BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1729|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1729
Author: Ammiano (D)
Amended: 5/25/12 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 5-3, 6/27/12 (FAIL)
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Liu, Price, Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Hancock, Vacancy
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-3, 7/3/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-25, 5/30/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Pupil rights: suspension or expulsion
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill recasts provisions relative to the
suspension of a pupil upon a first offense, and authorizes
the use and documentation of other means of correction.
ANALYSIS : Existing law prohibits a pupil from being
suspended or recommended for expulsion unless the principal
of the school determines that the pupil has committed
certain acts, and gives schools the discretion to take
action for most offenses.
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
2
Discretion to suspend
Schools may suspend a pupil for violating any number of
acts, some of which include:
1.Attempting to cause or threatening to cause physical
injury to another person. (Expulsion must be recommended
for causing serious physical injury.)
2.Being under the influence of a controlled substance.
(Expulsion must be recommended for possession or the sale
of controlled substances.)
3.Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property.
4.Possessed or used tobacco.
5.Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual profanity
or vulgarity.
6.Possessed, offered, arranged or negotiated to sell drug
paraphernalia.
7.Engaged in, or attempted to engage in, hazing.
8.Disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully
defying the valid authority of supervisor, teachers,
administrators, school officials, or other school
personnel engaged in the performance of their duties.
9.Engaged in an act of bullying.
Pupils may be suspended for a first offense if the school
principal determines that the pupil committed certain acts
or that pupil's presence causes a danger to persons or
property or threatens to disrupt the instructional process
or the pupil committed certain acts.
Prior to suspension
Existing law states that suspension shall be imposed only
when other means of correction fail to bring about proper
conduct.
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
3
Suspension by the principal must be preceded by an informal
conference between the principal, pupil and whenever
practicable, the teacher, supervisor or school employee who
referred the pupil to the principal. School principals may
suspend a pupil without first holding an informal
conference with the pupil if an emergency situation exists.
A school employee is required to make a reasonable effort
to contact the pupil's parents at the time of suspension;
however, whenever a pupil is suspended from school (as
opposed to suspension from a class) the parent must be
notified in writing.
Decision to suspend
The governing board of a school district is required,
unless a request has been made to the contrary, to hold
closed sessions if the board is considering suspending or
taking other disciplinary action (other than expulsion) if
a public hearing would lead to the release of confidential
information. School districts are required to notify, in
writing, the pupil and the pupil's parent of the intent to
call and hold a closed session.
Alternatives to out-of-school suspension
School district superintendents and school principals are
authorized to use discretion to provide alternatives to
suspension or expulsion, including counseling and an anger
management program.
School principals are authorized to assign a suspended
pupil to a supervised suspension classroom for the entire
period of suspension if the pupil poses no imminent danger
or threat to the campus, pupils, or staff, or if an action
to expel the pupil has not been initiated.
Existing law states that schools should consider
implementing at least one of the following if the number of
pupils suspended during the prior school year exceeded 30%
of the school's enrollment:
1.A supervised suspension program.
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
4
2.A progressive discipline approach during the schoolday on
campus (as an alternative to off-campus suspension),
using any of the following activities:
A. Conferences between the school staff, parents and
pupils.
B. Referral to the school counselor, psychologist,
child welfare, attendance personnel, or other school
support service staff.
C. Detention.
D. Study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams,
or other assessment-related teams.
Teachers may suspend pupils from class for the day and the
following day. If the pupil is to remain on campus during
that suspension, the pupil must be under appropriate
supervision. Teachers must ask the parent to attend a
parent-teacher conference regarding the suspension. Pupils
are prohibited from returning to the class from which he or
she was suspended, during the period of the suspension,
without the concurrence of the teacher and principal.
Schools are authorized to require a pupil to perform
community service as part of or instead of suspension or
expulsion for most offenses.
Missed assignments
The teacher of any class from which a pupil is suspended is
authorized to require the pupil to complete any assignments
and tests missed during the suspension.
Number of days of suspension
The number of days that a pupil may be suspended from
school is capped at five consecutive schooldays.
With some exception, the total number of days for which a
pupil may be suspended is capped at 20 schooldays per
school year, unless the pupil enrolls in or is transferred
to another regular school, an opportunity school or a
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
5
continuation school, in which case the cap is 30 schooldays
per school year. School districts are authorized to count
suspensions that occur while a pupil is enrolled in another
school district toward the maximum numbers of days for
which a pupil may be suspended in any school year.
In cases where expulsion from any school or suspension for
the remainder of the semester from continuation schools is
being processed by a school district, the district
superintendent may extend the suspension until the
governing board has rendered a decision.
Pupils with exceptional needs
Schools are authorized to suspend or expel an individual
with exceptional needs in accordance with federal law. If
a pupil with an individualized education program (IEP)
exhibits behavior problems, the IEP team must make a
determination if the behavior is a manifestation of the
disability and whether the strategies in the IEP are
effective to address the behavior. If it is determined
that the IEP is ineffective, a functional analysis is then
amended to include a behavior intervention plan.
This bill recasts provisions relative to the suspension of
a pupil upon a first offense, and authorizes the use and
documentation of other means of correction. Specifically,
this bill:
1.Removes the consideration of whether the pupil's presence
is a danger to property or threatens to disrupt the
instructional process when a school principal is
determining whether to suspend a pupil upon a first
offense. (Discretion remains to suspend upon a first
offense if the principal determines the pupil's presence
is a danger to people.)
2.Specifies that the existing limitation on imposing
suspension only when other means of correction fail also
includes supervised suspension (in-school suspension).
3.Authorizes school districts to document other corrective
action used and place that documentation in the pupil's
record.
