AB 165 — Pupil fees.

Summary

(1) Existing law requires the Legislature to provide for a system of common schools by which a free school is required to be kept up and supported in each district. Existing law prohibits a pupil enrolled in school from being required to pay a fee, deposit, or other charge not specifically authorized by law. This bill would prohibit a pupil enrolled in a public school from being required to pay a pupil fee, as defined, for participation in an educational activity, as defined, as specified. The bill would provide that this prohibition is not to be interpreted to prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations, voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or school districts, schools, and other entities from providing pupils prizes or other recognition for voluntarily participating in fundraising activities. The bill would specify that these provisions apply to all public schools, including, but not limited to, charter schools and alternative schools, are declarative of existing law, and should not be interpreted to prohibit the imposition of a fee, deposit, or other charge otherwise allowed by law. The bill would require a superintendent of a school district, county superintendent of schools, or chief executive officer, or a person in the equivalent position, of a charter school, commencing with the 2011–12 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, to determine, within the first 8 weeks after the first day pupils attend school for that school year, or during a specified time period for the 2011–12 fiscal year, whether an unlawful pupil fee has been, or is being, charged in the current fiscal year, or on or after January 1, 2012, for the 2011–12 fiscal year. If the superintendent of a school district, county superintendent of schools, or chief executive officer, or a person in the equivalent position, of a charter school makes this determination, the bill would require him or her to present the determination at a public hearing or meeting of the applicable governing board or body at which the governing board or body would be required to identify the nature of the violation and take action to provide full reimbursements to all affected pupils, parents, or guardians within a specified time period. The bill would require the hearing or meeting to meet specified requirements. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the Controller, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the State Department of Education, to develop a plan to review and report on financial and compliance audits, and with representatives of other entities, to recommend the statements and other information to be included in the audit reports filed with the state by local educational agencies, and to propose the content of an audit guide. This bill would require a compliance audit, commencing with audits of the 2011–12 fiscal year, to include the verification of compliance with the prohibition against the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities in violation of specified law. Notwithstanding specified law, the bill would require this verification to be added to the audit guide commencing with audits of the 2011–12 fiscal year. The bill also would allow for the adoption of emergency regulations to achieve this goal and would require charter schools to be subject to those audits to ensure compliance with the prohibition against the imposition of unlawful pupil fees. (3) Existing law requires a school district to use its uniform complaint process to help identify and resolve any deficiencies related to instructional materials, emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and safety of pupils or staff, teacher vacancy or misassignment, and intensive instruction and services provided to pupils who have not passed one or both parts of the high school exit examination after the completion of grade 12. Existing law provides certain complainants the right to file an appeal to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who is required to provide a written report to the State Board of Education that describes the basis for the complaint and, as appropriate, proposes a remedy. A notice regarding the appropriate subjects of a complaint is required to be posted in each classroom in each school in the school district and a complaint regarding those deficiencies is required to be filed with the principal of the school or his or her designee, except as specified. This bill also would require a school district and a charter school to use its uniform complaint process to help identify and resolve any deficiencies related to the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities, as those terms are defined. The bill also would provide persons with a complaint regarding the imposition of pupil fees the right to file an appeal to the Superintendent and would require the Superintendent to provide the written report to the state board and the complainant no later than 30 working days after the appeal was received by the Superintendent. If the report finds a violation, the bill would require the Superintendent to require the offending school district, charter school, or school to fully reimburse all affected pupils, parents, or guardians. The bill also would require the classroom notice to include certain information about the prohibition against charging pupil fees for participation in educational activities. The bill would require a school district, county office of education, and charter school to establish local policies and procedures, post notices, and implement the uniform complaint process provisions regarding the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities by March 1, 2012. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law requires a county superintendent of schools to provide for an audit of all funds under his or her jurisdiction and requires the governing board of a local educational agency to either provide for an audit of the books and accounts of the local educational agency or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the local educational agency to provide for that auditing. Existing law requires a county superintendent of schools to be responsible for reviewing the audit exceptions contained in an audit of a local educational agency under his or her jurisdiction related to specified topics, and determining whether the exceptions were either corrected or an acceptable plan of correction was developed. Existing law requires the county office of education to review certain audit exceptions upon submission and receipt of a final audit report. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to be responsible for ensuring that local educational agencies have either corrected or developed plans of correction for specified audit exceptions. This bill, commencing with the 2011–12 audit of local educational agencies, would require the county superintendent of schools to also include in the review of audit exceptions those audit exceptions related to the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities in violation of specified law, and to determine whether the exceptions are either corrected or an acceptable plan of correction is developed. The bill would prohibit an audit exception related to the imposition of unlawful pupil fees from being deemed corrected until the school district, county office of education, or charter school fully reimburses all affected parents, guardians, and pupils. The bill also would require the county office of education to review audit exceptions relating to the imposition of unlawful pupil fees. If, in an audit for a subsequent year, the auditor finds an uncorrected or new audit exception related to the imposition of unlawful pupil fees, the bill would require the auditor to make a specified disclosure and would require the Superintendent to withhold certain payments to the school district, county office of education, or charter school until they provide reimbursement, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law excepts certain claims from the requirement that all claims for money or damages against local public entities be presented in accordance with specified law. This bill would additionally except specified claims for reimbursement of pupil fees for participation in educational activities. (6) 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 these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

• Enrolled 09/09/11 - Enrolled Current pdf September 09, 2011
• Amended 08/30/11 - Amended Senate pdf August 30, 2011
• Amended 08/15/11 - Amended Senate pdf August 15, 2011
• Amended 06/20/11 - Amended Senate pdf June 20, 2011
• Amended 05/27/11 - Amended Assembly pdf May 27, 2011
• Amended 05/05/11 - Amended Assembly pdf May 05, 2011
• Amended 04/13/11 - Amended Assembly pdf April 13, 2011
• Introduced 01/20/11 - Introduced pdf January 20, 2011
• AB165 View text html

Action History

1. October 08, 2011

   Vetoed by Governor.

2. September 14, 2011

   Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

3. September 06, 2011

   Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 51. Noes 24. Page 2932.).

4. September 06, 2011

   Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 2932.)

5. September 02, 2011

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 7 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

6. September 01, 2011

   Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 15. Page 2249.).

7. August 30, 2011

   Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

8. August 29, 2011

   From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 4.) (August 25).

9. August 15, 2011

   In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

10. August 15, 2011

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

11. June 30, 2011

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

12. June 20, 2011

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on ED.

13. June 16, 2011

    Referred to Com. on ED.

14. June 02, 2011

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

15. June 02, 2011

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 53. Noes 21. Page 1786.)

16. May 31, 2011

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

17. May 27, 2011

    Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

18. May 27, 2011

    From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 27).

19. May 27, 2011

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

20. May 09, 2011

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

21. May 05, 2011

    Read second time and amended.

22. May 04, 2011

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 27).

23. April 14, 2011

    Re-referred to Com. on ED.

24. April 13, 2011

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.

25. February 03, 2011

    Referred to Com. on ED.

26. January 21, 2011

    From printer. May be heard in committee February 20.

27. January 20, 2011

    Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

• Alejo · Cosponsor
• Blumenfield · Cosponsor
• Campos · Cosponsor
• Mitchell · Cosponsor
• Davis · Cosponsor
• Hall · Cosponsor
• Lara · Primary
• Solorio · Cosponsor
• V. Manuel Pérez · Cosponsor
• Josh Lowenthal · Cosponsor
• Roger Hernández · Cosponsor

Votes

Subjects