Public schools must provide the clay used in art class, but they can charge a student for taking home his or her finished sculpture. Playing sports is considered part of the educational mission, so schools have to cover all the costs – including uniforms – but attending a game is just for fun so students can pay admission. And schools can ask – even plead – for donations, but can’t require them in order for students to participate in a certain class or activity.
These are the black and white – and gray – rules of a new state law governing when it’s OK to charge students for school-related materials, trips and activities. Under the law, schools were required to implement a formal complaint process allowing families to challenge what they believe are illegal fees by the beginning of this month, but today the state Board of Education starts the process of setting regulations for reimbursing students who were illegally charged for fees in the past year.
“Previously, the only way to resolve this was to file a lawsuit,” said attorney Mark Bresee, a partner at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, who’s been a school lawyer for 20 years. Now, he says, there’s a more “user-friendly enforcement mechanism.”
The 2012 bill that triggered today’s board action, AB 1575, settled a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in April 2011. That case, Jane Doe and Jason Roe v. The State of California, accused state education officials of looking the other way while public schools charged students and their families hundreds of dollars or more for everything from textbooks and graphing calculators to participation in field trips.
AB 1575 doesn’t change the law; that’s been settled by court cases and opinions from the state attorney general for some time. Article IX, Section 5 of the State Constitution already states that “The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in every year, after the first year in which a school has been established.”
In 1984, the State Supreme Court essentially reaffirmed that in Hartzell v. Connell, ruling that once the community decides what’s an important component of an educational program, “a student’s participation in that program cannot be made to depend upon his or her family’s decision whether to pay a fee or buy a toaster.”
What the law does do is codify those rules and opinions into the California Education Code, and requires the State Board to add a definition of pupil fees and incorporate the new process and timeline for resolving complaints into Title 5 of the Ed Code, which governs how districts must respond to complaints. The amendments that the Board approves today will then go out for public comment and a public hearing on May 14. Final regulations aren’t expected before July.
But the law is still a bit of morass. Especially since there are separate regulations outlining 20 instances where a school may charge fees, and the boundaries aren’t always clear-cut.
“What we’re hearing from parents is confusion because they’re not really sure what the law means,” said Patty Scripter, director of legislation for the California State PTA. In particular, for an organization that raises money to support local schools, Scripter said there is misunderstanding about fundraising. Even attorneys aren’t quite clear about the law in this area.
It doesn’t prohibit schools or parents from voluntary fundraising, said Bresee, but there’s not consensus on the parameters, those narrow gray spaces where a teacher or parent might cross the line between asking and mandating.
When talking to educators and parents, “I find myself saying, ‘it depends,’ a lot,” said Bresee. That’s because each situation may be unique. For example, if a coach tells all the players that the team needs money and could really use a $200 donation from every family, and is clear that paying won’t affect a student’s standing on the team, that’s OK. “But, if two weeks later the same coach makes five kids stay after practice because they’re the only ones who didn’t pay, you’ve just crossed the line,” he explained.
Adding to the confusion is the way a school is allowed to approach the issue of helping students who can’t afford to pay for something. A teacher can ask for donations for a school-sponsored field trip, but can’t ask students who don’t have the money to talk to the teacher about getting it covered.
“You can’t ask people to self identify as low-income,” said Brooks Allen, director of education advocacy for the ACLU of Southern California, and you can’t have a field trip available only for those who pay. Allen said it’s all or nothing; either the school raises enough money for everyone, or no one goes.
For now, the big push is on educating all school personnel, PTA members and other school volunteers about the cans and cannots of the law. No one is ruling out future legal action, if just to get the court to better clarify those blurry edges.
Related Posts
- Governor signs off on bill ensuring free public education
- Charter schools grow while more than 9 out of 10 students stay in regular public schools
- California’s public colleges and universities fertile ground for protest
- Schools short of API targets prepare to lose millions in aid
- Big win for schools as Prop 30 defies polls
Filed under: Featured, Reporting & Analysis, State Board of Education · Tags: California Department of Education, K-12 Education, State Board of Education
Comment Policy
EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers. The level of thoughtfulness of our community of readers is rare among online news sites. To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective. Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to. EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and non-germaine comments.
EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
11 Responses to "No pay to play or learn at public schools"
Leave a Reply
Do these regulations apply to charter schools as well?
Sue,
Yes, they do apply to charters.
Did they clarify about summer school fees charged by local education foundations? I can’t remember if that ACLU lawsuit was related to this one or not. If so, what was the ruling on whether LEFs can charge fees for summer school?
