By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer | Daily Breeze | http://bit.ly/mrauw1
04/30/2011 - A bill in the state Legislature could alter the process that allows parents to transfer their children between school districts, potentially affecting thousands of students in the South Bay.
The legislation, carried by South Bay Sen. Rod Wright, would limit the criteria that could be considered when parents appeal the denial of permits that would allow their children to attend school districts outside their home area.
Senate Bill 268 is sponsored by the Los Angeles Unified School District, which last year was met with parent uproar when it sought to clamp down on the large number of outgoing permits in an effort to retain attendance-based funding from the state.
This year, about a third of those permits - thousands overall - were given to students who transferred to South Bay school districts, taking pupil-based funding with them. Today is the deadline to apply for transfer permits for 2011-12.
Melissa Schoonmaker, Los Angeles Unified's coordinator for the Permits and Student Transfers Office, said the bill is needed to clarify standards used by the Los Angeles County Board of Education when it hears appeals from parents who have been denied permits.
The bill, set for a hearing Monday before the Senate Appropriations Committee, would affect county boards of education across the state. The Education Code currently contains no standards of review for appeal hearings, which have been increasing in number as many school districts
"For us, it's just providing neutral standards that every county board will be able to look at every appeal in front of them in the same fashion," Schoonmaker said. "It makes it a fair process for the parent; it makes it a clearer process so that one parent isn't treated differently from another parent. Each case is viewed in the same lens."
The district is again facing a backlash from parents who have organized a petition against the legislation, which they fear would limit their chances of leaving LAUSD for higher-performing outside schools.
Anger at Los Angeles Unified is rampant on a Facebook page for parents concerned about interdistrict transfers.
"They decided to go the back-door legislative route and try to change the rules essentially," said David Coffin, a Westchester parent who has two sons on permits in a high-achieving Manhattan Beach school.
Wright, a Democrat based in Inglewood who represents much of the South Bay, was unavailable to comment on the bill this week. But his office put out a statement saying "clarity" was needed in permit appeal hearings, where "decisions can be perceived as arbitrary."
It's not clear how much of an immediate effect the bill would have, but it comes as LAUSD has limited the reasons for which it will grant outgoing permits.
Last year, Schoonmaker said, the district granted more than 10,500 outgoing permits, and only 330 were appealed to the county board. Of those, the county sided with parents - granting the permits - in 107 cases.
Under the legislation, county boards could essentially only consider whether a school district had followed its own policy - or a transfer agreement between two districts - in denying a permit. There is also a provision allowing parents to present "relevant information that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced, or that was improperly excluded" at the school district's permit hearing.
Schoonmaker said the latter provision would allow parents to tell their side of the story to county boards.
Nonetheless, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, which has jurisdiction over 80 school districts, opposes the bill.
"We believe that limiting the criteria to that proposed in the bill will create a disadvantage to those the appeal process was designed to serve, the parents and the students," Victor Thompson, LACOE's director of students support services, told the Senate Education Committee. "For example, if a school district only had five criteria and the parent was appealing based on other criteria, what would be the motivation to appeal?"
Right now, the county board can consider myriad criteria when deciding on an appeal - making the bureaucratic process somewhat friendly to parents, Thompson said in an interview.
"We've developed the criteria the county board uses over decades and decades. The criteria was designed to be broad enough to accommodate all the different school districts," Thompson said.
High-achieving Wiseburn School District, which gets 40 percent of its student body from other districts, is likewise critical of the bill and has written to Wright in opposition.
"What used to be a surplus of students is now a situation where there's a scarcity of students. So in a sense there's competition for students," Superintendent Tom Johnstone said in an interview.
"Obviously LAUSD doesn't want to lose that per-pupil funding. It boils down to economics. For us, it's a lot more than economics; and for parents, it's a lot more than economics."
_______________________
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 268
AUTHOR: Wright
INTRODUCED: February 14, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: March 30, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Interdistrict pupil attendance and appeal.
SUMMARY
This bill (1) specifies the scope of review by a county
board of education (CBE) when an appeal of interdistrict
pupil attendance occurs; (2) specifies that if, after two
months, no decision by the two governing boards or CBE has
been made regarding an appeal, the district of residence
shall receive the funding attributable to the pupil; and
(3) provides that a parent or guardian is physically
employed within the boundaries of that district if employed
during a majority of the time that the pupil is scheduled
to be in school.
