Headlines  |  Bills  |  Leg. Votes  |  Code/Laws  |  ElectionTrack   |  About   |  Feedback
Create Account  Log In
Get the free THE NOONER daily e-mail update of aroundthecapitol headlines:
   

Get free e-mail updates on SB 680


No Spam Privacy Policy







california political news & opinion
Read. Create. Discuss.
california legislation > SB 680

Create a free account to track bills.
SB 680 (Huff and Romero)
School attendance: interdistrict transfers.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 680, as amended, Romero. School attendance: interdistrict
transfers.
(1) Existing law requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18
years, who is not otherwise exempt, to attend the public full-time
day school in the school district in which his or her parent or
guardian is a resident. Existing law authorizes the governing board
of a school district to accept interdistrict transfers by adopting a
resolution to become a school district of choice, as defined, and
authorizes the governing board to ensure, by resolution, that pupils
accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process
that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be
enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance.
This bill would require any communication made by a participating
school district to parents or guardians to be factually accurate and
not target individual parents or guardians or residential
neighborhoods on the basis of specified personal characteristics of
pupils. The bill would require a school district of choice, at its
expense, to ensure that the auditor who conducts the annual financial
audit of the district, as specified, reviews compliance with the
requirements for a random, unbiased selection process and appropriate
communications at the same time that he or she is conducting the
annual audit, and would require the district to notify the auditor
regarding this compliance review prior to the commencement of the
annual audit.
(2) Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject
the transfer of a pupil if the transfer requires the district to
create a new program to serve that pupil.
This bill would prohibit a school district of choice from
rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an
individual with exceptional needs or an English learner.
(3) Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to give
priority to children of military personnel if the school district
elected to accept transfer pupils by a resolution adopted prior to
April 1, 2005.
This bill would delete the condition that requires a school board
to have adopted the resolution prior to that date.
(4) Existing law authorizes a school district of residence, as
defined, to limit the number of pupils who transfer out each year by
a certain percentage, and also authorizes a school district with an
average daily attendance of less than 50,000 to limit the maximum
number of pupils transferring out for the duration of the program to
10% of the average daily attendance for that period.
This bill would authorize a school district of residence to limit
transfers if it has a negative or qualified status on the most recent
budget certification, or to limit the number of pupils to a number
identified by the county superintendent of schools, as specified, if
the county superintendent determines that the district will not meet
the standards and criteria for fiscal stability in a specified
statutory provision for the subsequent fiscal year due to the impact
of additional pupil transfers in that fiscal year. The bill,
notwithstanding any other provision regarding interdistrict
transfers, would permit a pupil attending a school district of choice
or a pupil who received a notice of eligibility to enroll in a
school district of choice, including a pupil selected by means of a
random selection process conducted on or before June 30, 2009, to
attend the school district of choice.
(5) Existing law requires each school district that elects to
become a school district of choice to keep an accounting of all
requests made for alternative attendance, as specified, and to report
this information to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Existing law requires the Superintendent to annually make this
information available to the Governor, the Legislature, and the
public on or before April 1.
This bill would add specified categories to the required
accounting of requests for transfers. The bill would require each
school district of choice to also report the specified information to
the Department of Finance. The bill would delete the requirement
that the Superintendent annually make the information provided by
school districts available to the Governor, the Legislature, and the
public on or before April 1, and instead require the Department of
Finance to make the information available upon request to the
Legislative Analyst. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst
annually to make specified information regarding interdistrict
transfers available to the Governor and the appropriate fiscal and
policy committees of the Legislature.
(6) Commencing August 24, 2007, existing law prohibits the
governing board of a school district from electing to become a school
district of choice.
This bill would delete that prohibition.
(7) Existing law makes the provisions governing interdistrict
transfers inoperative on July 1, 2009, and repeals them on January 1,
2010.
This bill would extend those inoperative and repeal dates to July
1, 2016, and January 1, 2017, respectively.
(8) The bill would require the Legislative Analyst to conduct,
after consulting with appropriate legislative staff, a comprehensive
evaluation of the interdistrict transfer program and recommendations
regarding the extension of the program, incorporate in that
evaluation the data annually made available by the Superintendent and
the Legislative Analyst, and complete and submit the evaluation and
the recommendations to the appropriate education policy committees of
the Legislature and the Governor by November 1, 2014.
(9) The bill would also make conforming changes.
(10) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately
as an urgency statute.

 

Bill Text:

  • 10/11/09 - Chaptered (pdf)
  • 09/10/09 - Enrolled (pdf)
  • 09/02/09 - Amended Assembly (pdf)
  • 08/17/09 - Amended Assembly (pdf)
  • 06/24/09 - Amended Assembly (pdf)
  • 05/28/09 - Amended Assembly (pdf)
  • 02/27/09 - Introduced (pdf)

  • Bill Location:

  • Governor

  • Last Action:

  • 10/11/09: Approved by Governor.

  • Votes
  • 09/08/09 - Senate Floor: 38-0 (PASS)
  • 09/03/09 - Assembly Floor: 46-15 (PASS)
  • 07/15/09 - Asm Appropriations: 9-3 (PASS)
  • 06/30/09 - Asm Appropriations: 16-0 (PASS)
  • 06/30/09 - Asm Appropriations: 5-11 (FAIL)
  • 06/17/09 - Asm Education: 6-1 (PASS)
  • 04/20/09 - Senate Floor: 37-0 (PASS)
  • 04/15/09 - Sen Education: 9-0 (PASS)


  • Bill Analysis
  • 09/04/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 09/04/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 09/02/09 - Assembly Floor Analysis
  • 08/19/09 - Assembly Floor Analysis
  • 07/14/09 - Appropriations
  • 06/16/09 - Education
  • 04/20/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 04/20/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses
  • 04/13/09 - Sen. Education

  •  

    E-mail this bill to a friend

    Top Headlines

    1. Valley Democrats Cardoza And Costa Are Key To Big Health Care Vote
    2. GOP Senate Candidates Tear Into Boxer At Convention
    3. Dan Walters: Candidates For California Governor All Agree On Silence
    4. Chuck Devore Renames Fiorina Video And Says He's Related To Jerry Brown
    5. Key senators balk at adding student loan overhaul to health-care legislation
    6. Poizner And Whitman Battle For Title Of Speech-maker In Chief
    7. Another View: Initiatives don't need 'reining in' by courts
    8. Sacramento County Budget Cuts Change Mental Health Treatment - Medical News - Sacbee.com
    9. Group Pushes Back Against Medical Marijuana Law
    10. Obama Calls For Sweeping Overhaul In Education Law