LAO
Evaluation of the School District of Choice Program
Read the report at Legislative Analyst's Office ↗
Evaluation of the School
District of Choice Program
MAC TAYLOR • L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T • JANUARY 27, 2016
AN LAO REPORT
2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................5
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................7
Background ...........................................................................................................................................7
Research Methods ..............................................................................................................................13
Findings ...............................................................................................................................................13
Assessment .........................................................................................................................................24
Recommendations..............................................................................................................................25
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................27
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3
AN LAO REPORT
4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
State Faces Key Decision About Whether to Reauthorize “District of Choice” Program. A
state law adopted in 1993 allows students to transfer to school districts that have deemed themselves
Districts of Choice. Two main features distinguish this program from other interdistrict transfer
laws. First, Districts of Choice must agree to accept interested students regardless of their academic
abilities or personal characteristics. Second, interested students generally do not need to seek
permission from their home districts. With the program scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2017, the
state now faces a key decision about whether to reauthorize it. This report responds to a legislative
requirement that we evaluate the program and provide recommendations concerning its future.
Major Findings
State Has 47 Districts of Choice Serving 10,000 Transfer Students. Participating districts
represent 5 percent of all districts in the state and participating transfer students represent
0.2 percent of statewide enrollment. Participating districts include a number of small districts
located throughout the state as well as several large districts located near the eastern edge of
Los Angeles County. Five large districts serve nearly 80 percent of all participating transfer students.
Transfer Students Have Varied Demographic Backgrounds. We found that 27 percent of
participating transfer students come from low-income families. We also found that transfer students are
35 percent white, 32 percent Hispanic or Latino, 24 percent Asian, and 9 percent other groups. These
percentages are similar to the average for all students attending Districts of Choice. Transfer students
are, however, less likely to be low income or Hispanic than the students attending their home districts.
The Program Provides Transfer Students With Additional Educational Options. Students
often participate in the District of Choice program to pursue academic opportunities unavailable
in their home districts. The most common opportunities sought by transfer students are college
preparatory programs (such as the International Baccalaureate program), academies with a thematic
focus (such as science or language immersion), and schools with a specific instructional philosophy
(such as project-based learning). Other students transfer because they are seeking a fresh start at a
new school or because they want to attend a school that is more conveniently located.
Almost All Students Transfer to Districts With Higher Test Scores. The average District of
Choice has test scores well above the state average, whereas the average home district has test scores
slightly below the state average. Available data show that more than 90 percent of students transfer
to districts with higher test scores than their home districts.
Home Districts Often Respond by Improving Their Instructional Offerings. Most of the home
districts we interviewed had responded to the program by taking steps to gain greater clarity about
the priorities of their communities and by implementing new educational programs. Most home
districts also had improved their test scores over time. Districts reported that their efforts usually
resulted in at least some reduction in the number of students seeking to transfer out.
Program Oversight Has Been Limited by a Lack of Data and Flaws in the Audit Procedure.
Though the law requires Districts of Choice to produce annual reports containing information
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5
AN LAO REPORT
about the number and characteristics of their transfer students, the state has never collected
these reports. In addition, the audit requirement the state added to the program in 2009 has been
implemented inconsistently and contains no mechanism to address any compliance problems.
Recommendations
Reauthorize Program for at Least Five More Years. We think the strengths of the program,
including additional educational options for students and improved district programs, justify
reauthorization. Eliminating the program, by contrast, would be disruptive for existing transfer
students and deny future transfer students the educational options that have helped previous
cohorts of students. For these reasons, we recommend the state reauthorize the program for at least
five more years, the minimum amount of time we think the state would need to collect better data
and assess the effects of our other recommendations.
Repeal Cumulative Cap. In tandem with reauthorizing the program, we recommend the
Legislature repeal a cap that limits cumulative participation in the program. This cap currently
makes the program unavailable in certain districts regardless of student interest or program quality.
In addition, the state modified the program in 2009 to allow districts to prohibit transfers that
would notably worsen their fiscal condition. With this provision in place, we believe the cumulative
cap is no longer necessary.
Assign the California Department of Education Specific Administrative Responsibilities. We
recommend the Legislature require the California Department of Education to (1) maintain a list of
the Districts of Choice in the state, (2) ensure all districts submit their annual reports in a complete
and consistent format, (3) post these annual reports and other program information in one location
on its website, (4) provide information to districts about the program, and (5) explore the possibility
of collecting statutorily required program data using the state’s existing student-level data system.
These efforts would help the Legislature monitor the program and help families learn about their
transfer options.
Implement a New Oversight Mechanism. We recommend the state replace the existing audit
requirement with a new system of oversight administered by county offices of education. Under the
new system, a home district that was concerned a District of Choice was not following the law could
bring its concern to its county office of education. If the county office of education determined that
the District of Choice was out of compliance, the District of Choice would be required to correct the
problem before accepting additional transfer students.
Improve Local Communication. We recommend the state require Districts of Choice to provide
nearby home districts with timely notification of the students accepted through the program. This
information would reduce some home districts’ uncertainty regarding the number of transfer
students. We also recommend the state require Districts of Choice to post application information
on their websites. This information would increase transparency and help the program reach
students who might otherwise be unaware of their transfer options.
6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
INTRODUCTION
California Has District of Choice Program. program. Chapter 198 of 2009 (SB 680, Romero),
California has several laws designed to give parents as amended by Chapter 421 of 2015 (SB 597, Huff),
a choice about which school their children attend. contains the following requirement:
One of these laws is known as the District of Choice The Legislative Analyst shall conduct, after
program. This program allows a student living in consulting with appropriate legislative staff, a
one school district to transfer to another school comprehensive evaluation of the [District of Choice]
program and prepare recommendations regarding
district that has deemed itself a District of Choice.
the extension of the program.
The program differs from existing interdistrict
This report responds to this evaluation
transfer laws because it does not require students to
requirement. First, we outline the main features of
apply with the home districts they are leaving.
the program and compare it with other interdistrict
Legislation Authorizes Evaluation of
transfer options in California. Next, we describe
Program. Though the state initially adopted the
the findings that emerged from our interviews,
District of Choice program as a pilot program, it
data analysis, and review of the available research.
has reauthorized the law several times. The most
Third, we assess the program and describe its
recent reauthorization extended the program
strengths and weaknesses. Finally, we make
through July 1, 2017. To assist its deliberations
recommendations regarding the future of the
about another reauthorization, the Legislature
program.
tasked our office with conducting a review of the
BACKGROUND
In this section, we describe the origins and about growing interest in a proposal to fund
main features of the District of Choice program. private school vouchers and thought expanding
We also compare this program to other transfer choice among public schools was preferable. These
options in the state. concerns eventually led to the passage of three laws.