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
6
4.Authorizes other means of correction to include:
A. A conference between school personnel, the pupil's
parent or guardian, and the pupil.
B. Referrals to the school counselor, psychologist,
social worker, child welfare attendance personnel, or
other school support 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
psychoeducational assessment, including for purposes
of creating an individualized education program (IEP
or a 504 plan).
E. Enrollment in a program for teaching prosocial
behavior or anger management.
F. Participation in a restorative justice program.
G. A positive behavior support approach with tiered
interventions that occur during the schoolday on
campus.
H. After school programs that address specific
behavioral issues or expose pupils to positive
activities and behaviors, including those operated in
collaboration with local parent and community groups.
I. Community services, as described in existing law.
1.Recasts options that may be considered as alternatives to
suspension or expulsion, by striking reference to
counseling and anger management, and replacing with
alternatives that are age appropriate and designed to
address and correct the pupil's specific misbehavior.
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
7
2.Makes legislative findings and declarations that it is
state policy to:
A. Ensure that school discipline policies and
practices support the creation of safe, positive,
supportive, and equitable school environments where
pupils can learn.
B. Provide effective interventions for pupils who
engage in acts of problematic behavior to help them
change their behavior and avoid exclusion from school.
C. Ensure that school discipline policies and
practices are implemented and enforced evenhandedly
and are not disproportionately applied to any class or
group of pupils.
Comments
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. Current law requires that
'other means of correction' fail before a student is
suspended for a non-mandatory reason. Schools are not
required to document these efforts, making it difficult to
discern what is most effective or even what has previously
been attempted prior to expulsion or suspension. These
ineffective policies disproportionately affect our state's
most vulnerable populations, especially black males and
students with disabilities; and leads to disproportionate
rates of involvement in the juvenile justice system, and
later adult incarceration."
Suspension upon first offense . Existing law requires
schools to impose other means of correction prior to
suspension. However, current law authorizes schools to
suspend a pupil upon the first offense of certain serious
acts (such as causing physical injury, or selling a weapon
or drugs) or for any act (for which schools have the
discretion to suspend) if the principal or superintendent
determines that the pupil's presence causes a danger to
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
8
persons or property or threatens to disrupt the
instructional process. This bill removes the consideration
of whether a pupil is a danger to property or threatens to
disrupt the instructional process when a school principal
is determining whether to suspend a pupil upon a first
offense. Schools would retain the ability to suspend a
pupil upon the first offense for acts such as defiance or
willful disruption if the principal determines the pupil's
presence poses a danger to people.
Other means of correction . Existing law states that
suspension is to be imposed only when other means of
correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Suspension
by the principal must be preceded by an informal conference
between the principal, pupil and whenever practicable, the
teacher, supervisor or school employee who referred the
pupil to the principal, unless an emergency situation
exists. Schools are currently authorized to use discretion
to provide alternatives to suspension or expulsion, and
should consider implementing alternatives to suspension if
the number of pupils suspended during the prior school year
exceeded 30% of the school's enrollment. This bill
specifies activities that may be used as alternatives to
suspension and authorizes schools to document those
activities in a pupil's record.
Discretion . Existing law grants the discretion to school
principals to suspend pupils for approximately twenty acts.
Current law requires suspension to be imposed only when
other means of correction fail to bring about proper
conduct. Existing law provides an exception that gives
school principals the discretion to suspend a pupil upon a
first offense if the principal determines the pupil's
presence causes a danger to persons or property or
threatens to disrupt the instructional process. This bill
removes from that determination consideration of whether
the pupil's presence is a danger to property or threatens
to disrupt the instructional process. Discretion remains
to suspend upon a first offense if the principal determines
the pupil's presence is a danger to people.
Capacity . Implementation of alternative means of
correction could include the need for staff training,
school counselors and psychologists, staff to supervise
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
9
pupils who serve in-school suspensions and classrooms to
house pupils who serve in-school suspensions. This bill
does not require schools to use alternative means of
correction.
Los Angeles Unified School District . On October 11, 2011,
it was announced that the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) entered into a voluntary agreement with
the federal Department of Education's Office of Civil
Rights. Under the agreement, LAUSD will revamp its entire
program for English learners and accelerate its efforts
focused on closing the achievement and opportunity gap for
African-American pupils. As part of the agreement, LAUSD
is to take steps to report disparate discipline rates, and
eliminate inequitable and disproportionate discipline
practices.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/5/12)
Advancement Project
American Civil Liberties Union
Black Organizing Project
Black Parallel School Board
California Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California State Conference of the National Association for
the
Advancement of Colored People
Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice
Children Now
Children's Defense Fund-California
Community Asset Development Re-Defining Education
Community Coalition
Congregations Building Community
Disability Rights California
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Disability Rights Legal Center
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
Gay-Straight Alliance Network
InnerCity Struggle
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
10
Labor/Community Strategy Center
Legal Advocates for Children & Youth
Legal Services for Children
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Unified School District
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Center for Youth Law
Northern California Association of Counsel for Children
PICO California
PolicyLink
Public Counsel
Restorative Schools Vision Project
Youth and Education Law Project, Mills Legal Clinic
Youth Justice Coalition
Youth Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/5/12)
California County Superintendents Educational Services
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that the policy
intent of this bill with regards to instructing students
about acceptable behavior is something we would support if
additional resources were provided. Unfortunately our
schools do not have the resources or the staff to implement
the policies of AB 1729. Classrooms are overcrowded and
difficult choices have been made in order to keep the doors
open.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-25, 5/30/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger
CONTINUED
AB 1729
Page
11
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nestande,
Norby, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Skinner, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Garrick, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller,
Morrell, Nielsen, Olsen, Portantino, Silva, Smyth, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fletcher, Valadao
PQ:n 7/5/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED