House Study Bill 530 



                                       SENATE/HOUSE FILE       
                                       BY  (PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF
                                            EDUCATION BILL)


    Passed Senate, Date               Passed House,  Date             
    Vote:  Ayes        Nays           Vote:  Ayes        Nays         
                 Approved                            

                                      A BILL FOR

  1 An Act relating to voluntary or court=ordered school
  2    desegregation plans under the state's open enrollment law.
  3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
  4 TLSB 5331XD 82
  5 kh/rj/24

PAG LIN



  1  1    Section 1.  Section 282.18, subsection 3, Code 2007, is
  1  2 amended to read as follows:
  1  3    3.  In all districts involved with voluntary or
  1  4 court=ordered desegregation, minority and nonminority pupil
  1  5 ratios shall be maintained according to the desegregation plan
  1  6 or order.  The superintendent of a district subject to a
  1  7 voluntary or court=ordered desegregation plan, as recognized
  1  8 by rule of the state board of education, may deny a request
  1  9 for transfer under this section if the superintendent finds
  1 10 that enrollment or release of a pupil will adversely affect
  1 11 the district's implementation of the desegregation order or
  1 12 plan, unless the transfer is requested by a pupil whose
  1 13 sibling is already participating in open enrollment to another
  1 14 district, or unless the request for transfer is submitted to
  1 15 the district in a timely manner as required under subsection 2
  1 16 prior to the adoption of a desegregation plan by the district.
  1 17 If a transfer request would facilitate a voluntary or
  1 18 court=ordered desegregation plan, the district shall give
  1 19 priority to granting the request over other requests.
  1 20    A parent or guardian, whose request has been denied because
  1 21 of a desegregation order or plan, may appeal the decision of
  1 22 the superintendent to the board of the district in which the
  1 23 request was denied.  The board may either uphold or overturn
  1 24 the superintendent's decision.  A decision of the board to
  1 25 uphold the denial of the request is subject to appeal to the
  1 26 district court in the county in which the primary business
  1 27 office of the district is located.  By July 1, 2004, the The
  1 28 state board of education shall adopt rules establishing
  1 29 definitions, guidelines, and a review process for school
  1 30 districts that adopt voluntary desegregation plans.  The
  1 31 guidelines shall include criteria and standards that school
  1 32 districts must follow when developing a voluntary
  1 33 desegregation plan.  The department of education shall provide
  1 34 technical assistance to a school district that is seeking to
  1 35 adopt a voluntary desegregation plan.  A school district
  2  1 implementing a voluntary desegregation plan prior to July 1,
  2  2 2004 2008, shall have until July 1, 2006 2009, to comply with
  2  3 guidelines adopted by the state board pursuant to this
  2  4 section.
  2  5                           EXPLANATION
  2  6    This bill eliminates a reference to minority and
  2  7 nonminority pupil ratios maintained according to a
  2  8 desegregation plan or order under the state's open enrollment
  2  9 law.  The bill requires that the state board of education
  2 10 adopt administrative rules establishing definitions,
  2 11 guidelines, and a review process for voluntary desegregation
  2 12 plans, and gives school districts implementing a plan prior to
  2 13 July 1, 2008, until July 1, 2009, to comply with the new
  2 14 guidelines adopted by the state board.  The bill also requires
  2 15 departmental rules to recognize court=ordered desegregation
  2 16 plans.
  2 17    The bill is drafted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's
  2 18 decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
  2 19 School District No. 1 et al., No. 05=908, (together with
  2 20 Meredith, Custodial Parent and Next Friend of McDonald v.
  2 21 Jefferson County Bd. of Ed et al., No. 05=915,) decided June
  2 22 28, 2007.  In its decision, the court stated that the court
  2 23 has condemned as illegitimate a plan whose objective is
  2 24 directed only to racial imbalance, without "any pedagogic
  2 25 concept of the level of diversity needed to attain the
  2 26 asserted educational benefits."  The court reiterated that it
  2 27 is permissible to "consider the school's racial makeup" as one
  2 28 aspect in adopting "general policies to encourage a diverse
  2 29 student body."  The court offered a number of measures which
  2 30 may be used to offer equal educational opportunity to all.
  2 31
  2 32 LSB 5331XD 82
  2 33 kh/rj/24