The first, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, allowed
History
the establishment of publicly funded charter
Legislature Adopts District of Choice Program schools that would operate independently from
in 1993. The District of Choice program grew out of school districts. The second, enacted in 1993, gave
an effort in the early 1990s to increase the choices students more options to transfer to other schools
available to students within the public school within the same district. The third law, also enacted
system. Two main considerations motivated this in 1993, created the District of Choice program.
effort. First, many supporters argued that choice Although this law was not the first to allow
would improve public education by encouraging interdistrict transfers, it was designed to be much
schools to be more responsive to community less restrictive.
concerns and by allowing parents to choose the State Has Reauthorized Program Five Times.
instructional setting best suited to the needs of The 1993 legislation implemented the District of
their children. Other supporters were concerned Choice program as a five-year pilot, with the first
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7
AN LAO REPORT
transfers taking effect for the 1995-96 school year. other districts. Interested students apply directly
The state extended the program for five more years to the District of Choice and generally do not need
in 1999, followed by additional extensions in 2004, to seek permission from the home districts they
2007, 2009, and 2015. With the latest extension to currently attend. (State law allows a home district
July 1, 2017, the 2016-17 school year will be the last to prohibit transfers if certain conditions are
year for the District of Choice program unless the met.) Students seeking to transfer in an upcoming
Legislature reauthorizes it. school year must submit their applications prior
to January 1 of the current school year. Within
Program Basics
90 days of receiving an application, a District of
A School District May Decide to Become a Choice must give each applicant a provisional
District of Choice. Figure 1 summarizes the key notification of its decision to accept or deny the
components of the District of Choice program. To transfer application, with final notification required
participate in the program, the governing board of by May 15. Although transfer students are not
a school district must annually adopt a resolution guaranteed attendance at specific schools, most
declaring its intent to be a District of Choice and Districts of Choice allow students to rank their
specifying the number of transfer students it is preferred schools and honor any preferences that
willing to accept. A District of Choice typically do not displace students already enrolled. Transfer
specifies this number by grade level, depending on students accepted into a District of Choice are
available space within each grade. not obligated to attend. They may withdraw their
Students Can Leave Their Home District and applications at any time and return to their home
Attend a District of Choice. Once a district has districts. The law waives the application timeline
deemed itself a District of Choice, it may begin for the children of military personnel that have
accepting attendance applications from students in been relocated within the past 90 days. These
Figure 1
Key Components of the District of Choice Program
9
District Participation. A district deems itself a District of Choice through a local resolution and specifies
in this resolution how many new transfer students it will accept each year.
9
Transfer Rules. A student’s “home district” must allow the student to transfer unless the transfer would
affect the home district in one of the following ways:
• Exceed an annual cap equal to 3 percent of the home district’s student attendance for the year.a
• Exceed a cumulative cap equal to 10 percent of the home district’s average annual attendance over the
life of the program.a
• Exacerbate severe fiscal distress.
• Hinder a court-ordered desegregation plan.
• Negatively affect racial balance.
9
Admission Procedures. A District of Choice must accept all interested students up to its locally
approved amount and conduct a lottery if oversubscribed.
9
Funding Allocations. When a student transfers, the home district no longer generates funding for that
student and the District of Choice begins generating the associated funding.b
a
For districts with more than 50,000 students, the annual cap is 1 percent and the cumulative cap is not applicable.
b
Different rules apply if the District of Choice is a basic aid school district.
8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
students may apply at any time and transfer as soon athletic performance, or any other personal
as they are accepted. characteristic.
A District of Choice May Not Use a Selective A Home District Can Prohibit a Transfer for
Admissions Process. A distinguishing feature of a Few Reasons. The law allows a home district to
the District of Choice program is the requirement prevent a student from transferring to a District of
for a participating district to accept all interested Choice under a few circumstances. Specifically, a
students up to the number specified in its board home district may prohibit a transfer that would
resolution. The law explicitly prohibits giving any affect it in one of the following ways:
consideration to academic or athletic performance
• Exceed a 3 Percent Annual Cap. A home
or to the cost of educating a student. If the number
district may limit the number of students
of applicants exceeds the number of spaces
transferring out each year to 3 percent of its
available, the district must conduct a lottery at
average daily attendance for that year. (The
a public meeting to determine which students
annual cap is 1 percent for home districts
it will accept. The district may deny admission
with more than 50,000 students.)
selectively only if doing so is necessary to maintain
compliance with a court-ordered desegregation • Exceed a 10 Percent Cumulative Cap.
plan or admitting the student would require the In addition to the 3 percent annual cap,
district to create a new program to serve that the law allows a home district to deny
student. A district, however, may not invoke the transfers that exceed a cumulative cap.
rule about new programs to deny the application of (The cumulative cap applies to all home
a student with disabilities or an English learner. districts except those with more than
Accepted Students Do Not Need to Reapply 50,000 students.) In a 2011 appellate court
Each Year. A District of Choice must allow transfer decision regarding a dispute over the
students to continue their attendance in subsequent calculation of the cap, the court ruled that
school years. A district can revoke a transfer only the cap is equal to 10 percent of a district’s
upon recommending a student for expulsion average annual attendance over the life
through formal disciplinary proceedings or upon of the program. Every student who has
its withdrawal from the program. In the case of participated in the program counts toward
withdrawal, the district must allow high school the cap, even if that student has graduated
students to continue their attendance until they or left the program. Upon reaching this
graduate. cap, a home district may prohibit all
Law Encourages Communication With further transfers.
Families but Sets Few Specific Requirements. The
• Exacerbate Severe Fiscal Distress. As
law encourages Districts of Choice to hold hearings
part of the 2009 reauthorization of the
that provide interested families with information
program, the Legislature created a new rule
about their educational options. The law, however,
allowing a home district in severe fiscal
does not require districts to take any special action
distress to limit transfers. Specifically, if a
to publicize their programs. The only specific
county office of education assigns the home
requirement is that any publicity efforts must be
district a “negative” budget certification,
“factually accurate” and avoid targeting individual
meaning the district will be unable to meet
students based on their academic performance,
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9
AN LAO REPORT
its financial obligations for the current or these students make up more than 55 percent of
upcoming year without corrective action, the student body, the state provides an additional
the home district may limit the number of “concentration grant.” The total allotment for each
students transferring out. The home district district is funded through a combination of local
also may limit transfers if the county office property tax revenue and state aid. When a student
of education determines that the home transfers, the home district no longer generates
district will fail to meet state standards for funding for that student and the District of Choice
fiscal stability exclusively due to the impact begins generating the associated funding.
of the District of Choice program. Special Rules Apply to Basic Aid Districts.
