HOUSE BILL REPORT
2SHB 2379
As Amended by the Senate
BYHouse Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Peery, Betrozoff, Dorn, Jacobsen, Hargrove, Holland, Van Luven, P. King, H. Myers, Kirby, Wineberry, Ebersole, May, Ferguson and Rasmussen; by request of Governor Gardner)
Creating student enrollment options programs.
House Committe on Education
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (15)
Signed by Representatives Peery, Chair; G. Fisher, Vice Chair; Betrozoff, Ranking Republican Member; Dorn, Fuhrman, Horn, Jones, P. King, Phillips, Pruitt, Rasmussen, Rayburn, Schoon, Valle and K. Wilson.
House Staff:Bob Butts (786-7841)
Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations
Majority Report: The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass. (20)
Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Grant, Vice Chair; Silver, Ranking Republican Member; Youngsman, Assistant Ranking Republican Member; Braddock, Dorn, Doty, Ebersole, Hine, Holland, Inslee, May, Padden, Peery, Sayan, Spanel, Sprenkle, Valle, Wang and Wineberry.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (7)
Signed by Representatives Belcher, Bowman, Brekke, Brough, McLean, Nealey and Rust.
House Staff: Janet Peterson (786-7143)
AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 9, 1990
BACKGROUND:
The fundamental premise of an educational "choice" program is to allow parents and students the freedom to choose the school of their choice. With choice programs, the child's assigned school cannot prohibit the child from leaving to attend school elsewhere. The receiving school, on the other hand, can restrict nonresident enrollment based on space availability and other factors.
Nationwide, a large number of variations exist in choice programs, including those that allow choice only within the public school district (intradistrict); those that allow choice between public school districts (interdistrict); or those that allow upper- level high school students to attend community colleges, public universities, and vocational technical institutes. Generally, state education funding follows the student to the new school or school district.
Washington state statutes allow school districts wide flexibility in establishing intradistrict choice programs, and establish a framework for several types of interdistrict choice programs. Statutes also allow school districts who take nonresident students to charge tuition. However, under current law, school districts may prohibit a resident student from leaving the district to attend school in another district.
SUMMARY:
LEARNING BY CHOICE PROGRAM
The learning by choice program is created. Beginning in the 1992-93 school year, parents and guardians may choose to have their children attend a nonresident public school district subject to several exceptions and conditions, outlined below. State education funding for the child shall be paid to the school district the student actually attends. School districts may limit nonresident enrollment in their schools, but with the exception of school districts that have desegregation plans, districts may not refuse permission for a student who wants to leave.
Information booklet: The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) shall prepare a booklet that contains information on the options parents have for enrollment of their children in the state's public schools. School districts shall distribute the booklet. The booklet shall contain a transfer application form, deadlines for transfer requests, a toll-free telephone number for additional information, and other relevant material.
Transfer procedures and selection criteria: Each district's school board shall annually determine the number of transfer slots available for nonresident students in each of its schools. Schools and special education programs that have available space shall randomly select students from the applications that have been submitted.
An application may only be rejected because: 1) it was not selected in the random lottery, 2) there were no designated transfer slots at the school, or 3) the student's enrollment would adversely affect the district's adopted desegregation plan.
Provisions for parent notification and exit interviews are provided.
Duties of SPI: The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) shall establish a timeline and procedures for the program that must be followed by the school districts.
Student transportation: Parents with children in nonresident school districts are obligated to transport their children to the nearest bus stop of the school to which the child has transferred. Parents of students who are eligible for free or reduced price breakfasts or lunches shall be reimbursed for transportation from money provided by the state. SPI shall establish rules for transportation payments.
Eligibility for extracurricular activities: Eligibility of transfer students for participation in extracurricular activities shall be subject to rules adopted by the Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association.
Districts with desegregation plans: The Board of Directors of a school district implementing a desegregation plan shall adopt a policy on interdistrict student transfers. Under the policy, the district may not deny a student's application to transfer if the transfer would lessen the difference between the minority percentages of the two districts. Application and notification procedures are provided.
Special education: Applications from nonresident students to attend special education programs shall only be granted if the receiving school or district maintains a special education program appropriate to the student's needs, and if space is available.
Levy provisions/transfer fees: School districts may establish annual transfer fees for nonresident students if the levy rate per $1,000 adjusted assessed value of the serving district is higher than the rate of the district in which the student resides. A formula is provided for determining the amount of the transfer fee. However, the fee may not exceed $300.
The state shall pay transfer fees for students who are eligible for free and reduced price lunches or breakfasts.
Continuing enrollment: Once a student is enrolled in a nonresident school district, the student shall be treated as a resident, except in terms of transportation and transfer fees. The student may continue to attend the nonresident school district without transfer applications.
Intradistrict transfer policies: School districts shall adopt a policy allowing intradistrict enrollment options by June 30, 1991, and shall distribute a booklet on intradistrict enrollment options.
