Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. Existing law requires a school district that has entered into an interdistrict attendance agreement to post the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit on the school districts internet website.

This bill would require a school district to maintain a record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, as provided. The bill would require a school district to, on or before October 15 June 30 of each year, submit the information described above for the current school year to the Superintendent. The bill would require the Superintendent to, on or before December 31 August 1 of each year, post the information submitted for the current school year on the departments internet website. By imposing new duties on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the school districts. Existing law requires a school district that has entered into an interdistrict attendance agreement to post the procedures and timelines regarding a request for an interdistrict transfer permit on the school districts internet website.

This bill would require a school district to maintain a record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, as provided. The bill would require a school district to, on or before October 15 of each year, submit the information described above for the current school year to the Superintendent. The bill would require the Superintendent to, on or before December 31 of each year, post the information submitted for the current school year on the departments internet website. By imposing new duties on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 399 (Niello) - School districts: interdistrict transfers

Bill Summary:

This bill requires school districts to keep a record of all requests for inter-district transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specified information, and submit the information to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) each year.

Fiscal Impact:

• This bill could result in additional Proposition 98 General Fund costs, potentially in the tens of thousands of dollars to low hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, for LEAs to collect and report the required information to the California Department of Education (CDE). These activities could be deemed to be a reimbursable mandate by the Commission on State Mandates. The costs could be lower to the extent that a template is developed by CDE and utilized by school districts for this purpose.
• This bill could result in one-time General Fund costs in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars for CDE to develop or modify data collections, provide guidance to LEAs, develop a template to collect information from school districts, and produce the legislative report.

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 requires school districts to keep a record of all requests for inter-district transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including all of the following:

• 1. The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn. In the case of denied requests, the records shall indicate the reasons for the denials.
     
  2. The number of students transferred out of the school district through inter-district transfer.
     
  3. The number of students transferred into the school district through inter-district transfer.
     
  4. The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, foster youth status, homeless child or youth status, and the school district of residence of each of the students who transfer into and out of the district through inter-district transfer.
     
  5. The number of students who are classified as English learners or identified as individuals with exceptional needs who transfer into and out of the district through inter-district transfer.
     
  6. The self-reported reason for the request for inter-district transfer for each of the students who transfer into and out of the district through inter-district transfer.
     

This bill requires school districts to submit the information annually, by June 30, to the SPI in a manner specified by the SPI. The bill also requires the SPI to post the information submitted for the current school year on the CDE’s website by August 1^st each year. The bill authorizes the SPI to provide a template for a school district to use, and may issue guidance regarding the procedures, for collecting and reporting data.

Related Legislation:

AB 1984 (Weber, Chapter 368, Statutes of 2024) requires (1) LEAs to provide to CDE, beginning with the 2026–27 school year, data on student transfers due to disciplinary reasons, and requires CDE to collect and publish this data on its website; and, (2) CDE, when providing guidance on its website about reducing disproportionate discipline of student subgroups in schools, to advise LEAs against the use of transfers to avoid reporting suspensions and expulsions.

Staff Comments:

This bill requires school districts to keep records and submit detailed information on inter-district transfers for the current school year to the SPI by June 30^th of each year. According to the author, “SB 399 is about expanding transparency by making transfer data available. We have seen a litany of bills over the years on the school transfer system but we have no real insight as to how the program is being used. By providing parents, students, school districts and policy makers access to this data it will help us better understand how the transfers are being utilized. It may even help schools to determine ways to better their programs by understanding where transferring students are going and why. This bill is simply about having better transparency and access to information.”

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 399 (Author:Niello)

Version: March 24, 2025

Hearing Date: April 29, 2025

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

School districts: interdistrict transfers

DIGEST

This bill requires school districts to maintain records of specified information relating to interdistrict transfers and to report the information to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (Superintendent), who shall post the information on their website.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current law authorizes agreements between school districts for the interdistrict transfer of students. The agreements must stipulate the terms and conditions pursuant to which interdistrict attendance will be permitted or denied. A pupil denied transfer has a right to appeal.

