BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 9
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 9 (Ammiano) - As Amended: April 26, 2011
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires school districts to include specific
information in its policies/procedures regarding discrimination,
harassment, intimidation, and bullying. It also establishes
complaint procedures and alternative discipline policies for
pupils involved in this behavior. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires each school district, on or before July 1, 2012, to
ensure that its policy prohibiting discrimination, harassment,
intimidation, and bullying includes specified components
related to detailed statements of current law; descriptions of
district procedures regarding complaints; names of two or more
administrative personnel in each school designated to address
these issues; a detailed statement of the district's policy
regarding these matters; an actual copy of a written complaint
form; and a link to the Superintendent of Public Instruction's
(SPI) list of statewide resources regarding these issues.
2)Requires a school district's policy to be posted and
publicized, on or before July 1, 2012, in parent/student
handbooks, on the district's Internet website (including all
individual school websites); and in all school and
administrative offices, as specified. This measure further
includes language of a statement school districts may use to
satisfy this requirement and requires the statement to be
posted in all teacher/staff rooms, classrooms, locker rooms,
bathrooms, and cafeterias in each school.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs, of at least $2
million, to school districts to modify existing policies, post
information, and investigate complaints within the specified
AB 9
Page 2
timelines. In 2009-10, there were 1,021 school districts with
9,888 schools under their jurisdiction in the state.
2)GF administrative costs to the State Department of Education
(SDE), likely between $100,000 and $200,000, to modify the CPM
process, provide information to school districts, and post
information on its Internet website.
3)GF/98 cost pressure, likely in excess of $150,000, to school
districts to collect data, as specified.
4)GF/98 cost pressure, likely between $200,000 and $400,000, to
school districts to provide training to school board members
and schoolsite staff, as specified.
SUMMARY CONTINUED
3)Requires each school district to include all complaints of
discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying as part
of the SDE uniform complaint process with specified
modifications related to these issues, including, requirements
for personnel; specific timelines for complaint resolution;
and a detailed written complaint form, as specified.
4)Requires school districts, in the course of existing
orientation for school board members and pupils to provide
information on the district's discrimination, harassment,
intimidation, and bullying policy. This bill also encourages
school districts to offer grade-level appropriate professional
development training for school personnel on these issues, as
specified.
5)Requires the SPI, at the beginning of each school year, to
post on his or her Internet website a list of statewide
resources that provide support to youth who have been
subjected to school-based discrimination, harassment,
intimidation or bullying and provide this information to each
school district, as specified.
6)Encourages all local education agencies (LEAs) to collect data
related to pupil experiences with discrimination, harassment,
intimidation, and bullying each year. This measure also
requires SDE to include questions in existing pupil surveys,
as specified.
AB 9
Page 3
7)Prohibits a pupil who is the target of an act of
discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying under
existing law from being disciplined for defending himself or
herself against acts referenced above, unless the district
superintendent or principal deems it appropriate, as
specified. This bill amends existing pupil suspension statute
to establish an alternative form of discipline (at the
superintendent or principal's discretion) that involves
meeting with parents, counseling, anger management, and
community service, as specified.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the United States Department of Justice
(USDOJ), 1.6 million children in grades 6-10 in the United
States are bullied at least once a week and 1.7 million
children bully others as frequently. The USDOJ further states
"bullying has long-term and short term psychological effects
on both those who bully and those who are bullied. Victims
experienced loneliness and reported having trouble making
social and emotional adjustments, difficulty making friends,
and poor relationships with classmates. Victims of bullying
often suffer humiliation, insecurity, and a loss of
self-esteem, and they may develop a fear of going to school."
Equality California, sponsor of this bill, detail the story of
Seth Walsh, a 13-year-old boy in Tehachapi, California who
committed suicide in September 2010 after experiencing
persistent and long-term bullying due to his sexual
orientation and gender expression. Specifically, Equality
California states: "Seth's mother and close friends report
that teachers and school administrators were aware that Seth
was being harassed and, in some instances, participated in the
harassment. Yet Seth's mother's pleas to the school for help
were brushed aside."
