How many days of missed attendance per student would AB 1348 have covered for funding purposes?
Short answer
Assembly Bill 1348 (AB 1348) proposed a cap of 10 days of missed attendance per pupil. If the bill had become law, schools could have maintained their full state funding levels for up to 10 days when student attendance dropped due to immigration enforcement activities. Because the Governor vetoed the measure in October 2025, this specific funding limit was never enacted.
What the bill or law says
The text of AB 1348 sought to amend the Education Code to treat immigration enforcement activity as a qualifying emergency for Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding credits. Under existing rules, schools lose state funds when students are absent. This bill would have allowed districts to submit an affidavit to the Superintendent of Public Instruction if they experienced a material decrease in attendance linked to federal immigration enforcement efforts starting on or after January 1, 2025 [https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851].
The legislation explicitly stated that the ADA credit was capped at 10 days of missed attendance per pupil [https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851]. This means that for any individual student, the school could only claim funding protection for a maximum of 10 days of absence related to these specific emergencies. The provisions were scheduled to expire on July 1, 2029, had they been signed into law.
How it works in practice
If AB 1348 had passed, schools would have needed to track absences carefully to determine if they were connected to immigration enforcement actions. Once identified, the school would estimate the ADA as if the emergency had not occurred, ensuring they received their expected funding for those days. However, this financial protection would stop once a single student reached the 10-day limit.
In addition to the funding cap, the bill required schools to provide live or synchronous instruction during closures related to these events between January 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026 [https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851]. If live instruction was not possible due to extenuating circumstances, schools had to document why and outline alternative support measures. All documentation submitted to the Superintendent regarding these activities would have been exempt from public records requests to protect privacy [https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851].
What the source does not answer
The official bill text and legislative status records do not specify how schools would definitively prove that an absence was caused by immigration enforcement rather than other factors. The sources also do not provide data on how many students might have reached the 10-day cap in various districts. Furthermore, because the bill was vetoed, there is no record of how the Superintendent of Public Instruction would have processed these affidavits in real-world scenarios or what specific administrative burdens might have arisen.