BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 13
AUTHOR: Correa
INTRODUCED: December 6, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 4, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Teen Dating Violence Prevention.
SUMMARY
This bill requires schools that elect to provide teen
dating violence prevention education to ensure that the
instruction meets certain criteria, and requires the State
Board of Education to incorporate teen dating violence and
sexual violence curriculum into the health curriculum
framework.
BACKGROUND
Current law:
1) Authorizes schools to offer health education. Current
law defines "comprehensive health education programs"
to include activities designed to ensure that, among
other things, pupils will receive instruction to aid
them in making decisions and school districts may
voluntarily provide pupils with instruction on
preventative health care.
(Education Code § 51890)
2) Authorizes schools to offer comprehensive sexual
health education. Current law provides that one of
the purposes of the California Comprehensive Sexual
Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act is to
encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes
concerning dating, among other things. (EC § 51930
and § 51933)
3) Authorizes schools to use School Safety Block Grant
funds to, among other things, provide age-appropriate
SB 13
Page 2
instruction in domestic violence prevention, dating
violence prevention, and interpersonal violence
prevention. This funding is included in the
categorical flexibility pursuant to SB 4 of the Third
Extraordinary Session (Chapter 12, 2009), whereby
schools are authorized to use funding from 43
categorical programs for any educational purpose. SB
70 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 7,
March 24, 2011) extended categorical flexibility to
the 2014-15 fiscal year. (EC § 32228 & 42605)
The processes for reviewing frameworks and adopting
instructional materials has been suspended since July 2009,
pursuant to AB 2 of the Fourth Extraordinary Session
(Chapter 2, July 2009), which among other things,
prohibited the SBE from reviewing frameworks and adopting
instructional materials until the 2013-14 school year. SB
70 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 7, March 24,
2011) extended this suspension to the 2015-16 school year.
(EC § 60200.7)
ANALYSIS
This bill requires schools that elect to provide teen
dating violence prevention education to ensure that the
instruction meets certain criteria, and requires the State
Board of Education (SBE) to incorporate teen dating
violence and sexual violence curriculum into the health
curriculum framework. Specifically, this bill:
1) Authorizes a school district to provide teen dating
violence prevention education consisting of
age-appropriate instruction, as developed by the SBE,
as part of the sexual health and health education
program it provides to pupils in grades 7-12.
2) Requires the SBE to incorporate teen dating violence
and sexual violence curriculum into the health
curriculum framework at its next revision. This bill
requires the SBE to consult with the Department of
Public Health, the Attorney General, and domestic
violence and sexual assault prevention advocates for
advice on the development of grade-level concepts and
content guidelines to be incorporated into the sexual
health and health education program currently taught
SB 13
Page 3
in grades 7-12.
3) Requires a school district that elects to offer teen
dating violence prevention education to include
instruction and materials regarding teen dating
violence and sexual violence that include methods for
doing all of the following:
a) Recognizing what constitutes a healthy
relationship.
b) Identifying teen dating violence, verbal
abuse, nonverbal abuse, physical intimidation,
stalking, physical abuse, inappropriate sexual
behavior, sexual harassment, sexual violence,
sexual assault, and Internet abuse and cyber
bullying.
c) Locating sources for legal, medical, mental
health, and other supportive services regarding
teen dating violence.
4) Requires a school district that elects to offer teen
dating violence prevention education to satisfy
criteria that is consistent with current law regarding
sex education, including the information must be
medically accurate and objective, age appropriate,
available to English learners, encourage communication
with parents, and teach respect for marriage and
committed relationships.
5) Requires each school district that provides teen
dating violence prevention education to notify the
parent or guardian of each pupil about instruction
planned for the coming year. The notice must include
all of the following, which is consistent with current
law regarding sex education and HIV/AIDS prevention
education:
a) Educational materials are available for
inspection.
b) Whether the prevention education will be
taught by school personnel or by outside
consultants (if by consultants, the date of
instruction, name of organization of each speaker
and, statement of the right of parents to request
SB 13
Page 4
a copy of this section of law).
c) Explanation of the right to request a copy
of this section of law.
d) The parent may request in writing that his
or her child not to participate in teen dating
violence prevention education.
e) Upon written request to the school
principal, a parent shall be allowed to examine
the instruction materials at the school in which
the child is enrolled.
6) Authorizes anonymous, voluntary and confidential
research and evaluation tools to measure pupils'
health behaviors and risks, including questionnaires
and surveys containing age-appropriate questions about
the pupil's attitudes concerning teen dating violence
to be administered to any pupil in grades 7-12. The
questionnaire or survey may be given only if the
parent is first notified in writing that it is going
to be administered and the pupil's parent is given the
opportunity to review the questionnaire or survey and
to request in writing that his or her child not
participate. This is consistent with current law
regarding sex education.
7) Prohibits a pupil from attending any class in teen
dating violence prevention education, or participating
in any questionnaire or survey, if the school has
received a written request from the pupil's parent
excusing the pupil from participation. This bill also
prohibits a pupil from being subject to disciplinary
action, academic penalty or other sanction if the
pupil's parent declines to permit the pupil to receive
teen dating violence prevention education or to
participate in a questionnaire or survey. This bill
requires schools to provide an alternative educational
activity for pupils who are not participating in teen
dating violence prevention education or the
questionnaire or survey. All are consistent with
current law regarding sex education and HIV/AIDS
prevention education.