According to the author, "California has taken some steps to
address Ýdiscrimination, harassment, intimidation, or
bullying,] but we must do more to remedy the glaring gaps in
existing law. AB 9 draws upon tested approaches and best
practices to ensure that schools have adequate policies and
procedures in place to prevent discrimination and harassment
and to respond to incidents quickly."
2)Existing law . AB 537 (Kuehl), Chapter 587, Statutes of 2000,
AB 9
Page 4
established the Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act,
which prohibits harassment and other forms of discrimination,
including on the basis of actual and perceived sexual
orientation and gender, in educational instructional services
and programs. In Spring 2000, Superintendent Delaine Eastin
established a task force to identify ways to implement Chapter
587. One of the recommendations from the task force was to
"ensure that all school personnel are informed of the
provisions of AB 537 and that all district and site personnel
are trained in the law's requirements."
AB 394 (Levine), Chapter 566, Statutes of 2007, established
the Safe Place to Learn Act (SPLA) and required SDE to monitor
LEAs adherence to antidiscrimination and antiharassment
policies. Specifically, statute requires SDE, as part of its
Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) process, to assess
whether LEAs have done all of the following:
a) Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination and
harassment based, as specified, under current law,
including, but not limited to, actual or perceived gender
identity and sexual orientation.
b) Adopted a process for receiving and investigating
complaints of discrimination based on current law, as
specified above.
c) Publicized antidiscrimination and antiharassment
policies, including the manner in which to file a
complaint, to pupils, parents, employees, agents of the
governing board, and the general public.
d) Posted antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies in
the schools and offices, including staff lounges and pupil
meeting rooms.
e) Maintained documentation of complaints and their
resolution for a minimum of one review cycle.
f) Ensured that complainants are protected from retaliation
and the identity of a complainant alleging discrimination
or harassment remains confidential, as appropriate.
g) Identified a responsible LEA officer for ensuring
district or office compliance with the requirement of the
uniform complaint process.
The SPLA also required SDE to display information on curricula
and other resources that specifically address bias-related
discrimination and harassment, as specified under current law
(including, but not limited to, actual or perceived gender
identity and sexual orientation), on the California Healthy
Kids Resource Center Internet Web site.
AB 9
Page 5
Likewise, SDE is required to develop a model handout
describing the rights and obligations of existing law as it
relates to discrimination and the policies addressing
bias-related discrimination and harassment in schools. This
handout is required to be posted on SDE's Internet website.
The SPLA does not require LEAs to meet requirements related to
bullying or intimidation and as such, SDE is not required to
ensure compliance with these issues.
3)Scope of the bill . This bill is detailed in requirements
school districts must meet regarding policies, complaints, and
dissemination of information regarding discrimination,
harassment, intimidation, and bullying. Existing law requires
LEAs to meet requirements related to the development of policy
and administration of complaints related to antidiscrimination
and antiharassment. Likewise, existing statute requires SDE
to monitor LEA compliance with these requirements via the CPM.
According to SDE, compliance with antidiscrimination and
antiharassment are monitored using two instruments, including
one specific to the uniform complaint process.
According to SDE, LEAs are divided into four cycles and each
LEA's risk factors related to academic and fiscal performance
are determined. Based on this process, SDE determines the
LEAs that will be monitored under the CPM. According to SDE,
beginning in the 2010-11 fiscal year, 120 LEAs, including
direct-funded charter schools, will be monitored under the
CPM. SDE will conduct site visits at 60 of these LEAs and
monitor the remaining 60 via an online tool.
This bill places specific requirements on school districts in
terms of policy wording, procedures, and enforcement. The
author may wish to consider whether detailed new statute is
needed to address issues related to discrimination,
harassment, intimidation, and bullying or whether
strengthening existing law and addressing compliance
monitoring is more appropriate.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 9
Page 6