This bill places a requirement on school districts to maintain records of specified information on all requests for interdistrict transfers. This includes general data such as the number of requests, to more granular information such as the self-reported reason for the request.

School districts are required to report all of this information to the Superintendent by June 30 of each year. The Superintendent is then required to post the information on the Department of Education’s website.

The bill is author-sponsored. It is supported by the Alliance for Community Advocacy and the California Policy Center. It is opposed by the California Association of School Business Officials. It passed out of the Senate Education Committee on a 6 to 0 vote.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

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. (Educ. Code § 46600(a)(1).)
2. 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. (Educ. Code § 46600(a)(2).)
3. Requires a school district of proposed enrollment that elects to accept interdistrict 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, including race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity, gender expression, and immigration status. (Educ. Code § 46600(d)(3).)
4. Requires a school district that denies a request for an inter-district 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. (Educ. Code § 46600.2.)
5. Establishes the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in federal law, which protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education. (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99.)

This bill:

1. Requires each school district to maintain a record of all requests for interdistrict transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including all of the following:
   1. The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn. In the case of denied requests, the records shall indicate the reasons for the denials.
   2. The number of pupils transferred out of the school district.
   3. The number of pupils transferred into the school district.
   4. The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, foster youth status, homeless child or youth status, and the school district of residence of each of the transferees.
   5. The number of pupil transferees who are classified as English learners or identified as individuals with exceptional needs, as defined.
   6. The self-reported reason for the request for interdistrict transfer for each of the pupil transferees.
2. Requires a school district, on or before June 30 of each year, to submit the above information for the current school year to the Superintendent in a manner specified by the Superintendent. The Superintendent is then required to, on or before August 1, post the information on the Department of Education’s website.
3. Authorizes the Superintendent to provide a template for a school district to use, and may issue guidance regarding the procedures, for collecting and reporting data.

COMMENTS

1. Data reporting requirement

This bill requires all school districts to maintain records on all requests for interdistrict transfers. This includes the following information:

• The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn. In the case of denied requests, the records shall indicate the reasons for the denials.
• The number of pupils transferred out of the school district.
• The number of pupils transferred into the school district.
• The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, foster youth status, homeless child or youth status, and the school district of residence of each of the transferees.
• The number of pupil transferees who are classified as English learners or identified as individuals with exceptional needs, as defined.
• The self-reported reason for the request for interdistrict transfer for each of the pupil transferees.

The information is then transferred to the Superintendent of Public Instruction who is required to post the information on their website.

According to the author:

SB 399 is about expanding transparency by making student transfer data available. We have seen a litany of bills over the years on the school transfer system but we have no real insight as to how the program is being used. By providing parents, students, school districts and policy makers access to this data it will help us better understand how the transfers are being utilized. It may even help schools to determine ways to better their programs by understanding where transferring students are going and why. This bill is simply about having better transparency and access to information.

Some concerns have arisen about the impacts of this reporting on the privacy of students. Although information identifying specific individuals is not required, some of the data points being recorded and posted publicly are sensitive information, such as a child’s disability status, homeless status, and even the specific reason for requesting a transfer. Particularly in smaller school districts or those with fewer transfers, the information will be traceable back to specific children. It is likely that existing privacy laws, such as FERPA, will require the Superintendent to redact some of this information before simply posting it for the public to view. This may undermine the ultimate utility of such data.

1. Stakeholder positions

Just Advocates writes in support: “California must develop a comprehensive understanding of how interdistrict transfers are utilized and

where improvements are needed. SB 399 represents a critical step toward that goal. . . .”

The California Association of School Business Officials writes in opposition:

The California Association of School Business Officials was a proud co-sponsor of Senate Bill 1315 (Archuleta, Ch. 486, Stats. 2024) which requires the CDE to prepare a report on the number and types of reports that LEAs are required to submit on an annual basis. This bill was introduced in response to the increasing number of overly complex and duplicative reports that LEAs are required to submit each year.

