BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 256|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 256
Author: Garcia (D)
Amended: 5/14/13 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/26/13
AYES: Liu, Wyland, Block, Correa, Hancock, Hueso, Huff, Monning
NO VOTE RECORDED: Torres
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-1, 5/16/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Suspension or recommendation for expulsion:
cyber-bullying
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill specifically authorizes schools to suspend
or recommend for expulsion a pupil for bullying by electronic
means that originated on or off of school grounds, as specified.
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.
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.
CONTINUED
AB 256
Page
2
Relative to bullying, existing law authorizes schools to suspend
or recommend for expulsion a pupil who engages in an act of
bullying, which is defined as any severe or pervasive physical
or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in
writing or by means of an electronic act, directed toward one or
more pupils that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the
effect of one or more of the following:
1.Placing a reasonable pupil or pupils in fear of harm to that
pupil's or those pupils' person or property.
2.Causing a reasonable pupil to experience a substantially
detrimental effect on his/her physical or mental health.
3.Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial
interference with his/her academic performance.
4.Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial
interference with his/her ability to participate in or benefit
from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a
school.
Existing law defines "electronic act" as the transmission, by
means of an electronic device, including but not limited to a
telephone, wireless telephone, or other wireless communication
device, computer, or pager, of a communication, including but
not limited to any of the following:
1.A message, text, sounds, or image.
2.A post on a social network website including, but not limited
to:
A. Posting to or creating a burn page, as defined, created
for the purpose of having one or more of the effects listed
above.
B. Creating a credible impersonation of another actual
pupil, as defined, for the purpose of having one or more of
the effects listed above.
C. Creating a false profile, as defined, for the purpose of
AB 256
Page
3
having one or more of the effects listed above.
Existing law prohibits a pupil from being suspended or expelled
unless the act is related to a school activity or school
attendance. Schools are specifically authorized to suspend or
expel a pupil for acts that are related to a school activity or
school attendance that occur at any time, including but not
limited to:
1.While on school grounds.
2.While going to or coming from school.
3.During the lunch period whether on or off the campus.
4.During, or while going to or coming from, a school-sponsored
activity.
Schools may expel pupils for various offenses, including
bullying, upon finding either of the following:
1.Other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly
failed to bring about proper conduct.
2.Due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil
causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil
or others.
This bill specifically authorizes schools to suspend or
recommend for expulsion a pupil for bullying by electronic means
that originated on or off of school grounds, as specified.
Prior Legislation
AB 2242 (Dickinson, 2012) would have prohibited pupils who are
found to have disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully
defied the authority of school officials from being subject to
extended suspension, or recommended for expulsion. AB 2242 was
vetoed by Governor Brown, whose veto message read:
I cannot support limiting the authority of local school
leaders, especially at a time when budget cuts have greatly
AB 256
Page
4
increased class sizes and reduced the number of school
personnel. It is important that teachers and school
officials retain broad discretion to manage and set the
tone in the classroom.
The principle of subsidiarity calls for greater, not less,
deference to our elected school boards which are directly
accountable to the citizenry.
SB 1235 (Steinberg, 2012) would have encouraged 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.
SB 1235 was vetoed by Governor Brown, whose veto message read:
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
each year to compile a list of schools which suspend too
high a percentage of their students and then invite
districts that have such schools to attend meetings to
discuss the problem.
My preference is to leave the matter of student suspension
to local school boards and the citizens who elect them.
I understand the author's concern, which is why I have
signed a number of other bills aimed at reducing the number
of student suspensions and expulsions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/13)
California Federation of Teachers
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/28/13)
ACLU
Disability Rights California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "While it is
arguable that existing law in California already allows school
AB 256
Page
5
discipline for cyber-bullying originating from off campus (so
long as it is school-related), the Education Code could be
clearer to ensure this policy. This bill would simply clarify
that students may be suspended or expelled for acts of
cyber-bullying that are not limited by where the acts
originate."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Disability Rights California (DRC)
write, "While there are certain limitations as to how and when
special education students can be suspended or expelled,
children with disabilities are generally treated the same as
their peers without disabilities in suspension cases.
Therefore, this bill could allow for a student with a disability
to be removed from class for a behavior that is a manifestation
of his/her disability. For example, as explained in DRC's
Publication Bullying & Harassment of Students with Disabilities
(#5512.01), students may react aggressively to bullying, may not
know it is inappropriate to bully other students, or may need
counseling or other supports to address these issues."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-1, 5/16/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez,
Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel
Pérez, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Ting, Torres,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
NOES: Donnelly
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Buchanan, Dickinson, Beth Gaines,
Grove, Holden, Melendez, Morrell, Quirk, Stone, Vacancy
PQ:ej 6/28/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
AB 256
Page
6
**** END ****