About 10 percent of school districts have local
• Hinder a Court-Ordered Desegregation
property tax revenue exceeding their allotments
Plan. If a home district is operating under
calculated under the Local Control Funding
a court-ordered desegregation plan, it may
Formula. The state allows these districts to keep
prohibit transfers that it determines would
this additional revenue and treat it like other
have a negative impact on its desegregation
general purpose funding. These districts are
efforts.
known as basic aid districts (a term derived from
a requirement in the State Constitution that all
• Negatively Affect Racial Balance. Even
school districts receive a minimum level of state
if a district is not under a court-ordered
funding equal to $120 per student). Under the
desegregation plan, it may limit the
District of Choice program, funding for basic aid
number of pupils transferring out if
districts works differently than it does for other
it determines the limit is necessary to
districts:
avoid negative effects on its voluntary
desegregation plan or racial and ethnic • Transferring From Non-Basic Aid to Basic
balance. Aid District. If a basic aid district enrolls
a student from a home district that is not
An exception to these five rules applies to the
a basic aid district, the basic aid district
children of parents on active military duty. Under
receives 70 percent of the base funding
legislation adopted in 2015, a home district may not
the student would have generated in his
prohibit transfer requests from these students for
or her home district. The student does not
any reason.
generate any supplemental or concentration
Funding funding that would apply in the home
district. These types of transfers therefore
Funding Follows Students. California funds
generate some state savings relative to other
school districts based on student attendance, with
types of transfers.
per-pupil funding rates determined by the Local
Control Funding Formula. This formula, adopted
• Transferring Among Basic Aid Districts.
in 2013-14, establishes a base grant for all students
If a basic aid district enrolls a student from
that varies by grade span but is otherwise uniform
another basic aid district, the law provides
across the state. Low-income students and English
that no funding is exchanged between the
learners generate a “supplemental grant” equal
two districts. As a result, the exchange
to 20 percent of the base grant. In districts where
from the state’s perspective is cost neutral.
10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
State Accountability to check compliance with program requirements,
but the state may not issue instructions telling
Law Requires Each District of Choice to
auditors how to perform this compliance review.
Produce an Annual Report. The law requires
State law contains no repercussions if a District of
each District of Choice to track the following
Choice fails to correct issues arising from an audit.
information about its transfer students: (1) the total
number of students applying to enter the district
Other Interdistrict Transfer Options
each year; (2) the outcome of each application
State Has Three Other Interdistrict Transfer
(granted, denied, or withdrawn), as well as the
Options. In addition to the District of Choice
reason for any denials; (3) the total number of
program, the state has three other laws allowing
students entering or leaving the district each year;
students to transfer to other school districts (see
(4) the race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic
Figure 2, next page). Two of the laws pertain
status, and home district of students entering or
specifically to interdistrict transfers whereas the
leaving the district; and (5) the number of students
third pertains to both interdistrict transfers and
entering or leaving the district who are English
transfers among schools within the same district
learners or have disabilities. The law further
(intradistrict transfers). Each law functions
requires each District of Choice to summarize
independently of the others and includes different
these data and provide a report by May 15 of each
requirements for the students and districts
year to (1) its governing board, (2) every adjacent
involved. Many districts accept students through
school district, (3) the county office of education,
more than one option. (In addition to the following
and (4) the California Department of Education.
options, a state law requires a district to allow
Law Requires Independent Auditors to Check
students to transfer to another school within the
Compliance. The 2009 reauthorization of the
district if space is available.)
program made certain parts of the law subject
Most Transfers Occur Through a Permit
to the school district audit process. Every school
System With the Agreement of the Districts
district in California undergoes an annual audit
Involved. A longstanding state policy allows a
to verify the accuracy of its financial records and
student to transfer from one district to another
determine if it has spent funds in accordance with
when both districts sign a permit consenting to
various state and federal laws. A district hires its
the transfer. The law provides each district the
auditor from a list of approved firms. The auditor
discretion to determine the conditions under
then conducts an independent review following
which it will sign these permits. With respect to
procedures in the school district audit manual
students leaving, most districts have a specific and
developed by the state. With respect to the District
limited set of reasons for which they will release a
of Choice program, the law requires an auditor to
student. Examples include the availability of child
verify that the district (1) implemented an unbiased
care in the preferred district or the attendance
process for admitting students and used a lottery
of a sibling already enrolled in the preferred
if oversubscribed, and (2) met the requirement
district. With respect to students entering, some
for any communication to be factually accurate.
districts have adopted standards for academic
The law, however, contains a special provision
performance, attendance, and behavior. These
prohibiting the state from including any associated
standards could involve maintaining a minimum
instructions in the audit manual. Under this
grade point average, arriving to school on time, or
unusual arrangement, a district must ask its auditor
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11
AN LAO REPORT
Figure 2
Interdistrict Transfer Options in California
9
District of Choice Program. Allows a student to transfer to any district that has deemed itself a
District of Choice and agreed to accept a specified number of transfers. Districts of Choice may not
use a selective admissions process. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home
districts.
9
Interdistrict Permits. Allows a student to transfer from one district to another district provided both
districts consent to the transfer and the student meets any locally determined conditions. Districts
receiving these transfer students may require students to meet certain attendance and/or academic
standards.
9
Parental Employment Transfers. Allows a student to transfer into a district if at least one parent
is employed within the boundaries of that district and that district has chosen to accept parental
employment transfers. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their home districts.
9
Open Enrollment Act (for Low-Performing Schools). Allows a student attending a school with low
performance on state tests to transfer to another school inside or outside the district that has a higher
level of performance and space available. Transfer students generally do not need the consent of their
home districts.
avoiding disciplinary problems. Districts may reject designed to provide additional options for students
applicants who do not meet their standards or attending schools with low test scores. Under
revoke the permits of students who fall below those the law, the state is to rank schools according
standards. Students denied an interdistrict permit to the performance of their students on state
may appeal to their county board of education. assessments and place the 1,000 schools with the
A District May Accept Transfers Based lowest scores on the “Open Enrollment List.” A
on Parental Employment. In 1986, the state student attending one of these schools can apply
adopted a law allowing any district to admit a to transfer to any other school within or outside
student who has at least one parent employed of the district that has space available and higher
within the boundaries of the district for at least test scores. Regarding transfers out of the district,
ten hours during the school week. (The law is the district that a student seeks to attend may
frequently known as the “Allen Bill” after its decide how many students it will accept based on
original author, Assembly Member Doris Allen.) capacity, financial impact, and other factors, but
If a district participates in this program, it may it may not discriminate among students based on
not deny a transfer based on a student’s personal their personal characteristics or abilities. Although
characteristics, including race, ethnicity, parental the Open Enrollment Act has no sunset date, its
income, and academic achievement. It may, future is uncertain given the state’s transition to
however, deny the transfer of a student who would a new accountability system. The current list of
cost more to educate than the additional funding low-performing schools is based on student tests
generated for the district. Since 1986, this law has taken in 2012-13, the last year the state ranked
operated under a series of temporary extensions. schools under its former accountability system.
