WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 399

County Government - As introduced, authorizes a county that has adopted the County Purchasing Law of 1957 to require a competitive bid process for insurance brokerage services. - Amends TCA Title 5 and Title 12, Chapter 3, Part 12.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Tom Hatcher

Requires districts to maintain and annually report interdistrict transfer data to the State Superintendent, who would post it publicly.

Withdrawn.
#countygovernment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 399

SB 399 — School districts: interdistrict transfers (Niello) — Summary

Status: (S) Died in Process (Sine Die adjournment, May 23, 2025)
Introduced: February 14, 2025
Author: Senator Niello
Subject area: Education — interdistrict attendance / transfers
Fiscal notes: No appropriation; fiscal committee review required; bill creates a state‑mandated local program (reimbursement language included)

Purpose / intent

SB 399 would have created a uniform, annual reporting requirement for California school districts that enter into interdistrict attendance agreements. The bill’s intent was to centralize data about interdistrict transfer requests and outcomes to improve transparency and allow the State Superintendent and the public to monitor who requests and receives interdistrict transfers and why.

Key provisions

  • Adds Section 46600.5 to the Education Code requiring each school district to maintain records of all interdistrict transfer permit requests and their disposition.
  • Required data elements for each school year (to be maintained and reported) included:
    • Number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn (with reasons for denials).
    • Number of pupils transferred out of, and into, the district under the interdistrict transfer rules.
    • For each pupil transferred in/out: race, ethnicity, gender, self‑reported socioeconomic status, eligibility for free or reduced‑price meals, foster youth status, homeless status, and district of residence.
    • Counts of transferred pupils who are English learners and pupils with exceptional needs (per Ed. Code §56026).
    • The self‑reported reason for each interdistrict transfer request.
  • Reporting deadlines (as amended in committee):
    • Each district must submit the required information for the current school year to the State Superintendent on or before June 30 of each year.
    • The State Superintendent must post the submitted information for the current school year on the Department of Education website on or before August 1 of each year.
  • The Superintendent may provide a template and issue guidance for data collection and reporting.
  • Mandate / reimbursement: The bill states that if the Commission on State Mandates finds the measure imposes state‑mandated costs on local agencies/school districts, reimbursement shall be made pursuant to existing Government Code procedures (Part 7, commencing with §17500).

Who would be affected

  • Primary: Local school districts that participate in interdistrict attendance agreements — required to collect, maintain, and annually report specified data.
  • Secondary: California Department of Education / State Superintendent — required to post data on the department’s website and may need to provide templates/guidance.
  • Indirect: Students and families involved in interdistrict transfers (data collected would include sensitive demographic and program status fields); policymakers, researchers, and the public who would have access to aggregated district data.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Transparency and oversight: The data could improve State and public understanding of interdistrict transfer patterns and equity concerns (e.g., who is leaving/entering districts, demographic patterns, reasons for transfers).
  • Local administrative burden: Districts would incur administrative costs to collect, maintain, and submit the expanded dataset — triggers state‑mandate considerations and possible reimbursement.
  • Privacy/security: Collection of individually identifiable demographic and status data raises confidentiality concerns; implementation would likely require attention to student privacy protections and reporting aggregation or de‑identification protocols.
  • Implementation logistics: Districts may need templates, staff training, or information‑system changes to capture the required fields; the Superintendent is authorized to provide a template and guidance.

Legislative history / timeline highlights

  • Introduced Feb 14, 2025; referred to relevant Senate committees (Education, Judiciary, Appropriations).
  • Amended in committee to move reporting windows earlier (district submissions by June 30; State posting by August 1).
  • Placed on the Senate Appropriations suspense file and ultimately did not advance before Sine Die — bill died in committee on May 23, 2025.

If you’d like, I can:
- Draft a short one‑page explainer for school district administrators on what compliance would have required, or
- Produce a redline comparing the bill’s reporting fields to existing district data collections (e.g., CALPADS) to estimate overlap and incremental workload.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.