BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1729
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1729 (Ammiano) - As Amended: May 7, 2012
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:6-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill defines other means of correction for the purposes of
pupil suspension.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that if a principal or superintendent of a school
district exercises his or her current authority to provide
alternatives to suspension or expulsion that the alternatives
be age appropriate and designed to address/correct the pupil's
specific misbehavior.
2)Requires other means of correction (for the purposes of
suspension) to be documented, and establishes other means of
correction to include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) A conference between school personnel, the pupil's
parent/guardian, and the pupil.
b) Referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social
worker, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school
support service personnel for case management and
counseling.
c) Study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams, or
other intervention-related teams that assess the behavior,
and develop and implement individualized plans to address
the behavior in partnership with the pupil and his or her
parents.
d) Referral for a comprehensive psychosocial or
psycho-educational assessment, as specified.
e) Enrollment in a program for teaching pro-social behavior
or anger management.
f) Participation in a restorative justice program.
AB 1729
Page 2
g) A positive behavior support approach with tiered
intervention that occur during the schoolday on campus.
h) After-school programs that address specific behavioral
issues or expose pupils to positive activities and
behaviors, as specified.
i) Any of the alternatives specified in current law,
including community service on school grounds.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs, likely in the tens of
millions, to require principals or superintendents to document
other means of correction before imposing a suspension.
According to SDE, there were 700,844 pupils suspended in the
2010-11.
2)GF/98 cost pressure, likely in excess of $5 million, to
implement other means of correction specified in this bill.
While this bill does not require a superintendent or principal
to implement specified
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "Superintendents and
principals deal with discipline almost exclusively through
suspension or expulsion despite research which correlates
exclusionary discipline with lower academic achievement, lower
graduation rates, and increased pupil dropout rates - all
without making campuses safer." The Center for Civil Rights
Remedies at the Civil Rights Project at the University of
California, Los Angeles released a report in April 2012
entitled: Suspended Education in California (Olsen, D;
Martinez, T; Gillespie, J) which revealed: "There are large
numbers of students suspended from every racial group, but the
disparities between groups are often profound. Across
California, nearly 1 out of every 5 African American students
(18%), 1 in 9 American Indian students (11%), and 1 in 14
Latino students (7%) in the state sample were suspended at
least once in 2009-10, compared to 1 in 17 white students (6%)
and 1 in 33 Asian American students (3%)."
The report further states: "Educators trained in child and
adolescent development and classroom management have a number
of methods at their disposal to improve student behavior.
Furthermore, system-wide approaches such as Positive Behavior
AB 1729
Page 3
Intervention and Supports, which relies on data monitoring,
shifts in school culture and policy, and a tiered system of
supports, have been demonstrated in numerous settings to be
effective in reducing disciplinary removal from the classroom
while simultaneously boosting achievement."
1)Background . Federal law requires the state to report the
number of expulsions and suspensions. There were 700,844
pupils (11% of enrollment) suspended and 18,649 pupils (0.03%
of enrollment) expelled from California schools in 2010-11.
Also, 1.8 million pupils (29% of enrollment) were classified
as truants.
2)Acts that constitute a suspension or expulsion . Existing law
prohibits a pupil from being suspended from school or
recommended for expulsion, unless the superintendent or the
principal of the school determines the pupil has committed any
following act:
a) Caused, attempted to cause, or threatened to cause
physical injury to another person.
b) Willfully used force or violence upon another person,
except in self-defense.
c) Possessed, sold, or furnished a firearm, knife,
explosive or other dangerous object, as specified.
d) Unlawfully possessed, used, sold, or furnished, or been
under the influence of, a controlled substance.
e) Unlawfully negotiated or arranged to sell a controlled
substance, as specified.
f) Committed or attempted to commit robbery or extortion.
g) Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property
or private property.
h) Stolen or attempted to steal school property or private
property.
i) Possessed or used tobacco or products containing
tobacco, as specified.
j) Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual
profanity or vulgarity.
aa) Disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully
defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers,
administrators, school officials, or other school personnel
engaged in their performance of their duties.
bb) Knowingly received stolen school property or private
property.
cc) Possessed an imitation firearm, as specified.
AB 1729
Page 4
dd) Committed or attempted to commit sexual assault, as
specified.
ee) Harassed, threatened, or intimidated a pupil who is a
complaining witness or a witness in a school disciplinary
preceding, as specified.
ff) Unlawfully offered, arranged/negotiated to sell, or sold
the prescription drug Soma.
gg) Engaged in, or attempted to engage in, hazing, as
specified.
hh) Engaged in the act of bullying, as specified.
ii) Committed sexual harassment, as specified.
Statute also authorizes a school district superintendent or
principal to use his or her discretion to provide alternatives
to suspension or expulsion, including, but not limited to, an
anger management program.
Existing law also requires a suspension to only be imposed
when other means of correction fail to bring about proper
conduct. Statute does, however, authorize an individual with
exceptional needs to be suspended for committing a first
offense, if the principal or superintendent determines the
pupil committed specified acts (i.e., physical injury to a
person; possessed or furnished a firearm, knife, or explosive;
unlawfully possessed, used, sold, or furnished a controlled
substance; arranged to sell or sold a controlled substance; or
committed or attempted to commit robbery or extortion).
3)Unpaid K-12 mandates . According to the Legislative Analyst's
Office, the state owes approximately $3.4 billion in K-12
mandate costs for prior years. Prior to the 2010 Budget Act,
the state deferred mandate payments for several years with the
promise of making the payments to school districts in future
years. As a result, districts did not received payment for
annual services they were required to conduct, including the
school safety plan mandate. The K-12 pupil suspension and
expulsion mandates total approximately $10.7 million GF/98
annually.
SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7,
Statutes of 2011 allocated $80 million GF/98 to school
districts for annual K-12 mandate costs; the state, however,
still owes school districts for the prior year costs.
4)Governor's proposal to establish K-12 mandate block grant . The
AB 1729
Page 5
January 2012-13 proposed budget eliminates approximately 25
(50%) of the 50 K-12 mandates and establishes a K-12 optional
mandate block grant as a mechanism for LEAs and charter
schools to receive state reimbursement for the remaining 25
mandates, including all mandates related to pupil suspension
and expulsion. The majority of the 25 mandates that are
proposed to be eliminated are already suspended in the current
year pursuant to 2011 Budget Act. Pupil suspension and
expulsion mandates are currently active; the governor's
proposal, however, eliminates these mandates.
5)Related legislation .
a) AB 2242 (Dickinson), pending in this committee, removes
a superintendent or principal's authority to suspend or
expel a pupil from school for disrupting school activities
or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of
supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or
other school personnel engaged in the performance of their
duties.
b) AB 2537 (V. M. Perez), pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, limits the acts by which pupils are mandatorily
expelled, as specified.
c) SB 1235 (Steinberg), pending in the Senate
Appropriations Committee, requires schools that have
suspended more than 25% of the school's enrollment or more
than 25% of any numerically significant racial or ethnic
subgroup of the school's enrollment in the prior school
year to implement, for at least three years, at least one
specified strategies to reduce the suspension rate or
disproportionality.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1729
Page 6