We support efforts to consider the impact of additional reporting requirements and the effect they have on the ability of LEAs to devote resources to direct work with students and provide support to ensure their academic success. LEAs are working to provide higher levels of support for students while facing increased fiscal constraints and staff shortages. It is more important than ever that reporting requirements do not divert resources from these efforts.

The California Policy Center makes the case for the bill:

Public school districts often deny transfer requests arbitrarily, limiting families’ ability to seek better educational opportunities that suit their children’s needs. By requiring districts to maintain and report detailed records of these requests and their outcomes, SB 399 shines a light on bureaucratic gatekeeping, revealing patterns of denial that may stifle parents’ best intuition about their children’s needs and perpetuate underperforming schools.

Through the exposition of the frequency and disposition of transfer requests, SB 399 highlights how often districts deny families the right to pursue better options, often to protect their own funding rather than serve students’ best interests. More transparency will reduce the mystique around the decision-making process for interdistrict transfers and help districts rationally justify their decisions.

This data will equip parents with the evidence needed to demand reforms, fostering a marketplace where schools must improve to retain students. Moreover, SB 399 promotes better informed decision-making and reduces arbitrary government overreach.

SUPPORT

Alliance for Community Advocacy dba Just Advocates

California Policy Center

OPPOSITION

California Association of School Business Officials

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

SB 897 (Newman, Ch. 865, Stats. 2024) extended the District of Choice (DOC) program in perpetuity, required DOC schools to accept transfers for foster youth and homeless children, and allowed districts with a qualified or negative budget status to limit student transfers, as specified.

SB 1315 (Archuleta, Ch. 468, Stats. 2024) required the Department of Education to conduct a report on the number and types of reports that local educational agencies are required to submit on an annual basis.

AB 1408 (Wallis, 2024) would have required a local educational agency (LEA) to allow a low-performing student at a low-performing school to transfer to a higher-performing school either within their home LEA or in another LEA, if the LEA with the higher-performing school agrees to accept transfer students. AB 1408 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1984 (Weber, Ch. 368, Stats. 2024) required LEAs to provide to the Department of Education, beginning with the 2026–27 school year, data on student transfers due to disciplinary reasons and requires the department to collect and publish this data on its website.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Education Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 399 Hearing Date: March 19, 2025

Subject: School districts: interdistrict transfers.

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

SUMMARY

This bill (1) requires school districts to keep a record of all requests for inter-district transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specified information; (2) requires school districts to submit annually, by October 15, the information for the current school year to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); and (3) requires the SPI to post annually, by December 31, the information on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) website.

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 inter-district 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. Provides that a student does not have to reapply for inter-district transfer once the student is enrolled in a school through inter-district transfer, and requires the governing board of the school district of enrollment to allow the student to continue to attend the school. (EC § 46600)
   
4. 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.
   (EC § 46600)
   
5. Prohibits a school district of residence or school district of enrollment from rescinding existing transfer permits for students after June 30 following the completion of grade 10, or for students in grade 11 or 12. (EC § 46600)
   
6. 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.
   (EC § 46600)
   
7. Prohibits a school district of residence from prohibiting the transfer of a student who is a child of an active duty military parent, 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.
   (EC § 46600)
   
8. 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). (EC § 46600)
   
9. Requires each school district of residence and school district of proposed enrollment to post on its website the procedures and timelines, including a link to the policy of the governing board of the school district, regarding a request for an inter-district transfer permit in a manner that is accessible to the public without a password. (EC § 46600.2)
   
10. Requires a school district that denies a request for an inter-district 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)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires school districts to keep a record of all requests for inter-district transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including all of the following:
   
   1. The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn. In the case of denied requests, the records shall indicate the reasons for the denials.
      
