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