Existing transfer programs: Nothing in the act affects or reduces other student transfer options available in law.
Study and recommendations: A task force is created to study the need to: provide programs that foster program diversity; provide relief to districts that experience significant enrollment declines; modify the transfer fee formula; provide relief to staff who may be displaced by fluctuations in enrollment; and provide a low income subsidy for intradistrict transportation. The task force shall report to the legislature by December 15, 1990.
RUNNING START PROGRAM
The Running Start Program is created, which will allow high school juniors and seniors to attend vocational technical institutes, community colleges, and public colleges and universities on a full-time or part-time basis.
Task force and design criteria: The governor shall appoint a task force to design an implementation plan that shall be submitted to the State Board of Education, the Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Legislature, and the Governor by December 1, 1990. The Legislature shall consider the task force's recommendations during the 1991 legislative session.
In designing the implementation plan, the task force shall use the following criteria: a) students may not be charged tuition or other fees (including books). State basic education funds shall follow the student; b) information on available opportunities shall be provided to parents and teachers; c) student qualifications for enrolling shall be established; d) up to 5,000 students per year shall initially be served, and these students shall not be counted in higher education institution enrollment limits; e) an evaluation system shall be developed; f) districts may not refuse students permission to participate in the program; and g) credits earned shall apply to graduation requirements of both high school and the vocational institute, community college, college, or university.
Beginning enrollment: The Running Start program shall begin no later than the 1992-1993 school year.
Report to the Legislature: SPI shall conduct a study of the effect of the enrollment options and postsecondary options program, and shall submit initial results to the Legislature and Governor by December 15, 1993.
EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENTS:
LEARNING BY CHOICE/FAMILY CHOICE
Interdistrict Transfer Procedures
In the legislation that passed the House (2SHB 2379), school districts that do not have desegregation plans cannot prohibit resident students from transferring to another district. With the Senate striking amendment, the resident school district may approve or deny the transfer request. However, districts are strongly encouraged to honor transfer requests, and shall release the student if: (a) a financial, educational, safety, or health condition would likely be reasonably improved as a result of the transfer; (b) attendance at the school in the non-resident district is more accessible to the parent's place of work or to the location of child care; or (c) there is a special hardship or detrimental condition. The district's decision may be appealed to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the courts.
The Senate striking amendment removed provisions in the 2SHB 2379 that: (a) required school districts to annually determine the number of transfer slots for nonresident students; (b) required SPI to establish statewide time lines and standards for transfer requests; and (c) required school districts to develop a lottery process for the selection of nonresident students. Instead, the Senate striking amendment requires that all school districts accepting applicants from nonresident students to equally consider all applications, and by June 30, 1990, adopt a policy establishing rational, fair, and equitable standards for acceptance and rejection of applications. If a non-resident's application is rejected, it may be appealed to SPI and the courts.
Districts with Desegregation Plans
In the House version of the legislation, school districts with desegregation plans are to develop interdistrict transfer policies, but may not deny a student's application to transfer to another district if the transfer would lessen the difference between the minority percentages of the two districts. In the Senate striking amendment, a district with an existing desegregation plan may deny a student's transfer request if the transfer would adversely affect the district's existing desegregation plan.
Transfer Fees
Both versions allow districts to charge transfer fees, and require studies to assess how the fees should be calculated. Until the studies are completed and a new formula is adopted, the Senate striking amendment allows school districts to determine the amount of the fee. The House bill establishes a statewide formula based on the differences in the district's levy rates, with a $300 maximum. In both cases, the state shall pay the fee for low income students. However, in the Senate amendment payment of the transfer fee for low income students is subject to available funds.
Information Booklet/Toll-free Information
Both versions require SPI to publish and distribute a statewide booklet on enrollment options. In 2SHB 2379, the booklet is to be distributed to all parents. In the Senate striking amendment, the booklet must be available for public inspection at each school, at the district office, and in public libraries. The Senate amendment also directs SPI to make recommendations as to whether the booklets should be distributed to parents.
A provision in 2SHB 2379 creating a statewide toll-free telephone number for obtaining information on enrollment options is removed in the Senate amendment.
Transportation Responsibilities
In 2SHB 2379, parents are obligated to transport their children to the nearest bus stop of the nonresident school to which the child transferred, and a transportation subsidy is provided for students with low-income parents. The Senate version requires SPI to make recommendations regarding the parents' responsibility for transporting their children, and asks SPI to provide information on the cost of providing low income students a transportation subsidy.
Intradistrict transfers
Both bills require that school districts adopt a policy allowing intradistrict enrollment options. The Senate striking amendment requires that the policy be adopted and implemented by June 30, 1990, while 2SHB 2379 requires that the policy be adopted by June 30, 1991.
Additional Reports
Both bills require SPI to collect statistical information on the number of transfers occurring under the act. The Senate striking amendment also requires a study on the effects of student transfers on the quality of education for students who remain in the district.
