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