SB 13
Page 5
8) Authorizes schools to use school district personnel or
outside consultants who are trained in the appropriate
courses, which is consistent with current law
regarding sexual education and HIV/AIDS prevention
education.
9) Defines the following terms:
a) Abuse of property.
b) Dating partner.
c) Healthy relationship.
d) Inappropriate sexual behavior.
e) Internet abuse or cyber bullying.
f) Nonverbal abuse.
g) Obscene materials.
h) Physical abuse.
i) Physical intimidation.
j) Reproductive control.
aa) Sexual assault.
bb) Sexual harassment.
cc) Sexual violence.
dd) Stalking.
ee) Teen dating violence.
ff) Verbal abuse.
gg) Written materials.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Purpose of the bill . According to the author, "Under
existing law, public school districts do not have to
educate employees and students about dating violence,
nor do they have to have a response policy and
protocol for complaints of teen dating violence. SB
13 would provide guidelines for dating and sexual
violence prevention on campus and aid in preventing
dating violence by spreading awareness. SB 13 will
create greater partnership between schools and the
community to help educate students about teen dating
violence and ensure the safety of young victims of
dating violence."
2) Parental notification and opt-out . This bill requires
schools that choose to provide teen dating violence
prevention education to notify parents prior to this
instruction, and allows parents to request that their
SB 13
Page 6
child not receive teen dating violence prevention
education, which is consistent with current law
relative to sex education and HIV/AIDS prevention
education. Opponents have raised concerns that the
requirement to notify parents at the beginning of the
school year about any upcoming dating violence
prevention education will be too burdensome for
schools and would prevent schools from offering
instruction in reaction to an event that may occur on
campus or in the community after the beginning of the
school year.
Opponents believe that allowing parents to opt-out singles
out teen dating violence prevention (since there is no
state mandate to provide parental opt-out for other
types of violence prevention education). Some schools
that currently provide teen dating violence prevention
education do provide for parental opt-out, while other
schools do not. For example, the Long Beach and Los
Angeles unified school districts apparently offer teen
dating violence prevention education but do not
provide for parental opt-out.
3) Existing instruction . The Education Code is
permissive, and as such, schools may currently provide
teen dating violence prevention instruction. This
bill does not require schools to provide teen dating
violence prevention instruction, but does require
schools that elect to offer this instruction to ensure
that instruction uniformly meets specific criteria.
Could this bill create situations where an existing program
would no longer be allowed to be offered if it does
not meet the criteria specified in this bill? For
example, some existing instructional programs about
teen dating violence prevention do not include any
sexual content and/or cover only some of the topics
specified in this bill.
4) Already in health framework and standards ? The State
Board of Education (SBE) adopted the health education
framework in 2002, and adopted the health content
standards in March 2008. The content standards and
framework currently include some references to dating
SB 13
Page 7
violence, characteristics of healthy relationships,
and recognizing harmful or abusive dating
relationships. However, neither the standards nor the
framework include the level of detail about teen
dating violence prevention that could be incorporated
into the curriculum pursuant to this bill.
5) Schedule for revising frameworks . The health
framework was scheduled for review in 2011 but the
entire schedule to revise the frameworks and adopt
instructional materials has been suspended until the
2015-16 school year. Considering this suspension, is
this bill premature?
6) Related legislation . AB 1373 (Fong) authorizes school
districts to provide education programs that promote
healthy relationships and prevent teen dating violence
through curricular, extracurricular, and school
climate improvement activities, and requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to post
information about model curriculum programs on the
California Department of Education's website. AB 1373
is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
ACR 29 (Bonilla) designates the month of February 2011 as
Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.
ACR 29 is pending on the Senate Floor.
7) Prior legislation . SB 1300 (Correa, 2010) was nearly
identical to this bill. SB 1300 failed passage in the
Assembly Education Committee.
AB 589 (Levine, 2007) would have required school districts
to develop policies, procedures, and training for
school employees regarding the prevention of teen
dating violence and sexual violence. AB 589 was held
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 506 (Montaņez, 2005) would have required each school
district to establish a policy and protocol, as
specified, for dealing with incidents of teen dating
violence involving middle school and high school
students.
AB 506 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 13
Page 8
AB 558 (Jackson, 2000) would have authorized
age-appropriate instruction in domestic violence
prevention in grades 1-12 and required the Department
of Education to identify and distribute information
and a model curriculum to school districts and county
offices of education.
AB 558 was vetoed by Governor Davis, whose veto
message read:
While I am supportive of efforts to reduce
domestic violence, I cannot support this bill for
the following reasons. Existing law already
requires instruction in the principles and
practices of individual, family, and community
health. In addition, if districts chose to
provide such instruction this bill could result
in redirections of up to $7 million away from
core academic programs. Any such issues should
be addressed through the annual Budget Act.
Finally, this bill contains no provision for
parents to exempt their children from this
instruction if they so choose.
AB 578 (Honda, 2000) would have required the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop
training standards for teachers on domestic violence
and sexual assault recognition and appropriate
prevention responses. This bill stipulated the use of
these standards as optional for school districts. AB
578 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
San Francisco Unified School District
The Surviving Parents Coalition
OPPOSITION
Break the Cycle
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Women's Law Center
SB 13
Page 9
Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse
Community Resource Center
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalition
Family Violence Prevention Fund
Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles
Los Angeles Unified School District
Mountain Crisis Services
Peace Over Violence
Rainbow Services
WomenShelter of Long Beach
An individual