Kim,
I contacted Brooks Allen with the ACLU of Southern California to get an answer for you. He cited this section on pages 8-9 of the November 2011 guidance memo from the California Department of Education: “No statute specifically authorizes tuition for summer school. Therefore, tuition or any such fee or charge related to summer school is prohibited under Title 5 California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 350, which precludes charging fees for educational activities not specifically authorized by law.”
He adds that questions regarding the legality of specific summer school programs operated by local education foundations in conjunction with local school districts are best directed to the local school district’s counsel because the analysis is very fact specific.
thank you for asking!
“He adds that questions regarding the legality of specific summer school programs operated by local education foundations in conjunction with local school districts are best directed to the local school district’s counsel because the analysis is very fact specific.”
If we have to do that the odds of getting an answer are slim. It would be useful instead to hear input from different communities/districts/board members on examples of what these criteria are. I expect there are many examples of programs where no one is realistically interested in contesting it because they risk losing access to the program altogether, even if it is ‘pay to play’ (I even expect many of those are locally subsidized for low-income families). That is of course what happens when the state tries to push more and more school funding responsibility onto individuals and communities.
We know that the achievement gap is exacerbated over the summer but we dont fund summer school. We know that libraries correlate with achievement, but we cut those years ago. We know technology is essential for future jobs but we dont fund computer labs. Seems I’m in that parallel universe of insanity again… why do I see so many state legislators here..?
Kim, are you talking about summer school operated on behalf of the district providing classes for credit? Or are you talking about summer enrichment programs operated by the LEF using district facilities?
Both.
From Kathryn’s reply, I can tell that the “clarifications” about allowable fees is not a more current update to the issue around LEF’s and summer schools charging fees. My understanding is that there are very specific criteria that establishes an LEF’s independence from a school district that makes those fees allowable or not, which is why we are directed to seek counsel (since each situation is so specific).
Sue, there is fascinating information about charter school rules at the end of the “separate regulations” link in the main article.
The state recommends sticking to particular fees that are explicitly authorized by law. Since charter schools are exempt from large parts of the Education Code, they happen to be exempt from some of the provisions that authorize fees!
Here’s the specific language that Paul is referring to:
Ed. Code Section 47605(d) specifically prohibits a charter school from charging tuition,
but does not mention fees or other charges. Charter schools are exempt from most laws
governing school districts (Ed. Code Section 47610). However, the California
Constitution, which is the highest law of the state, cannot be rendered inapplicable by
the Legislature. Therefore, the free school guarantee of the California Constitution,
Article IX, Section 5, applies to charter schools.
Only some Education Code sections specifically authorizing fees have explicitly been
made applicable to charter schools. Charter schools may only charge fees authorized
by those Education Code sections that have been made explicitly applicable to charter
schools. For example, charter schools can charge fees for food and field trips — subject
to the restrictions on those fees as described in Section II, G and I, above — because
the Education Code applies those provisions to charter schools.17 Conversely, charter
schools cannot charge other “fees authorized by law” in Section II above, except to the
extent that any such fees do not relate to an activity that is an integral component of
public education.
RE: It doesn’t prohibit schools or parents from voluntary fundraising, said Bresee, but there’s not consensus on the parameters, those narrow gray spaces where a teacher or parent might cross the line between asking and mandating.
There are no gray areas, there are only gray minded districts who think posting required legal verbiage is proof the district complies. Posting required legal language is for the purpose of informing the public of their rights, it’s up to the district to respond accordingly.
The district (SVUSD) fails to comply when despite complaints of an extracurricular parent booster club routinely offer “opportunities” to “work off” the pre-determined “voluntary donation” with fundraisers and even crediting voluntary time to deduct from the amount, while keeping a balance left for the student to pay, and the district does nothing. The district was “ok” that the group made public all of the student’s fundraising efforts, and how much they had left to pay. NOT VOLUNTARY. no matter how many times the group may hand out a letter stating otherwise.
Another way a district fails to comply is to allow retalaition against a parent who complains. Parent filed a formal uniform complaint with the SVUSD, 2 months later the same issue arises leading to the district forcing a coach to resign.
The district discards their responsibility to protect the parent complainant’s identity and blatantly allows the parent booster club to publicly chastise the parent and enlists students to spread the same at school and social media for complaining, providing harassment for both the parent and her student.
The gray area appears when a legal advisor attempts to reinterpret the law.