A District Must Offer Open Enrollment to The state’s new accountability system, by contrast,
Students Attending Low-Ranked Schools. In 2010, currently has no mechanism for ranking schools.
the state enacted the Open Enrollment Act, a law
12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
RESEARCH METHODS
Legislation Envisioned an Extensive Some Districts Confuse the Program With
Review, but State Has Collected Little Data. The Other Transfer Options. A final issue complicating
legislation authorizing this evaluation envisioned a our tally of participating districts was the
comprehensive assessment of the characteristics of confusion surrounding the term District of Choice.
participating students, the academic performance We found that some districts mistakenly believed
of Districts of Choice and home districts, multiyear this term referred to the interdistrict permit
enrollment trends, and effect of the program on process. District websites and school board policies
district finances. The law intended the data for this often mirrored this confusion. In addition, we
comprehensive evaluation to come from the annual learned that districts in a few counties adhere to
reports that districts are required to submit to the countywide policies allowing students to transfer
California Department of Education. Upon our for almost any reason. These policies resemble
inquiry, the department indicated that it had not the District of Choice program in some ways but
received these reports. It also indicated that it had generally rely on the interdistrict permit process.
not taken any special steps to collect these reports Report Draws on Several Sources to
because the law did not specifically require it to do Understand District of Choice Program. Given
so and because the state did not provide additional the data limitations, we adopted a three-pronged
funding for this purpose. approach to our evaluation. First, we undertook
California Department of Education substantial data collection efforts of our own,
Administered a Survey. To provide baseline data, including personal contact with nearly 100
the department agreed to administer a survey in districts. Second, we arranged more than two
March 2015 asking Districts of Choice to identify dozen interviews with administrators from
themselves and provide information about their Districts of Choice and home districts. Third, we
transfer students. The data collected through reviewed more than 25 studies examining similar
this survey had substantial limitations, with interdistrict transfer programs in other states.
only 6 of the 40 respondents providing complete We also examined administrative records and
information. In addition, some districts interpreted spoke with researchers and experts familiar with
the survey instructions differently than others. interdistrict transfer programs.
FINDINGS
In this section of the report, we share our E nrollmEnt P attErns
findings, organizing them around the areas of
Below, we provide information about the
enrollment patterns, district finances, academic
number of districts and students participating in the
outcomes, and program oversight. Figure 3 (see
District of Choice program, compare the number
next page) provides a summary of these findings,
of participating students to the overall enrollment
which we discuss in detail below.
of Districts of Choice and home districts, examine
how frequently districts prohibit transfers, and
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13
AN LAO REPORT
Graphic Sign Off
identify the demographic characteristics of students As shown in the map, Districts of Choice are most
participating in the program. heavily concentrated in Los AngeSleesc arnedt athrye Bay
Area. Although we obtained dataA fnora olynslyt a single
ARTWORK #150400
District and Student Participation
year, the number of participatingM dPistAricts appears
State Has 47 Districts of ChoiTcee.m Wpela idtee_nLtiAfieOdR epotort h_amveid g.raoiwt n in recent years. In a 2003 study, the
Deputy
47 Districts of Choice for the 2014-15 school year, California Department of Education identified only
representing 5 percent of the 946 districts in the 18 Districts of Choice, less than half the number we
state. Figure 4 shows the location of these districts. identified for 2014-15.
Figure 3
Summary of Findings
Enrollment Patterns
(cid:127) Program Scope. The state has 47 Districts of Choice serving about 10,000 participating transfer students.
(cid:127) Student Enrollment. Districts of Choice rely on the program for an average of 26 percent of their enrollment.
(cid:127) Transfer Denials. A few home districts have used one of the allowable limits (usually the 10 percent cumulative cap)
to prohibit transfers.
(cid:127) Student Characteristics. Participating students are 27 percent low income. Regarding race/ethnicity, participating
students are 35 percent white, 32 percent Hispanic or Latino, 24 percent Asian, and 9 percent other groups.
District Finances
(cid:127) Motivations for Districts of Choice. Districts of Choice often use the program as a strategy to avoid declines in their
enrollment.
(cid:127) Effects on Home Districts. Home districts tend to have higher rates of fiscal distress than districts statewide, though
the degree to which the District of Choice program contributes to this distress is difficult to determine.
Academic Outcomes
(cid:127) Educational Options. The program allows students to access courses and instructional options that are not offered
by their home districts.
(cid:127) Home District Responses. Home districts often respond to the program by implementing new courses or instructional
options designed to retain and attract students.
(cid:127) Test Scores. Nearly all students transfer to districts with higher test scores than their home districts. Both Districts of
Choice and home districts have improved their test scores over time.
Program Oversight
(cid:127) Audit Procedure. The audit procedure provides little oversight for the program because it is not standardized and
includes no follow-up mechanism.
(cid:127) Local Communication. The amount of information Districts of Choice provide to neighboring districts and prospective
transfer students varies widely.
14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
AN LAO REPORT
Figure 4
Districts of Choice in California
47 Districts of Choice
(cid:127) Located in 18 counties
(cid:127) Highest concentrations in Los Angeles and Bay Area
(cid:127) Most other Districts of Choice located in rural areas
Number of Participating Transfer
Students Attending Each District
Under 200
More Than 200
Template_CA_County Map.ait ARTWORK# 150400
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15
AN LAO REPORT
State Has About 10,000 Participating Apart From Five Largest Districts, Most
Students. We identified 10,202 students who Districts of Choice Are Small and Rural. The five
had transferred through the program and were Districts of Choice with the greatest participation
attending a District of Choice in 2014-15. As are medium- to large-sized districts, and all
shown in Figure 5, these students are concentrated serve grades K-12. Four are located in suburban
in a small number of districts. One district, the areas and one is located in an urban area. These
Walnut Valley Unified School District in eastern characteristics differ notably from the other
Los Angeles County, accounts for one-third of 42 districts participating in the program. Of these
all participating students. The next largest four districts, 69 percent have fewer than 300 total
districts combined serve 46 percent of participating students, 74 percent serve rural communities, and
students. Altogether, about 8,000 participating 79 percent serve only grades K-8.
students are attending one of these five districts.
District Enrollment
Among the remaining Districts of Choice, 22 are
basic aid districts serving a combined 9 percent Districts of Choice Usually Draw Students
of participating students and 20 are non-basic From Several Surrounding Districts. We found
aid districts serving a combined 13 percent of that participating transfer students come from
participating students. (Four Districts of Choice 197 different home districts. Most Districts of
have no students currently attending through the Choice draw students from between two and
program. We spoke with two of these districts seven home districts, though a few small districts
and learned that they participate in the program draw from only one home district and three
to provide an alternative option in case another large districts draw from more than 30 home
district ever denies an interdistrict permit.) As districts. Transfer activity tends to be highest
described in the nearby box, the program is among adjacent districts, with 77 percent of all
relatively small compared with other school choice participating students transferring to districts that
options in the state. are adjacent to their home districts.
Figure 5
Participation in the District of Choice Program
2014-15
District of Choice
Share of All Students as Share
District of Choice District of Choice Total District of Total District
District(s) Students Students Attendance Attendance
Walnut Valley Unified 3,415 33% 14,249 24%
Oak Park Unified 1,691 17 4,543 37
Glendora Unified 1,392 14 7,495 19
Riverside Unified 892 9 39,984 2
West Covina Unified 633 6 8,888 7
Basic aid districts (22)a 870 9 14,631 6
All other districts (20)a 1,309 13 10,119 13
Totals 10,202 100% 99,910 10%b
a
Two of the districts in each of these groups—a total of four statewide—have no students currently participating in the program.
b
This percentage is affected by a handful of relatively large districts with relatively few participating students. The district average is 26 percent.
16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
Many Small Districts of Choice Rely on Most Home Districts Experience Relatively
Program for a Significant Share of Students. Small Changes in Their Enrollment. The data
Districts of Choice rely on the program for also reveal that the number of students leaving
varying shares of their total enrollment, with the their home districts tends to be small relative to
average District of Choice deriving 26 percent the enrollment of those districts. Of the 197 home
of its enrollment from transfers through the districts, 136 have less than 1 percent of their
program. This average, however, does not capture students attending a District of Choice. Of the
key differences based on district size. The average remaining home districts, only 16 have more than
for small-sized districts (fewer than 300 students) 5 percent of their students attending a District of
is 36 percent. By contrast, the average for larger Choice. Half of these districts are very small (fewer Graphic Sign Off
districts (more than 300 students) is 9 percent. than 300 students), such that the few students
Secretary
Analyst
Program Is Small Compared With Other School Choice Options
MPA
To place the District of Choice program in context, we compared it with the other interdistrict
Deputy
transfer options in the state, charter schools (which provide an alternative to district-run schools),
and magnet schools (which are a form of intradistrict choice). The figure below shows the number of
students using these options as a share of the 6.2 million students attending public school in 2014-15.
Charter schools comprise the most prevalent option, enrolling about 545,000 students (8.7 percent
of all students). Magnet schools are the next most common option, enrolling about 210,000 students
(3.4 percent). Regarding
interdistrict transfers, Student Participation in Various School Choice Options
the available data Percentage of Public School Enrollment, 2014-15
suggest that roughly
9%
140,000 students
8 Statewide Enrollment = 6.2 Million Students
(2.2 percent) are using
the interdistrict permit 7
process, 20,000 students 6
(0.3 percent) are using 5
the parental employment
4
provision, and 10,000
3
(0.2 percent) are using
2
the District of Choice
program. (An additional 1
number of interdistrict
Charter Magnet Permitsb Parental Districts
transfers likely occur Schools Schoolsa Employmentb of Choice
through the Open Interdistrict Transfers
Enrollment Act, though
a Magnet schools are a form of intradistrict choice. They typically offer one or more specialized
the state has little data programs (like performing arts or career technical education) and are designed to attract
students from across the district.
for this program.)
b Reflects LAO estimate based on state surveys conducted in 2006-07 and 2008-09.
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17
ARTWORK #150400
Template_LAOReport_mid.ait
AN LAO REPORT
participating in the District of Choice program qualify for the federal free or reduced-price meals
constitute a relatively large share of their enrollment. program. (To qualify for this program, a family
of four needed an annual income of no more than
Transfer Denials
$44,000 in 2014-15.) Figure 6 compares the share of
Most Districts of Choice Do Not Need to low-income students among participating transfer
Conduct a Lottery. Based on our interviews, students to the share among all students attending
we estimate that approximately one-fourth to Districts of Choice, all students attending home
one-third of all Districts of Choice receive enough districts, and all students in the state. Overall, the
applications to conduct a lottery. The other districts share of participating transfer students qualifying
are able to accept all students who apply. Most of as low income is similar to the average for Districts
the districts conducting a lottery are very small, of Choice (30 percent). It is, however, much smaller Graphic Sign Off
though one of the five largest Districts of Choice than the share for home districts (66 percent) and
Secretary
also conducts a lottery. The smaller districts often students statewide (59 percent). When we examined
Analyst
cite facility constraints as a key reason for not transfer patterns, we found that nearly all students
MPA
accepting additional students. (94 percent) transfer to districts with smaller shares
Deputy
Several Home Districts Have Invoked Rules of low-income students than their home districts.
Limiting Transfers. Based on our review, we believe White and Hispanic Students Each Account
at least four home districts have invoked one of the for About One-Third of Participating Students.
rules limiting transfers. For the most part, these We found that participating transfer students are
districts are relying on the
10 percent cumulative cap. In
Figure 6
one case, the home district
Comparing Shares of Students That Are Low Income
also cited the rule about fiscal
Percent of Enrollment That Is Low Incomea
distress, and in a second case,
the home district also cited 70%
the 3 percent annual cap. We
60
also learned that several other
home districts are approaching
50
the 10 percent cumulative cap
and are thinking about using it 40
to prohibit future transfers.
30
Student Characteristics
20
About One in Four
10
Participating Students Is Low
Income. Based on information
Participating Districts of Choiceb Home Districtsc Statewide Average
provided by districts, we
Transfer Students
estimate that 27 percent
a "Low income" defined as students eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
of participating transfer
b Reflects district average weighted for number of students transferring in.
students are from families c Reflects district average weighted for number of students transferring out.
with incomes low enough to
18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
ARTWORK #150400
Template_LAOReport_mid.ait
AN LAO REPORT
35 percent white, 32 percent Hispanic or Latino, of Choice. We then discuss the fiscal effects of the
24 percent Asian, and 9 percent other groups. program on home districts.
Figure 7 compares these percentages to the average
Districts of Choice
for Districts of Choice, home districts, and all
students statewide. Overall, participating transfer Larger Districts Often Become Districts of
students tend to mirror the profile of the Districts Choice to Address Declining Enrollment. The
of Choice they attend. Some differences emerged larger districts we interviewed often reported that
when we compared these students with their home their discussions about joining the program began
districts. As shown in the figure, Hispanic students when they were anticipating enrollment declines.
transfer at relatively low rates compared with their By backfilling these declines with transfer students,
Graphic Sign Off
share of home district enrollment. These students these districts sought to avoid funding reductions
account for 66 percent of the students attending that would have otherwise required changes to
Secretary
home districts but only 32 percent of participating their budgets. Some interviewees also commented
Analyst
transfer students. Conversely, white students and that their neighboring districts had become less
MPA
Asian students transfer at relatively high rates. willing to sign interdistrict permits than they were
Deputy
No Differences by Gender, Little Data in the past.
