New Student Residency Legislation – SB 200, AB 1166, AB 1101 (K-12)

The California Governor approved three separate bills into law regarding student residency. Senate Bill (“SB”) 200 will become effective on January 1, 2016. Assembly Bills (“AB”) 1101 and 1166 will become effective on January 1, 2016.

LEGAL UPDATE

August 24, 2015

To:  Superintendents, Member School Districts (K-12)

From:  Carl D. Corbin, General Counsel

Subject:  New Student Residency Legislation – SB 200, AB 1166, AB 1101

Memo No. 19-2015

---

The California Governor approved three separate bills into law regarding student residency.  Senate Bill (“SB”) 200 will become effective on January 1, 2016. Assembly Bills (“AB”) 1101 and 1166 will become effective on January 1, 2016. 

SB 200

Provides that a student will have complied with the residency requirements for a school district if the student’s parent (or legal guardian) resides outside the boundaries of the school district but the parent is employed and lives with the student in the parent’s place of employment within the boundaries of the school district for a minimum of three days during the school week.[1]  This bill was intended to address the concerns of caregivers, nannies, and other such workers who are required to stay overnight at their place of employment.

AB 1101

Provides that a school district cannot conduct an investigation regarding whether a student meets residency requirements unless the school district governing board adopts a policy at a public meeting that must include all of the following:[2]

(1) Identify the circumstances upon which the school district may initiate an investigation, which shall, at a minimum, require the school district employee to be able to identify specific, articulable facts supporting the belief that the parent or legal guardian of the pupil has provided false or unreliable evidence of residency.

(2) (A) Describe the investigatory methods that may be used by the school district in the conduct of the investigation, including whether the school district will be employing the services of a private investigator.

(B) Before hiring a private investigator, the policy shall require the school district to make reasonable efforts to determine whether the pupil resides in the school district.

(3) Prohibit the surreptitious photographing or video-recording of pupils who are being investigated. For purposes of this paragraph, “surreptitious photographing or video-recording” means the covert collection of photographic or videographic images of person or places subject to an investigation. For purposes of this paragraph, the collection of images is not covert if the technology is used in open and public view.

(4) Require that employees and contractors of the school district engaged in the investigation must identify themselves truthfully as such to individuals contacted or interviewed during the course of the investigation.

(5) Provide a process whereby the determination of a school district as to whether a pupil meets the residency requirements for school attendance in the school district may be appealed, and shall specify the basis for that determination. If an appeal is made, the burden shall be on the appealing party to show why the decision of the school district should be overruled.

Our understanding is that the California School Board Association (“CSBA”) will be developing a model policy that conforms with the requirements of AB 1101.

AB 1166

As described in the October 14, 2014, Legal Update No. 29-2014 from our office, AB 1806 extended some of the protections provided for foster youth to homeless students.[3]  The protections included:

• A possible exemption for homeless students (and foster students), who transfers to another high school after having completed the second year of high school, from all coursework and all other requirements adopted by the receiving high school that are in addition to the statewide coursework requirements. 

• A requirement for the receiving high school to notify homeless students (and foster students) within 30 calendar days of transferring to another high school of the possible exemption.

AB 1166 clarified some questions that arose from AB 1806 [4]:

• If the receiving high school fails to provide notice of the possible exemption to a homeless or foster student within the required 30 calendar day period, then the student shall still be eligible for the exemption even if the student no longer qualifies as a homeless or foster student.

• If the homeless or foster student is exempted from the local graduation requirements then the exemption will continue to apply to the student even if the student is no longer a foster or homeless student or if the student transfers to yet another high school.

For your convenience, a copy of all three bills is included at the end of this Legal Update.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other legal matter.

 

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2015 School and College Legal Services of California

 All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.