I am writing in response to articles recently printed concerning Assembly Bill 2312, (AB 1312) the Parental School Choice Protection Act, and Senate Bill 1411 (SB 1411), a nearly identicalmeasure by state Sen. Debra Ortiz of Sacramento.These two bills were introduced independently-one by a Northern California Democrat and the other by a Southern California Republican.The issue of parental school choicecrosses partisan lines and is a concern statewide.

Bothbills were introduced on behalf of parents who have complained about theban on varsity sports for student transfers by the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF).

Unless a difficult-to-obtain hardship waiver is granted through a complicated and arbitrary process, high school students who transfer schools within California are prevented from participating (immediately) in any varsity sport. If enacted, these measureswillprotect theparents' right to choose which school they want their children to attend and allow their children the full benefit of the new school. Weekly school and team "hopping"will not be an issuebecausetransfers will still need to be approved bythe receiving school andschool district for non-athletic reasons.AB 2312 will also be amended to ensure that athletes will not useschool transfers to escape disciplinary actions. It has been shownthat high school sports participation isa benefit to students.Overall, student athletesdo well academically and many move on to a college or university education. Because participation in varsity sports can be beneficial, it is important that students approved to be transferred for nonathletic reasonshave the opportunityto take advantage of the fullathletic program of their new school.

Each of the 10 CIF regional sections has a differentset of bylaws that address student transfers.In addition to lacking uniformity, these guidelines have become overly broad and have affected students who are transferring for legitimate reasons.

These rules go so far as to prohibit athletic participation for students who are transferring between private and public schoolsbecause of a change in affordability, children whose parents remove them from schools because of on-campus violence, students removed from a school due to racial discrimination, students whose parents move them to a less crowded school, as well as transfers due to a court-appointed change of guardianship.

CIFcommissionerswarn that uniformity will bring about aloss of local control.But when it comes to children, control can not get any more local than parental control.

The CIF should not be able to override the mutual decision of parents,educatorsand the courts. Most importantly, the CIF should not be in a position to tell parents what is best for their child.

I am confident thatthe final version of any measure concerning student transfers will protect academics as the top priority of our schoolsand theparents' right to determine the best education for their children.

Strickland represents this area in the State Assembly.