BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                     AB 19


                          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

            AB 19 (Quackenbush) - As Amended:  April 21, 1993

ASSEMBLY ACTIONS: 

COMMITTEE   ED.      VOTE 11-0 COMMITTEE  W. & M.      VOTE 17-3    


DIGEST

Existing law:

1) Requires each person subject to compulsory full-time education to attend 
š   the school in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian 
   is located, with some exceptions. 

2) Specifies the requirements for admission of pupils residing in one 
š   district to attend school in another district pursuant to an agreement 
   by the governing boards of the districts.

This bill:

1)  Authorizes the governing board of any school district to institute a 
š     program of interdistrict public school choice -- i.e., to admit pupils 
    residing in another district to attend any school in that district.

2)  Establishes procedures whereby a district that chooses to accept 
š     interdistrict transfers -- no district is required to do so -- may 
    determine the number of transfer students it will accept and adopt a 
    random, unbiased selection process.  The bill also contains the 
    following provisions:

    a)  Prohibiting a district of choice from refusing to accept a transfer 
        if the cost of educating the pupil would exceed the amount of 
        additional state aid received as a result of the transfer. 

    b)  Giving transfer priority to siblings of children who already are 
        attending school in the district of choice.

    c)  Allowing districts to limit the number of students emigrating 
        annually to five percent of their current year average daily 
        attendance.

    d)  Requiring the districts of choice to provide transportation for 
        transfer pupils within the boundaries of the district, to the 
        extent that the district otherwise provides transportation 
        assistance to pupils. 

    e)  Governing apportionment of average daily attendance and state aid 
        for categorical programs to the school district of choice for 
        purposes of any determination utilizing average daily attendance or 
        estimated average daily attendance.

                                                   - continued -

                                                                     AB 19
                                                                     Page 1  

                                                                     AB 19



3)  Contains a sunset provision effective January 1, 2001 and is double-
    joined to AB 1114 (Alpert), which provides for districts to adopt a 
    program of intradistrict public school choice.

FISCAL EFFECT

According to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee analysis, this bill 
šcould result in a cost of $350,000 in the 1993-94 budget year and on-going 
šcosts of $200,000.

COMMENTS

The purpose of this bill, according to the author, is to give parents the 
šopportunity to select schools that best fit their children's educational 
šneeds in the public school environment.  The author states that the end 
šresult of the interdistrict choice program will be innovative educational 
šprograms and motivated students, without the participation of private 
šschools.

Supporters argue that interdistrict choice is an essential element of 
šnecessary reform in California public schools.  They state that public 
šschool choice contributes to empowerment of parents, teachers, and students 
šin ways best defined by local school districts.  They also argue that 
šimplementation of public school choice is essential to the survival of 
špublic schools in light of increasing pressure from various interests for 
špublic subsidizing of private schools. 

Opponents argue that interdistrict choice ignores educational equity and 
šthe need to invest in school improvement.  Opponents assert that choice, 
ši.e., competition among public schools, does not automatically lead to 
šenhanced educational quality in the absence of other reforms and increased 
šinvestment in all public schools.  They cite the lack of specific 
šdefinition of purpose or results, (i.e., accountability, as a serious 
šflaw).  They also argue that the limited transportation provisions of AB 19 
šdisadvantage parents and pupils who can not afford transportation, thereby 
šprecluding low income pupils from participating in the transfer program. 

Prior legislation includes AB 1614 (Quackenbush, 1992) which was 
šsubstantially similar to this bill.  The bill died in the Senate 
šAppropriations Committee. 



                                                                     FN 002199







                                                   - continued -

                                                                     AB 19
                                                                     Page 2