BACKGROUND
Current law provides for several means to authorize
interdistrict attendance of a pupil who resides in one
school district but wishes to attend public school in
another school district:
The main authorization provides for interdistrict
attendance when both the district of residence and district
of proposed attendance agree. This process allows the
parent or guardian of a pupil requesting interdistrict
attendance to appeal to the county board of education in
the event that either district refuses the requested
transfer. In addition, current law allows the governing
board of a school district for a period not to exceed two
school months to provisionally admit to their schools a
pupil who resides in another district, pending a decision
of the two boards, or by the CBE upon appeal, regarding the
interdistrict attendance. The provisional attendance may be
counted by the district of attendance for revenue limit and
state apportionment purposes. (EC § 46600 et. seq.)
A second form of interdistrict attendance authorizes a
pupil to attend school in a district where the pupil's
parent works, rather than where the pupil and parent
reside. The district where the parent is employed is not
required to admit the pupil but is prohibited from refusing
admission on the basis of the arbitrary consideration such
as race, ethnicity, sex, parental income, scholastic
achievement. The receiving (parental employment) district
may also refuse the transfer if it determines that the
costs of the transfer would exceed the added revenues (thus
preventing mandated costs.) Either district of residence or
parental employment may prohibit the transfer if it would
negatively affect a desegregation plan and the district of
residence is not required to allow more transfers than
specified limits based upon the size of the district. (EC §
48204)
A third authorization is under District of Choice (DOC)
provisions. Under the DOC program, a school board may
declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a
specified number of interdistrict transfers. The DOC
program provides protections against districts targeting
students in specific residential neighborhoods, on the
basis of a child's actual or perceived academic or athletic
performance or any other personal characteristic. A DOC
may reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that
pupil would require the district to create a new program to
serve that pupil, except that a DOC shall not reject the
transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual
with exceptional needs, and an English learner. DOCs are
required to collect specific data about the students who
transfer to their district and report that data to
surrounding districts and to the state. This data is
required to be reported annually to the Legislature and the
Governor, and the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is
required to prepare a comprehensive evaluation of the
program. (EC § 48300 et. seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1) Clarifies that the hearing required by a county board
of education (CBE), within 30 calendar days after an
appeal is filed must be an impartial hearing.
2) Specifies the review by the CBE shall be limited to
the following questions:
a) Whether the district acted in accordance
with an interdistrict
attendance agreement, where applicable.
b) Whether the district followed the district's
policy on interdistrict
attendance.
c) Whether the district provided the parent or
guardian with an
opportunity to provide information relevant to
the interdistrict attendance request.
d) Whether there is relevant and material
evidence that was not
considered by the district.
3) Requires if after two months, no decision has been
made regarding either an interdistrict attendance
agreement or an appeal, by the two governing boards or
the CBE, the school district of residence shall
receive the revenue limit and state apportionment
funding attributable to that pupil.
4) Provides that, until July 1, 2013, a school district
may deem a pupil to have complied with residency
requirements for school attendance in a district if at
least one parent of the pupil is physically employed
within the boundaries of that district during a
majority of the time that the pupil is scheduled to be
in school.
5) Requires reimbursement to local agencies and school
districts to be made if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that this act contains costs
mandated by the state.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill. The author's office contends that
the Education Code contains no consistent standard of
review for county boards of education (CBEs) to follow
with regard to handling appeals for interdistrict
attendance permits. Without required standards for
impartial review, decisions can be perceived as
arbitrary by the parties before the county board. In
addition, this measure would also set parameters that
directly link the parent's employment to the school
week.
2) Consistency of appeal review seems reasonable . It
seems reasonable to have a clear and consistent review
approach by CBEs with regard to interdistrict transfer
appeals as envisioned in this bill. Many school
district policies provide for an initial district
appeal if an interdistrict attendance request is
denied; in addition, all school districts are required
to inform parents of their right to appeal to their
local CBE.
According to the author their intent is to insure a
fair and consistent review, and not impede parent and
pupil rights and while keeping open the possibility
that unique circumstances may arise. With this in
mind, staff recommends an amendment that rather than
having a CBE review "whether there was relevant and
material evidence not considered," a more direct and
consistent review question would be on page 4, line
11, "(iv) Whether there is relevant information, which
in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not
have been produced or which was improperly excluded at
the hearing before the district governing board."
3) Changes to Provisional Attendance Funding Seem
Premature. The bill attempts to motivate school
districts and CBEs to act in a timely manner regarding
interdistrict agreements or appeals by creating a time
certain cutoff whereby the district of residence
receives funding attributing to that pupil. However,
given the changes envisioned by this bill by providing
for a clear, consistent, and streamlined approach to
appeal reviews, as well as the lack of information on
how many pupils the current process applies to, a
change in current statute may be considered premature.
Therefore, staff recommends that Section 2 of the
measure be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment