AB 1348 adds “immigration enforcement activity” to the list of events that, if they materially depress average daily attendance (ADA), allow a school district, county office of education, or charter school to obtain adjusted apportionments from the State via affidavits submitted to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The bill broadly defines immigration enforcement activity to include federal civil immigration enforcement and certain federal criminal immigration enforcement that penalizes presence, entry, reentry, or employment in the United States.
Beyond that definitional change, the measure directs the Superintendent to estimate ADA ‘‘as if’’ the emergency had not occurred and provides a set of targeted apportionment and carry‑forward rules for districts and charters affected by named past emergencies. It also shields immigration‑related documentation submitted under this section from the California Public Records Act and contains a sunset date for the authority created by the section.
At a Glance
What It Does
Permits districts, county offices, and charters to establish material ADA declines from a list of emergencies—now including immigration enforcement—by filing affidavits signed by their governing board and the county superintendent, and directs the State Superintendent to adjust apportionments accordingly. The bill pairs that pathway with confidentiality for submitted documents and a set of multi‑year funding adjustments for districts and charters hit by prior qualifying emergencies.
Who It Affects
Local education agencies (LEAs) in California—school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education—plus county superintendents, district finance officers, and the California Department of Education staff who implement apportionments; it also directly names a small group of charter schools eligible for targeted relief tied to a January 2025 emergency.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a formal state mechanism to protect school funding when immigration enforcement (or other listed emergencies) causes attendance drops, while keeping submitted evidence confidential. That combination alters how attendance risk from federal immigration actions is treated in school finance and forces districts and the State to reconcile funding stability, oversight limits, and administrative verification.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1348 lets a local education agency (an LEA) establish that its ADA was materially reduced because of specified emergencies by filing affidavits from two local officials: the LEA’s governing board members and the county superintendent of schools. The list of emergencies in the statute already includes fires, floods, epidemics, impassable roads and similar events; the bill adds a new category—immigration enforcement activity—and spells out that the term covers efforts on or after January 1, 2025, to investigate or enforce federal civil immigration laws as well as federal criminal immigration laws that penalize presence, entry, reentry, or employment.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction then estimates ADA “as if” the emergency had not occurred and uses that estimate to determine apportionments.
For absences tied to the new immigration enforcement category, the bill imposes an explicit limit on how many missed days a district may be credited for purposes of affidavits used to adjust apportionments: no more than 10 missed days per pupil. The statute also states that any documentation an LEA submits to the Superintendent related to an immigration enforcement activity that caused a school closure or a material reduction in attendance is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
The section applies to ADA occurring during any part of a school year and is time‑limited: it becomes inoperative on July 1, 2029 and is repealed January 1, 2030.In addition to the immigration‑focused changes, the bill contains a series of targeted apportionment rules and multi‑year allocations to make up for attendance losses tied to earlier declared emergencies (including provisions keyed to events in 2017–2021). Those clauses include a 5‑percent threshold—districts or school districts where at least 5 percent of residences or facilities were destroyed by a qualifying emergency qualify for specified make‑whole allocations—and specific percentage allocations spread across multiple fiscal years in some instances.
The measure also retains COVID‑era carveouts for the 2021–22 school year that limit ADA credit for quarantined students while allowing exceptions when staffing shortages force closures, subject to detailed affidavits and exhaustion-of‑options requirements.For administrators, the operational picture is straightforward but administratively burdensome: collect sworn affidavits from local governing boards and the county superintendent, submit supporting (confidential) documentation to CDE, and expect the Superintendent to issue an estimated ADA that drives state apportionment. Districts should be ready to justify staffing‑shortage claims under the COVID‑era language and to document destruction thresholds where applicable.
The bill couples temporary fiscal relief with new verification responsibilities and explicit limits on how many days of immigration‑related absence will be credited for funding purposes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lets an LEA use affidavits signed by its governing board members and the county superintendent to establish that ADA was materially reduced because of immigration enforcement or other listed emergencies.
It defines “immigration enforcement activity” to include efforts on or after January 1, 2025, to investigate or enforce federal civil immigration law and specified federal criminal immigration laws that penalize presence, entry, reentry, or employment.
For apportionment claims tied to immigration enforcement, an LEA cannot be credited for more than 10 days of missed attendance per pupil.
Any documents an LEA submits to the Superintendent related to an immigration enforcement activity that causes a closure or material attendance decrease are exempt from the California Public Records Act.
The entire authority created by this section is temporary: it becomes inoperative July 1, 2029, and is repealed January 1, 2030.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds immigration enforcement to the list of qualifying emergencies
This provision inserts “immigration enforcement activity” alongside more traditional emergencies (fire, flood, earthquake, etc.) as a circumstance that can justify a material decrease in ADA. It also contains a working definition: immigration enforcement activity covers efforts on or after January 1, 2025 to investigate or enforce federal civil immigration laws and certain federal criminal immigration statutes that penalize presence, entry/reentry, or employment. Practically, this creates a statutory trigger districts can point to when federal immigration operations lead families to withdraw or keep children home.
Superintendent estimates ADA and adjusts apportionments
The Superintendent must estimate the LEA’s ADA for the affected fiscal year in a way that credits the LEA approximately the total ADA that would have been recorded had the emergency not occurred. That estimate is the basis for state apportionments. The text also introduces a specific cap for immigration‑related affidavit claims (addressed elsewhere in the bill), meaning the Superintendent’s estimate will be subject to statutory limits when immigration enforcement is the cause.
10‑day cap for immigration‑related missed attendance
When an affidavit relates to an immigration enforcement activity, the statute prevents the LEA from being credited for more than 10 missed days of attendance per pupil. This is a hard quantitative constraint on how much ADA loss tied to immigration enforcement can be converted into state funding via the affidavit/estimation process and will be a critical number for finance officers to model.
Confidentiality: exemption from the California Public Records Act
Documentation submitted to the Superintendent that relates to an immigration enforcement activity and that results in a school closure or material attendance decrease is explicitly exempted from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. That creates a protected lane for sensitive evidence (affidavits, supporting documents) but reduces the ability of outside parties to review or audit those materials through public records requests.
Targeted multi‑year funding adjustments and named charter relief
These subsections implement a variety of make‑whole apportionment rules for schools affected by prior declared emergencies. Key mechanics include a 5‑percent threshold (districts where at least 5% of residences or facilities were destroyed qualify for specified allocations), formulaic percentage allocations spread across successive fiscal years (for example, full difference in one year, then 25% and 12.5% in subsequent years in certain contexts), and charter‑specific relief for a set of schools identified as affected by a January 2025 emergency. The statute makes some allocations continuously appropriated from the General Fund, which obligates the State treasury to fund specified adjustments.
State‑of‑emergency duration and Superintendent discretion
When the Governor declares a state of emergency in a county, the Superintendent determines how long ADA remains reduced for apportionment purposes, and that period generally cannot extend into the next fiscal year unless the LEA persuades the Superintendent it is essential. This gives the Superintendent substantial discretion to set the temporal scope of relief and requires districts to document ongoing impacts if they seek multi‑year adjustments.
Sunset and applicability
The new authority and related provisions apply to ADA occurring during any part of a school year but are temporary: the section becomes inoperative July 1, 2029 and is repealed January 1, 2030. Agencies and LEAs should treat this as a time‑limited program and plan for both implementation now and the prospect of a post‑sunset policy gap.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- School districts in immigrant communities — they gain a statutory route to recover lost ADA funding when families stay home because of immigration enforcement, reducing the immediate revenue shock and helping preserve staff and programs.
- Charter schools specifically named or those operating in areas hit by qualifying disasters — they receive targeted, sometimes multi‑year apportionment adjustments designed to smooth funding disruptions caused by destroyed residences or facilities.
- County superintendents and county offices of education — the law formalizes their role in corroborating ADA loss via affidavits and may provide new discretionary tools to support affected LEAs.
- District finance officers and local school leaders — they get a predictable administrative process (affidavits → Superintendent estimate → apportionment) to translate attendance shocks into state funding, improving short‑term budget planning.
- Students from households affected by immigration enforcement — indirectly benefit when schools can maintain programs and services funded by ADA that would otherwise be cut following attendance declines.
Who Bears the Cost
- California General Fund — the bill creates continuous appropriations and multi‑year allocations to make up lost ADA for qualifying LEAs, increasing near‑term state fiscal obligations.
- California Department of Education (CDE) staff — CDE must review affidavits, estimate counterfactual ADA, process confidential records, and manage preliminary and final allocations, adding administrative workload without explicit funding for implementation.
- LEAs seeking COVID‑era exceptions for 2021–22 staffing shortages — they carry a higher evidentiary burden (exhausted staffing options and consultation with county offices and the Superintendent) to receive ADA credit for closures tied to staff quarantine.
- Community groups and oversight organizations — the CPRA exemption reduces transparency and raises the cost (and difficulty) for outside monitoring of how and when the state allocates make‑whole funding.
- Legal and compliance teams at districts — they must assemble legally sufficient affidavits, maintain confidential records according to statute, and defend apportionment claims if challenged, creating extra workload and potential legal expense.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is reconciling two legitimate goals that pull in opposite directions: protect school funding and student services when federal immigration enforcement causes attendance collapse, while maintaining public transparency and fiscal discipline; steps that safeguard families’ privacy and stabilize LEA budgets simultaneously reduce outside oversight and transfer substantial discretionary verification work to the Superintendent and local officials.
The bill walks a narrow line between stabilizing school finances after attendance shocks and restricting public oversight. The CPRA exemption protects sensitive family and enforcement information but also removes a standard transparency tool that watchdogs and community advocates use to verify that state funds match documented needs.
That trade‑off raises practical questions about internal controls and independent review: who will verify the affidavits and supporting facts if not the public? The Superintendent has heavy verification responsibility but the statute does not spell out an evidentiary standard beyond affidavits co‑signed by local officials.
The 10‑day cap for immigration‑related missed days is another tension point. It limits potential exposure of the General Fund and prevents indefinite funded absence claims, but it may undercompensate LEAs in communities where fear of enforcement suppresses attendance for weeks or months.
Implementation challenges are acute: CDE must construct a defensible “as if” ADA estimate methodology, process confidential submissions without creating backlogs, and coordinate preliminary and final allocations under tight apportionment timelines. Finally, the time limitation (sunset) complicates longer‑term planning: LEAs that restructure budgets based on these temporary apportionments could face cliffs when the authority lapses unless the legislature takes further action.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.