   2. The number of students transferred out of the school district through inter-district transfer.
      
   3. The number of students transferred into the school district through inter-district transfer.
      
   4. The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, foster youth status, homeless child or youth status, and the school district of residence of each of the students who transfer into and out of the district through inter-district transfer.
      
   5. The number of students who are classified as English learners or identified as individuals with exceptional needs who transfer into and out of the district through inter-district transfer.
      
   6. The self-reported reason for the request for inter-district transfer for each of the students who transfer into and out of the district through inter-district transfer.
      
2. Requires school districts to submit annually, by October 15, the information described in #1 for the current school year to the SPI in a manner specified by the SPI.
   
3. Requires the SPI to post annually, by December 31, the information submitted pursuant to #1 for the current school year on the CDE’s website.
   
4. Authorizes the SPI to provide a template for a school district to use, and may issue guidance regarding the procedures, for collecting and reporting data.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “SB 399 is about expanding transparency by making transfer data available. We have seen a litany of bills over the years on the school transfer system but we have no real insight as to how the program is being used. By providing parents, students, school districts and policy makers access to this data it will help us better understand how the transfers are being utilized. It may even help schools to determine ways to better their programs by understanding where transferring students are going and why. This bill is simply about having better transparency and access to information.”
   
2. Is this information already collected? This bill requires school districts to keep a record of all requests for inter-district transfer and records of the disposition of those requests, including specific information. This bill further requires school districts to submit the information to CDE, and requires CDE to post it on its website. While many school districts currently collect some student-level data about inter-district transfers, this bill would require new data collections.
   
   School districts currently collect and report data through an Online Reporting Application to the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS). Data collection is comprised of three distinct “forms” – one is specific to school districts and county offices of education, one is for school-level data, and the other is specific to the District of Choice program. The existing “forms” do not support the data collection required by this bill; Online Reporting Applications, CBEDS and the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement System (CALPADS) would need to be modified to support such data collection and reporting.
   
3. Timing of data reporting. This bill requires school districts to submit information on inter-district transfers for the current school year to the SPI by October 15. To ensure a full school year of data is collected and submitted shortly after the end of the school year, staff recommends amendments to shift the due date for school districts to submit the information to the SPI to June 30, and the date by which the SPI is to post the information online to August 1.
   
4. Report overload? SB 1315 (Archuleta, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2024) requires CDE to conduct a report on the number and types of reports that local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to submit on an annual basis. Committee analyses of that bill note that LEAs are overburdened with reports, as they are required to submit 170 reports on an annual basis.
   
   While this bill requires school districts to collect information and submit it to the SPI, rather than developing a report with the information, the bill does impose data collection requirements upon school districts.
   
   This bill requires school districts to submit information relative to inter-district transfers to the SPI on an annual basis. Should this information be submitted to the SPI less frequently than on an annual basis?
   
5. Privacy. This bill requires school districts to collect student-level data, such as the number of students who are classified as English learners or identified as individuals with exceptional needs, and foster or homeless youth status. Further, this bill requires this information to be posted on the CDE’s website. Could it be possible to identify individual students with this information, particularly for students who attend a very small school district? This bill has been double-referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where such issues may be considered.
   
6. Prior legislation.
   
   AB 1408 (Wallis, 2024) required LEAs to allow a low-performing student at a low-performing school to transfer to a higher-performing school either within their home LEA or in another LEA, if the LEA with the higher-performing school agrees to accept transfer students. AB 1408 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   
   AB 237 (Wallis, 2023) was identical to AB 1408, and was also held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   
   AB 1984 (Weber, Chapter 368, Statutes of 2024) requires (1) LEAs to provide to CDE, beginning with the 2026–27 school year, data on student transfers due to disciplinary reasons, and requires CDE to collect and publish this data on its website; and, (2) CDE, when providing guidance on its website about reducing disproportionate discipline of student subgroups in schools, to advise LEAs against the use of transfers to avoid reporting suspensions and expulsions.

SUPPORT

None received

OPPOSITION

California Association of School Business Officials

-- END --