Regarding Other Student Characteristics. We Smaller Districts Often Become Districts of
examined participation by gender and found that Choice to Gain Economies of Scale. The smaller
males and females participate in the program at districts we interviewed often reported joining the
similar rates. As requested
by the legislation authorizing Figure 7
this evaluation, we also tried Comparing Shares of Students by Race/Ethnicity
to obtain information about
Percent of Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
the participation of English
learners and students with 100%
disabilities. Unfortunately, 90
many districts either did
80
not have the information
70
readily available or could not
All Other
provide the information in a 60 Asian
consistent format. Given this 50 Hispanic/Latino
limitation, we could not draw White
40
any definitive conclusions
30
about the participation of these
groups of students. 20
10
D F
istrict inancEs
Below, we describe the Participating Districts of Home Statewide
Transfer Students Choicea Districtsa Average
fiscal considerations that lead
districts to become Districts a Average for all transfer and non-transfer students attending one of these districts.
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19
ARTWORK #150400
Template_LAOReport_mid.ait
AN LAO REPORT
program to keep their enrollment from dropping concerned about declining enrollment and
to an extremely low level. Their superintendents corresponding reductions in state funding.
thought that without transfer students, the districts’ Although the state has a “hold harmless”
fixed costs would consume a growing share of provision that effectively protects a district from
their operating budgets, thereby constricting their year-over-year enrollment declines, administrators
educational programs. They particularly valued nonetheless were concerned about long-term
the provision allowing students to continue their enrollment declines and identified closing schools,
attendance in the program automatically, noting laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and
that this provision allowed them to make more consolidating services as actions they had taken
confident enrollment projections. or might need to take in balancing their budgets.
Compared With Other Transfer Options, District officials emphasized that these actions were
Program Is Advantageous for Basic Aid Districts. difficult and often unpopular in their communities. Graphic Sign Off
Though basic aid districts make up only 10 percent Home Districts Tend to Have Higher Rates
Secretary
of districts in the state, they account for nearly of Fiscal Distress, Likely Reflecting Multiple
Analyst
half of all Districts of Choice. Basic aid districts do Factors. Figure 8 shows the share of districts in
MPA
not receive the 70 percent funding allowance for fiscal distress, broken out for Districts of Choice,
Deputy
students who transfer through interdistrict permits home districts, and all districts in the state. For
or the parental employment option. By comparison, this analysis, we considered a district in fiscal
they do receive the allowance under the District distress if it received a qualified or negative
of Choice program, making this transfer option budget rating from its county office of education.
more fiscally advantageous
for them. (Though state law
Figure 8
allows students transferring
Share of Districts in Fiscal Distress Over Timea
through the Open Enrollment
Act to generate the 70 percent
40%
allowance, state records show
35 Home Districtsb
that no basic aid districts Statewide Average
accept students through this 30 Districts of Choiceb
program.) 25
20
Home Districts
15
Home Districts Have
10
Fiscal Concerns Associated
5
With Their Declining
Enrollment. Administrators
2002-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15
for home districts we
interviewed were critical of a Fiscal distress defined as a district receiving a negative or qualified rating from its county
office of education during the March fiscal review.
the program and expressed
b For Districts of Choice, reflects the average for the 20 districts with the greatest share of their
concerns about its fiscal student attendance attributable to the program in 2014-15. For home districts, reflects the
average for the 20 districts with the greatest share of students attending another district in 2014-15.
impact. In particular, Excludes districts with fewer than 100 students from both groups, as these districts are more
likely to be funded with a special formula that is not tied directly to student attendance.
these administrators were
20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
ARTWORK #150400
Template_LAOReport_mid.ait
AN LAO REPORT
(County offices of education assign a qualified students would have been unable to take at their
rating when a district is at risk of not meeting its home districts. Other districts indicated that
financial obligations in the current or upcoming they operated the only schools in the area with
two years and a negative rating when a district a specific thematic focus like performing arts or
faces immediate budget problems.) Home districts engineering. In some cases, schools within the
were roughly twice as likely to be in fiscal distress District of Choice had specialized instructional
over the period as the average district in the state, philosophies. For example, a few Districts of Choice
whereas Districts of Choice were slightly less likely indicated that they offered a project-based learning
to be in distress. We are uncertain to what extent curriculum that was unavailable in neighboring
these patterns would have been different had the districts. We also found that the District of
District of Choice program not existed. Many Choice program operates in some parts of the
factors other than interdistrict transfers—including state where other school choice options are more
staffing levels, collective bargaining agreements, limited. For example, we found that roughly half
reserve levels, and overall management—affect of participating students come from home districts
fiscal health. Additionally, home districts had that do not have any charter schools located within
higher rates of distress as far back as the early their borders.
2000s, when the District of Choice program was Program Can Help Students Who Have
notably smaller. Struggled Socially or Want to Attend School
Closer to Home. In addition to expanded
a o
caDEmic utcomEs
educational options, we found a few other
Below, we describe how the program can situations under which transferring could help
benefit participating students and outline some of students. For example, a few administrators
the changes home districts have made to attract indicated that they received inquiries from parents
and retain students. We also discuss transfer whose children had been bullied or were struggling
patterns with respect to test scores and describe to fit in at their current schools. For these
how district test scores have changed over time. students, transferring to a different district gave
them a fresh start. Administrators also indicated
Transfer Students
that they sometimes received applications from
Program Provides Participating Transfer students in adjacent districts who wanted to attend
Students With Additional Educational Options. school closer to where they lived. School district
During our interviews, we asked Districts of boundaries often do not reflect current population
Choice a range of questions about their academic patterns, and for some students, a school in an
programs and the experiences of their transfer adjacent district may be nearer than the one
students. During these discussions, interviewees assigned by their home district.
gave many examples of students transferring Surveys Conducted in Other States Find
to participate in educational programs not Participating Families Are Highly Satisfied.
available in their home districts. For example, Though we did not have the resources to survey
several Districts of Choice reported that they families participating in the District of Choice
offered college preparatory coursework (such as program, we did review surveys conducted in
Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate three other states with interdistrict transfer
programs) or gifted/talented programs that programs. These surveys all found that more than
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 21
AN LAO REPORT
90 percent of families using the program were districts. These activities led home districts to
satisfied or very satisfied with their new schools. identify new educational programs and make the
In addition, fewer than 10 percent of families implementation of these programs a high priority.
were thinking about changing schools again The programs identified through this process often
or returning to their home districts. A survey included some combination of language immersion
conducted in Minnesota asked parents to elaborate programs, advanced college preparatory programs,
on the behavioral changes they observed in their and academies focused on science or technology.
children during the first year in their new schools. A few districts identified other changes desired
Parents most frequently described improvements by their communities, like expanded child care or
in self-confidence, satisfaction with learning, and more opportunities to transfer within the district.
motivation, with about 60 percent of parents saying Asked to describe the results of their efforts, most
their children were doing better in these areas districts reported moderate declines in the number
after transferring and less than 3 percent saying of students seeking to leave. A few districts also
their children were doing worse. Administrators noted that their new programs had begun to attract
for the Districts of Choice we interviewed students from other districts.
consistently reported similar results, characterizing
District Test Scores
their transfer students as happy with their new
schools and generally doing well academically. Nearly All Students Transfer to Districts
Most administrators of these programs also cited With Higher Test Scores. Until 2013-14, the state
high retention rates, with relatively few students gave every school district a score on the Academic
returning to their home districts. Performance Index (API). The API was a composite
number representing performance on state tests
Home District Programs
administered to students in grades 2 through
Most Home Districts Started Taking 12. In 2012-13, the average score was 801, with
Deliberate Action to Retain Students and district scores ranging from a low of 566 to a high
Achieved Some Success. Despite their reservations of 969 (with a maximum possible score of 1,000).
about the program, most home districts we The average score for Districts of Choice was 871,
interviewed had responded to the program by corresponding to performance well above the
trying to do more to retain and attract students. state average. The average score for home districts
As a first step, these districts studied the factors was 785, corresponding to performance slightly
causing students to leave. For example, two home below the state average. (Our analysis weighted
districts we interviewed reported convening an each district to reflect the number of participating
intensive series of meetings with their parents transfer students.) As shown in Figure 9, nearly all
and community members to ask them why students (90 percent) are transferring to districts
students were leaving and how they could draw with higher API scores than their home districts.
these students back. Several administrators Districts of Choice and Home Districts Are
analyzed administrative records, including Improving Their Academic Performance Over
interdistrict permit applications, to understand Time. Although Districts of Choice have higher
why parents might be choosing other districts. API scores than home districts, we found that both
Some administrators examined successful groups of districts have improved their test scores
educational programs operating in nearby over time. Over the five-year period beginning in
22 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
2008-09 and ending in 2012-13, home districts mechanism to ensure that a district corrects any
improved by an average of nine points per year problems moving forward.
and Districts of Choice improved by an average ten
Local Communication
points per year. By comparison, districts statewide
improved by an average of seven points per year Level of Communication Between Districts
over the same period. (For this analysis, we limited Is Inconsistent. We asked Districts of Choice and
our focus to the 20 largest Districts of Choice and home districts about their level of communication
the 20 home districts experiencing the greatest with each other. Overall, we found that local
change in their enrollment.) practices vary widely. Some Districts of Choice
make special efforts to communicate with
P o
rogram vErsight
home districts and notify them promptly upon
Below, we analyze the audit requirement the accepting transfer students. In other cases, the
Graphic Sign Off
state implemented in 2009. We then cover a few communication between districts is limited and
other issues involving communication between home district administrators may not know how Secretary
Districts of Choice and home districts and between many students are transferring or which other Analyst
Districts of Choice and prospective transfer districts these students are attending until they are
MPA
students. asked to forward student records. (These record
Deputy
requests may occur months after students apply
Audit Procedure
and are accepted by Districts of Choice.) These
Audit Requirement Has Two Key administrators indicated that without this transfer
Limitations. First, the scope
of this compliance review is
inconsistent across districts. Figure 9
In some districts, the auditor Difference in Academic Performance Among Districts
conducts a detailed review and Score of District of Choice Relative to Home Districta
asks to see board resolutions,
Lower Score
student applications, and other
supporting records. In other
districts, the auditor does 0-50 Points Higher
not examine the program.
These inconsistencies appear More Than
150 Points Higher
to be a result of the law
prohibiting the state from
issuing audit instructions for
the program. Second, the state
has established no system for
acting upon any problems
100-150 Points Higher
identified during an audit. The
50-100 Points Higher
state has set no penalties for
a district that is flagged by its
a Based on 2012-13 Academic Performance Index score. Reflects share of all transfers.
auditor nor created a follow-up
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 23
ARTWORK #150400
Template_LAOReport_mid.ait
AN LAO REPORT
information they faced greater difficulty planning of their schools. Most other Districts of Choice
their staffing levels and instructional programs. provide basic information about the program
In a Few Cases, Difficult to Know Whether on their websites. We found, however, that a few
a District Participates in the Program. A few districts do not provide any readily available
Districts of Choice conduct extensive publicity information to indicate their participation in the
efforts involving press releases, newspaper program. These districts rely entirely on word of
advertisements, community events, and tours mouth to attract students.
ASSESSMENT
In this section of the report, we review the Encourages Home Districts to Improve
main strengths of the program, largely relating to Their Programs. Several of the home districts
enhanced choice for students. We then review the most affected by the program implemented
main weaknesses of the program, largely relating to new educational programs to attract and retain
data, oversight, and local communication. students. These districts also took special steps
to gain greater clarity about the priorities of their
Strengths
communities. In addition, despite some of the
Provides Additional Educational Options fiscal challenges facing home districts, test scores
for Participating Students. The District of Choice for the students remaining in these districts have
program appeals to many types of families seeking continued to improve over time.
alternative educational options. Students can
Weaknesses
benefit from this option in one or more ways,
including being able to enroll in a school with an State Lacks Reliable Data for the Program.
educational philosophy aligned to their educational Although the program has some strengths, we
goals, participate in programs or classes that are also believe it has a few weaknesses. One weakness
unavailable in their home districts, or obtain a relates to data about the program. Though existing
fresh start if they have struggled in another school. law requires Districts of Choice to produce
The program is relatively small in comparison annual reports summarizing the demographic
to other choice programs, but it provides an characteristics of participating transfer students,
alternative when these options are unavailable and the state in practice has not collected these reports.
when neighboring districts no longer are granting Without this information, district administrators,
interdistrict permits. Based on surveys conducted Members of the Legislature, and the public
in other states and feedback from administrators in will continue to have difficulty monitoring the
California, participating students and their parents program. For example, districts implementing new
appear to be very satisfied with these options. educational programs might wish to know how
Additionally, the program serves a broad swath of their new programs have affected the number of
students, with participating students from a mix students seeking to enter or leave their districts.
of ethnic groups, income levels, and geographic State policymakers might wish to know whether
regions of the state. participation in the program is growing or
declining over time and how program participation
24 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
compares with other transfer options. Parents exists regarding the most appropriate way for home
might wish to have a list of participating districts so districts to calculate the cumulative cap. Perhaps
that they can consider the options available to their most importantly, we are concerned that the
children. cumulative cap has no link to student interest or
Existing Oversight Mechanism Is Limited. program quality. Once reached, the cumulative cap
Another weakness relates to the program’s disallows additional participation, even if students
current audit provision. The state added this remain interested in transferring and quality
provision to improve oversight of the program, but transfer options remain available.
inconsistencies in local audit procedures and the Communication With Home Districts and
absence of any follow-up mechanism mean that Prospective Transfer Students Can Be Limited.
this requirement effectively adds little oversight. If Lastly, we have a few concerns about the cases in
a district appears to be out of compliance with the which Districts of Choice do not provide home
program rules, the law includes no mechanism for districts with timely information about the
an independent entity to investigate and determine students who are transferring. Without timely
whether any corrective action is needed. notification, home districts face greater challenges
Weak Justification for 10 Percent Cumulative developing their budgets and setting their staffing
Cap. While a cumulative cap might have been levels. Moreover, without knowing where students
reasonable when the District of Choice program are going, these districts are less likely to discover
was a pilot, we believe its justification has become what factors led students to leave and what actions
weaker over time. Though its original objective might address the concerns of those students. We
is not entirely clear from statute, we think the also are concerned about Districts of Choice that
cap was intended to protect home districts from do not make their participation in the program
experiencing sizeable drops in enrollment over easily known to prospective transfer students. In
several consecutive years and losing the associated these cases, students who have recently moved to
per-student funding. The state addressed this a community or are unfamiliar with interdistrict
particular concern, however, when it added the transfer options are likely to have difficulty learning
provision in 2009 allowing home districts to deny about the program. Though word of mouth can be
transfers if facing fiscal distress. Districts also have an important communication tool, we do not think
interpreted and calculated the cap differently, with it should be the only way for students to learn about
resulting disputes and litigation. Disagreement still their transfer options.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the course of this evaluation, we and likely will do so again as it considers whether
encountered many competing claims about the to extend the program beyond its July 2017 sunset
merits of the District of Choice program, the date. In this section of the report, we describe how
appropriate measures of its effectiveness, and its the Legislature might approach this upcoming
place among other school choice options in the decision, offering recommendations that recognize
state. The Legislature has grappled with these issues the strengths of the program while addressing its
as part of previous deliberations about the program weaknesses.
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 25
AN LAO REPORT
Reauthorize Program for at Least Five More about the program, and (5) explore the possibility
Years. We recommend the Legislature reauthorize of collecting statutorily required program data
the program for at least five more years. Though a using the state’s existing student-level data system.
longer period also would be reasonable, we believe (Using the state’s existing student-level data system
five years is the minimum amount of time the state eventually could eliminate the need for districts to
would need to implement and assess the effects produce separate annual reports, thereby reducing
of our other recommendations (including the costs for both the state and districts.) Given the
collection and analysis of better data). We believe department has no staff currently dedicated to the
the benefits of the program, including additional District of Choice program, and the department
educational options and improved outcomes cites lack of staffing as one reason that it has been
for students, justify reauthorization. Moreover, unable to fulfill these types of administrative
eliminating the program would be disruptive for responsibilities, we recommend the Legislature
about 10,000 existing transfer students and deny provide it with ongoing funding of about $150,000
future transfer students the educational options and one additional staff position.
that have helped previous cohorts of students. Implement a New Oversight Mechanism. To
Eliminating the program would be particularly address the shortcomings of the audit requirement,
problematic for a few dozen small districts that we recommend the state replace this requirement
have come to rely on the program for a substantial with a new oversight system administered by
share of their enrollment. county offices of education. Under the new system,
Repeal Cumulative Cap. In tandem with our a home district with a concern about a particular
recommendation to reauthorize the program, we District of Choice could file a complaint alleging
recommend the Legislature repeal the cumulative a violation of a specific provision of the law. The
cap. Repealing the cap would allow students to county office of education with jurisdiction over the
use the program regardless of where they live or District of Choice would review the complaint and
the level of transfer activity in previous years. assess its merit. If the county office of education
Moreover, given the state now allows districts to determined that the District of Choice was out
prohibit transfers that would notably worsen their of compliance, that district would be required to
fiscal condition, we believe this cap is no longer correct the problem before accepting any more
necessary. transfer students through the program. The county
Assign the California Department office of education also would notify the state of its
of Education Specific Administrative findings, which would help the Legislature assess
Responsibilities. We recommend the state require the need for any further refinements to the law.
the department to undertake certain administrative This approach would establish a clear standard of
tasks for the District of Choice program. review and a clear consequence for noncompliance.
Specifically, we recommend the Legislature In addition, it would be administered by local
require the department to (1) maintain a list of officials with an understanding of the districts in
the Districts of Choice in the state, (2) ensure all their counties. The cost to review complaints likely
districts submit their annual reports in a complete would vary based on the extensiveness, complexity,
and consistent format, (3) post these annual reports and seriousness of the charge. We estimate costs
and other program information in one location per review could range from a few thousand dollars
on its website, (4) provide information to districts to tens of thousands of dollars. Given the limited
26 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
AN LAO REPORT
number of Districts of Choice, these costs likely information on their websites. This information
would be minor statewide. would include the application form and related
Improve Local Communication. We details such as the deadline to submit applications
recommend the Legislature add two statutory and the date of the lottery. This requirement would
requirements to improve local communication help prospective transfer students learn about the
about the District of Choice program. First, we program and offer more transparency regarding
recommend the state require Districts of Choice, the way districts are implementing the program.
upon accepting transfer students, to provide home We think the costs of these requirements would be
districts a list of those students. This requirement small, given that some districts already implement
would reduce some home districts’ uncertainty them and the required activities likely would
surrounding the number of students that transfer. need to occur only once per year. Although a few
It also would help address some concerns these districts might incur small additional costs, these
districts have about the effect of the program on requirements would not constitute a reimbursable
their fiscal planning. Second, we recommend the state mandate because no district is required to
state require Districts of Choice to post application become a District of Choice.
CONCLUSION
Interdistrict Transfer Policies in California Broader Review of Transfer Policies
Are Complex and Overlapping. Although our Warranted. Given the confusion surrounding
evaluation focused on the District of Choice the existing laws, we think a broader review of
program, this program accounts for a relatively interdistrict transfer policies is warranted over the
small share of all interdistrict transfers in coming years. In such a review, the Legislature
California. The state has three other interdistrict likely would want to take several steps. First,
transfer options, each with a separate set of the state could develop goals for its interdistrict
rules governing student eligibility, application transfer programs, which would guide future
procedures, accountability, and funding. Although reauthorizations and facilitate the evaluation of
these other options were not a focus of this these laws. Second, the state could study its existing
report, many administrators we interviewed had transfer programs to determine which meet these
experience with these options and used them to goals and whether any of these programs could be
provide a contrast or comparison with the District consolidated. Third, after identifying the policies
of Choice program. Our impression from these most closely aligned with its objectives, the
conversations is that the interdistrict transfer Legislature could work to implement a revamped
landscape in California consists of a complex and system of interdistrict choice with clear and
overlapping set of policies. The chief drawback of strong fiscal incentives, oversight provisions, and
this arrangement is that if many districts struggle transparency measures.
to keep the options straight, the level of confusion
is likely even higher among parents who are
searching for the best school for their children.
www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 27
AN LAO REPORT
LAO Publications
This report was prepared by Kenneth Kapphahn and reviewed by Jennifer Kuhn. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO)
is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature.
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service,
are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
28 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov