Pupils’ Transfers to Be Near Jobs of Parents Eased

A change in the state Education Code may help more parents who live in one city but work in another enroll their children at a public school close to their jobs.

School administrators in the San Fernando and Santa Clarita valleys and eastern Ventura County had a mixed reaction to the law, which will go into effect in January. But most said they do not expect it to result in substantial changes in their enrollments.

Although districts in these areas have had interdistrict transfer agreements for decades, only a handful of parents have taken advantage of the programs.

Under the new law, school districts will be encouraged to give elementary school-aged children of parents who work in a city the same access to public schools as the district would give to residents’ children. Responding to the concerns of some districts, Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress) amended her legislation so that it is not mandatory for districts to accept all children who apply.

“It isn’t as radical a change as people first thought. It doesn’t create a wide-open situation,” said a legislative analyst for the Los Angeles district who asked not to be identified. “With all the sensitivities being expressed about latchkey children, I think we would have been hard-pressed to oppose this bill even if we would have wanted to.”

In Burbank, where officials are studying plans to regroup grade levels and possibly close some schools because of declining enrollment, there is not much enthusiasm about the possibility of having to admit the children of people who work, but do not live, in Burbank.

“We don’t have the facilities to handle all the children of parents who work in Burbank,” said Timothy Crowner, director of pupil personnel services. “Would we have to build new schools, hire more teachers and other staff to accommodate children of people who work here?”

Fear of Less Involvement

Burbank school board member Audrey Hanson, in a letter opposing Allen’s bill, wrote that it would be difficult for out-of-district students to participate in extracurricular activities and make friends near their homes if they did not attend a neighborhood school. She also said she feared that fewer parents would be involved with their children’s schools.

In the Santa Clarita Valley, where schools are crowded because of a building boom, administrators said it is hard enough to find space for the children of residents. Adding children of commuters would make a difficult situation worse, they said.

“We’re really discouraging workers from enrolling their students up here because we’re overcrowded,” said Charles A. Helmers, superintendent of Saugus Union School District.

School enrollment is also on the rise in the westernmost part of Los Angeles County and the eastern portion of Ventura County, an area to which Commuter Computer estimates 9,000 workers commute daily from various parts of Los Angeles.

“I don’t expect to see an explosion in the number of transfer students, but I think publicity surrounding the emphasis on the employee status as a reason for seeking a transfer will generate more applications,” said Don Zimering, the Las Virgenes Unified School District’s administrative assistant to the superintendent.

Closer for Emergencies

Assemblywoman Allen said she carried the legislation because having parents closer to their children’s schools during the day “makes it easier for them to respond to emergencies or take advantage of after-school child care and parent-teacher conferences.”

“The long ride to and from work also provides time when children are able to talk to their parents,” Allen said.

However, the School Boards Assn. argued that the law was not needed because most school districts already have agreements that allow students to attend schools in other areas. One of the major reasons districts have transfer agreements, officials said, is to help working parents arrange for after-school child care.

Some urban school districts saw Allen’s proposal as a “white flight” bill that would give middle-class whites a new way to take their children out of districts that are involved in desegregation programs or that are becoming dominated by minority students.

Allen could not be reached for comment on that issue.

The new law states that:

The receiving district must “give consideration” to enrolling the child of a local worker. There is nothing in the state law that makes it mandatory for the district to admit the child.

Students can be prohibited from transferring to another district if their departure would tip the racial balance of a district and thereby jeopardize the district’s court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan.

Districts can refuse a student if the cost of educating the child is greater than the revenue the district would receive from the state. No other reason, including “race, ethnicity, sex, parental income (or) scholastic achievement,” can be used to refuse admission to a student. Parents of students who are refused admission must be notified of the reason in writing.

School districts with more than 2,500 students can limit the number of interdistrict child-care transfers to 1% of the district enrollment.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has 579,000 students, that would mean 5,790 students would be allowed interdistrict transfers. Last year 1,677 Los Angeles district students attended schools outside the district through permit agreements.

INTER-DISTRICT TRANSFER PERMITS

To From District LAUSD LAUSD Burbank 48 145 Conejo Valley 7 5 Las Virgenes 35 15 Saugus 0 3 Simi Valley 165 8 Hart 0 2

Source: Los Angeles Unified School District, 1985-86 school year