RUNNING START
The House version of the "Running Start" program allows high school juniors and seniors to attend community colleges, vocational technical institutes, and state colleges and universities. The Senate version allows high school students to attend only community colleges and vocational technical institutes, with a task force to consider whether the progran should be expanded to also include state colleges and universities. In both cases, the student's basic education funding follows the student to pay tuition and other fees, and the student may enroll in classes for high school and post secondary credit.
A task force is created in 2SHB 2379 to develop an implementation plan, and the program is to be effective no later than the 1992 - 1993 school year. In the Senate striking amendment, rules to implement the program are to be jointly developed by SPI, the state board for community college education, and the higher education coordinating board. The program is to be implemented in up to five community college districts during the 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years, with full implementation beginning in the 1992-93 school year. Implementation for vocational technical institutes also is phased-in over several years.
SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GRADE CHOICE
The Senate striking amendment adds a new section that allows seventh and eighth grade students who have completed high school courses to be given, upon request, high school credit for the courses. The credits also shall be applied toward fulfilling high school graduation requirements. Requirements for being eligible for the credits are specified, and additional competency examinations or assignments are prohibited. This section shall apply to students who are in high school on the effective date of the act and who took courses while they were in seventh and eighth grade.
Fiscal Note: Available.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: (Education) Dr. Joe Nathan, Minnesota; Ronn Robinson, Governor's Office; Bobbie May, U.S. Dept. of Education; John Carlson, Washington Institute for Policy Studies; Steve Nielsen, Washington Roundtable; Ken Watson, Seattle School District; Cathy Mickels, Mothers Campaign for Family; Carl Fynboe, Washington Federation of Independent Schools; Tim Strege, Council of Vocational Technical Institutes; Dr. Ron Crossland, Community College State Board. Supported the concept of choice, but expressed concerns with the legislation: Judith Billings, Superintendent of Public Instruction; Dick Harris, Federal Way School District; Christie Perkins, Washington State Special Education Coalition; Margaret Harto, Washington State PTA; Elsie Wright, parent; Bob Maier, Washington Education Association; Kris Van Gorkom, School Information & Research Service; Walter Ball, Association of Washington School Principals.
(Appropriations) Representative Kim Peery; Ronn Robinson, Governor's Office; Steve Nielsen, Washington Roundtable and Dropout Task Force; Ben Edlund, Moses Lake School District; and Perry Keithley, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Supported the concept of choice, but expressed concerns with the legislation: Karen Davis, Washington Education Association.
House Committee - Testified Against: (Education) Paul Bushue, Edmonds; and Dwayne Slate, Washington State School Directors Assoc.
(Appropriations) Bob Schabot, Washington State Parent-Teacher Association; and Dwayne Slate, Washington State School Directors' Association.
House Committee - Testimony For: (Education) Choice in education is not a theoretical idea: it will increase learning. Evidence indicates that students do better when they have choices, and parents become more involved with their children's education. Choice will promote competition, which will provide a strong incentive for teachers and administrators to improve our educational system. This bill will supplement the state's current enrollment options, and ensure that choice is available to all students regardless of their parents' financial standing.
(Appropriations) Parental involvement is critical to the success of educational programs. While choice is not a panacea, it allows parents a greater say in their children's education. The bill contains strong provisions concerning dissemination to parents of information on enrollment options. Currently, wealthier parents have better access to this information as well as to choice of public or private schools.
House Committee - Testimony Against: (Education) The competition created by statewide educational choice will be destructive to schools. This will especially be true with school districts that have problems passing local levies and with small districts. To make choice work will require that financial assistance be available to help schools that lose students. Choice will benefit some students to the detriment of the majority.
(Appropriations) School assignments should not be made by lottery. There needs to be more planning time and funding for development of specialized schools. This legislation should not mandate interdistrict enrollment options but should provide a study of the school choice issue. The bill raises false expectations since many transfer applications will be turned down due to lack of space.
VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:
Yeas 68; Nays 25; Absent 1; Excused 4 - 2/9/90
Voting Nay: Representatives Baugher, Bowman, Brooks, Brumsickle, Cole, Doty, Hankins, Kirby, Leonard, Locke, McLean, Miller, Moyer, Nealey, Nelson, Prince, Rayburn, Rust, Sayan, Schmidt, Schoon, Smith, H. Sommers, Youngsman and Zellinsky
Absent: Representative Forner
Excused: Representatives Ballard, Basich, Chandler and D. Sommers
VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:
Yeas 65; Nays 31; Excused 1 - 3/9/90
Voting Nay: Representatives Baugher, Belcher, Bennett, Bowman, Brekke, Brooks, Brumsickle, Cole, Doty, Fuhrman, Hankins, R. King, Kirby, Leonard, Locke, McLean, Miller, Moyer, Nealey, Nelson, Padden, Prince, Rayburn, Rust, Schmidt, Scott, Smith, H. Sommers, Wineberry, Youngsman, Zellinsky
Excused: Representative Vekich