BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1729
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1729 (Ammiano)
As Amended May 25, 2012
Majority vote
EDUCATION 6-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Butler, Carter, Eng, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Williams | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Grove, Halderman, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Wagner | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the use and documentation of other means of
correction and alternatives to suspension or expulsion that are
age appropriate and designed to address the pupil's specific
misbehavior; and, defines other means of correction.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes findings and declarations that the public policy of this
state is to ensure that school discipline policies support safe,
positive, supportive and equitable school environments; that
California school suspensions are disproportionately imposed on
pupils of color, pupils with disabilities, lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender pupils, and other vulnerable pupil
populations; and, that nonpunitive classroom discipline is more
effective and efficient for addressing pupil misconduct.
2)Authorizes the superintendent of a school district or principal
to use his or her discretion to provide alternatives to
suspension or expulsion that are age appropriate and designed to
address and correct the pupil's specific misbehavior.
3)Requires suspension, including supervised suspension, be imposed
on individuals only after other means of correction have failed
to bring about proper conduct.
4)Authorizes school districts to document the use of other means
of correction and place that documentation in the pupil's
AB 1729
Page 2
record.
5)Defines "other means of correction" to include, but not be
limited to, the following:
a) A conference between school personnel, the pupil's parent
or guardian and the pupil;
b) Referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social
worker 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 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
psychoeducational assessment;
e) Enrollment in a program for teaching prosocial behavior or
anger management;
f) Participation in a restorative justice programs;
g) A positive behavior support approaches with tiered
interventions that occur on campus during the schoolday on
campus;
h) After school programs that address specific behavioral
issues or expose pupils to positive activities and behaviors,
including, but not limited to, those operated in
collaboration with local parent and community groups; and,
i) Community service programs such as outdoor beautification;
community or campus betterment; and teacher, peer or youth
assistance programs.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal. Amendments made in
the Assembly Appropriations committee removed all General
Fund/Proposition 98 state reimbursable mandated costs.
COMMENTS : This bill clarifies existing law by requiring that
administrators resort to supervised suspension, out of school
AB 1729
Page 3
suspension, or expulsion of a student only after other means of
correction fail to bring about proper conduct. It broadens a
section about acceptable alternatives to suspension and expulsion
by allowing administrators to determine age appropriate activities
that address and correct the pupil's specific misbehavior. The
bill further defines some examples of what falls under the
guidelines of other means of correction and authorizes school
districts to document the use of such methods in a student's
record.
Background: Research indicates that the suspension and expulsion
of individuals are rarely applied evenly. According to the Civil
Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, a
study released in October of 2011 makes it clear that in
California, "unnecessarily harsh discipline policies are applied
unfairly and disproportionately to minority students."
Additionally, in March 2012, the U.S. Department of Education's
Office for Civil Rights released a report indicating that minority
students have a much higher rate of suspension and expulsion
across the nation. These reports confirm the declarations and
findings presented in this bill about the uneven application of
these punitive disciplinary measures.
Positive behavior support: Numerous other reputable studies and
reports verify and highlight the effectiveness of positive
behavior support programs. According to the National Association
of School Psychologists (NASP), this approach is an "empirically
validated, function-based approach to eliminate challenging
behaviors and replace them with prosocial skills." NASP explains
that use of this approach "decreases the need for more intrusive
or aversive interventions (i.e., punishment or suspension) and can
lead to both systemic as well as individualized change."
Since 2007, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has
also implemented a Foundational Discipline Policy of School-Wide
Positive Behavior Support that focuses on the benefits of
implementing positive behavior support programs on a school wide
basis. Evaluations indicate that some schools in LAUSD have
effectively implemented the positive behavior support programs.
In cases where positive behavior support programs have been
effectively implemented, they have led to improved school climates
and reductions in punitive disciplinary actions.
One example of outstanding results is Garfield High School in Los
Angeles. In the five years prior to the implementation of the
AB 1729
Page 4
school wide positive behavior support program, Garfield had at
least 510 suspensions or expulsions each year. Since the
inception of the program in 2009-2010, Garfield High School has
experienced a dramatic reduction in the number of severe offenses
with 103 suspensions or expulsions in 2009-2010 and only one
suspension in 2010-2011. Administrators remark that there is also
noticeable improvement of the school climate as a result of this
program.
Age appropriate alternatives designed to address and correct
specific misbehavior: This bill broadens a section of existing
law that currently lists alternatives to suspension and expulsion
as counseling and anger management programs. It replaces the
specific identification of counseling and anger management
programs with broader language that authorizes principals to use
alternatives that are age appropriate and designed to address and
correct the pupil's specific misbehavior. This more open approach
improves the flexibility and responsiveness of current code to
varying situations. Across California, suspensions and expulsions
are given to students of different ages and for different reasons.
Making this section more flexible allows principals the authority
to assign alternative disciplinary measures that more aptly target
a student's specific needs and respond to the incident at hand.
Documentation of other means of correction: This bill also
authorizes school districts to document the use of other means of
correction. By allowing this in statute, principals and other
disciplinary officers of a school are encouraged to attempt
alternative methods to improve student behavior prior to using
punitive disciplinary measures. It provides districts with
flexibility to choose the best alternative disciplinary methods
based on the given circumstance.
Defining other means of correction: This bill also expands what
can be considered as alternatives to suspension or expulsion by
providing a non-comprehensive list of examples. It clearly
stipulates that "other means of correction" include, but are not
limited to: a conference between school personnel, parents and a
pupil; referrals to school support service personnel for case
management and counseling; intervention-related teams that
implement individualized plans to address the behavior in
partnership with the pupil and his or her parents; referral for a
comprehensive psychosocial or psychoeducational assessment for
purposes of creating an individualized education program (IEP) or
plan pursuant to Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of
AB 1729
Page 5
1973; enrollment in a program for teaching prosocial behavior or
anger management; participation in a restorative justice program;
a positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions
that occur during the schoolday; any after-school programs
designed to address specific behavioral issues and expose a pupil
to positive activities and behaviors; and, community service,
including, but not limited to outdoor beautification, community or
campus betterment and teacher, peer or youth assistance programs.
Arguments in support: The author writes "AB 1729 reaffirms that
superintendents and school principals have the discretion to
implement alternatives to suspension and expulsion and expands the
list of 'other means of correction' that must be implemented prior
to suspension or expulsion to address most student misbehavior."
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Murphy and Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. /
(916) 319-2087
FN: 0003983