent to the transfer. A student may wish to transfer for multiple reasons, including seeking certain educational programming not available in their district of residence. For a district of residence, many districts evaluating a request have a limited set of reasons for which they will release a student, and examples may include the availability of child care in the other district or the attendance of a sibling already enrolled in the other district. For a district of proposed enrollment, they may be evaluating impacted enrollment at the school and within the grade, as well as capacity constraints for the student’s expected courses if they are in middle or high school.

However, according to the author, “families requesting interdistrict transfers “often experience lengthy delays—sometimes 60 to 90 days or longer—from the district of residence. During this time, districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin their own review until a release decision is issued. These delays are rarely intentional and often reflect administrative workload and capacity constraints. However, the impact of families can be significant, leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education. SB 1082 builds on existing law by clarifying expectations and ensuring that inaction does not function as an unintended denial.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: April 15, 2026

Subject: .

NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Appropriations. A “do pass” motion should include referral to the Committee on Appropriations.

SUMMARY

This bill clarifies timelines and procedures for school districts reviewing interdistrict transfer requests by 1) requiring that a school district of residence’s response to an interdistrict transfer request be deemed approved if the district does not issue a final decision on a request within 30 days and 2) requiring a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the governing boards of two or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term of up to five school years, for the interdistrict attendance of students who are residents of the school districts. (Education Code (EC) § 46600)
   
2. Authorizes the agreement to provide for the admission to a school district other than the school district of residence of a student who requests a permit to attend a school district of proposed enrollment (that is a party to the agreement). (EC § 46600)
   
3. Requires the agreement to stipulate the terms and conditions under which interdistrict attendance shall be permitted or denied, and authorizes the agreement to stipulate terms and conditions established by the school district of residence and the school district of enrollment under which the permit may be revoked. (EC § 46600)
4. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to ensure that students who are admitted are selected through an unbiased process that prohibits an inquiry into or evaluation or consideration of whether or not a student should be enrolled based on academic or athletic performance, physical condition, proficiency in English, family income, or any of protected characteristics (race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and immigration status). (EC § 46600)
5. Requires that a student who has been determined by personnel of either the school district of residence or the school district of proposed enrollment to have been the victim of an act of bullying committed by a student of the school district of residence to be given priority for interdistrict attendance. (EC § 46600)
   
6. Requires each school district of residence and school district of proposed enrollment to post on its website the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit in a manner that is accessible to the public, including a link to the policy of the governing board of the school district. (EC § 46600.2)
7. Requires that a school district of residence and a school district of proposed enrollment to notify a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days from the date the request was received. (EC § 46600.2)
8. Requires a school district that denies a request for an interdistrict transfer to advise the parent, in writing, of the right to appeal to the county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of the final denial. (EC § 46600.2)
9. Provides for a process to appeal a request for an interdistrict transfer, including a) requiring a parent to appeal to a county board of education within 30 calendar days should they choose to file an appeal, and b) requiring the county board of education to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment and the applicable period of attendance within 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed. (EC § 46601)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires that a school district of residence’s response to an interdistrict transfer request be deemed approved if the school district of residence does not issue a final decision on a request within the existing statutory timeline of 30 calendar days.
2. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment to begin review of an interdistrict transfer request upon receipt, irrespective of the status of the school district of residence’s response, if a parent or guardian of a student submits an interdistrict transfer request concurrently to a school district of proposed enrollment and a school district of residence.
3. Requires the governing board of a school district entering into an interdistrict attendance agreement to adopt a policy regarding the relevant procedures and timelines relating to a request for an interdistrict transfer, and to require all agreements entered on or after January 1, 2027 to include the provisions of these policies. The policy shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
   1. The date that the school district will begin accepting and processing interdistrict transfer requests for the subsequent school year and any other applicable timelines for submitting a request.
   2. The criteria the school district will use to approve or deny a request, and any information or documents that must be submitted as supporting evidence.
   3. The process and timelines for which a denial of a request may be appealed within the school district before the school district renders a final decision, and any other relevant information regarding the appeals process.
   4. That failure of the parent to meet any timelines established by the school district shall be deemed an abandonment of that request.
   5. Applicable timelines for processing a request, including:
      1. Notifying a parent submitting a current year request of its final decision within 30 calendar days of the date the request was received, and that if a response is not issued by the school district of residence within 30 calendar days, the request shall be deemed approved for the school district of residence.
      2. Notifying a parent submitting a future year request of its final decision as soon as possible, but no later than 14 calendar days after the commencement of instruction in the school year for which interdistrict transfer is sought.
   6. The conditions under which an existing interdistrict transfer permit may be revoked or rescinded.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for this bill. According to the author, “families requesting interdistrict transfers “often experience lengthy delays—sometimes 60 to 90 days or longer—from the district of residence. During this time, districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin their own review until a release decision is issued. These delays are rarely intentional and often reflect administrative workload and capacity constraints. However, the impact of families can be significant, leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education.

SB 1082 builds on existing law by clarifying expectations and ensuring that inaction does not function as an unintended denial. … [This bill] streamlines the interdistrict transfer process by clarifying review timelines … The bill enables districts of residence to waive review and approve an exit request when no response is issued within 30 days … Together, these changes ensure families receive timely decisions while reducing the administrative burden for school districts and county boards of education.”

1. Process and timelines for interdistrict transfers. The state has several options that allow students to transfer to other school districts, and interdistrict transfers are a longstanding state policy that allows a student to transfer from one district to another when both districts consent to the transfer. A student may wish to transfer for multiple reasons, including seeking certain educational programming not available in their district of residence. For a district of residence, many districts evaluating a request have a limited set of reasons for which they will release a student, and examples may include the availability of child care in the other district or the attendance of a sibling already enrolled in the other district. For a district of proposed enrollment, they may be evaluating impacted enrollment at the school and within the grade, as well as capacity constraints for the student’s expected courses if they are in middle or high school.

Regarding timelines, for a parent submitting a current year request for an interdistrict transfer, the school district is currently required to notify a parent of its decision within 30 calendar days from when the request was received. For students denied a release, parents may appeal the decision to their county board of education within 30 calendar days from the date of final denial, and the county board of education has another 30 calendar days after the appeal is filed to determine whether the student should be permitted to attend the school district of proposed enrollment, as well as the applicable period of attendance.

A parent should theoretically be waiting 30 days to learn if their request was approved. If denied and then appealed to a county board of education, this process could take another 30 to 60 days, depending on when the parent files an appeal. In total, according to existing timelines, this means that a parent should be waiting between 1 to 3 months for a final decision on an interdistrict transfer permit.

1. Lack of data makes it difficult to verify to what extent this is a statewide problem. The author indicates that families requesting an interdistrict permit often experience significant delays far exceeding statutory timelines, which can create unnecessarily burdensome timelines for parents and students. Unfortunately, the state generally does not publish statewide or district-level data for the interdistrict permit system that can verify these claims. A Legislative Analyst’s Office report from February 2021 on the District of Choice Program stated that in 2018-19, 146,109 students used an interdistrict permit and that 635 districts accepted students through interdistrict permits; however, this data relies upon a special data extraction prepared by the California Department of Education (CDE). Without publicly available data on interdistrict transfers—including how many requests are approved or denied every year, how long requests take to be resolved, how often and when appeals are filed, and which districts or county boards of education are seeing longer than expected delays—it is difficult to know to what extent this is a statewide problem without a more in-depth survey of the individual county offices of education.
2. Could concurrent review expedite the overall process while also creating unnecessary workload for school districts of proposed enrollment? School districts of proposed enrollment often do not begin reviewing interdistrict transfer requests until school districts of residence have approved them. The typical rationale for this is that if the school district of residence denies the request, the request is considered denied regardless of the school district of proposed enrollment’s response, so it is wise to wait for the school district of residence’s decision to avoid unnecessary workload. However, if a parent decides to appeal a denied request, a county board of education would ideally review an appeal with responses from both the school district of residence and the school district of proposed attendance, in order for a more timely resolution and to avoid the possibility of needing a second appeal if the county board of education is receiving information from the two school districts on separate timelines.

Without information about how often denials of interdistrict transfer requests lead to appeals, this committee could consider how this bill’s requirement for concurrent review may expedite the overall process, and if it also potentially creates unnecessary and additional workload for school districts of proposed enrollment.

1. Automatic approval for school district of residence’s response is meant to put pressure on districts, but the school district of enrollment’s response is still needed to approve transfer. According to the author, it is common for parents to wait much longer than 30 days for a final decision, and in response, this bill requires that a school district of residence’s response to an interdistrict transfer request be deemed approved if that district does not respond to the request within 30 days. This provision puts pressure on school districts of residence, but this provision does not provide an alternative if a district is actively evaluating the request but may need longer than 30 days.

Notably, this bill does not deem a request as automatically approved from the school district of proposed enrollment if that district takes longer than 30 days. This is presumably because the school district of proposed enrollment’s evaluation is typically more complicated, because the district may be assessing not only potentially impacted enrollment at the school and the grade, but also evaluating enrollment capacity for the student’s expected coursework if they are in middle or high school. Therefore, even if the school district of residence’s response to an interdistrict transfer request is deemed approved, the request ultimately needs to be approved by both districts in order for interdistrict transfer to proceed.

1. Committee amendments. This bill requires a school district of residence’s response to an interdistrict transfer request be deemed approved if the school district of residence does not issue a final decision on a request within the existing statutory timeline of 30 calendar days. However, given the lack of statewide information about how widespread of an issue this may be, staff recommends amendments as follows:
   1. Removes the provision that the school district of residence’s response to an interdistrict transfer request be deemed approved if the school district of residence does not issue a final decision within 30 days.
   2. Adds that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines that more time is needed to gather required information, the school district may extend the review period by up to an additional 30 calendar days if written notice is provided to the student and parent within 30 days of receiving the request.
   3. Adds that if either the school district of residence or school district of proposed enrollment determines that a request for an interdistrict transfer is incomplete with regard to the application and materials required by the policies of the school districts, they shall notify the parent within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application and identify missing information or documentation required to process the request.
2. Prior and Related Legislation.

SB 399 (Niello, 2025) would have (1) required school districts to keep a record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specified information; (2) required school districts to submit annually, by June 30, the information for the current school year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); and (3) required the SPI to post annually, by August 1, the information on the CDE’s website. SB 399 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1127 (Luz Rivas & Robert Rivas, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2019) requires a school district of residence to approve an intradistrict transfer request for a victim of an act of bullying, and requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept an interdistrict transfer to accept all students to apply pursuant to this bill, as specified.

SUPPORT

Association of California County Boards of Education (co-sponsor)
Just Advocates (co-sponsor)
California Policy Center
Lighthouse Charter School
Monterey County Office of Education
Orange County Board of Education
Placer County Office of Education
Seneca Family of Agencies

One Individual

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --