BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 699
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
AB 699 (Donnelly) - As Amended: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT : School safety: Safe School Guarantee
SUMMARY : Authorizes a parent or guardian of a public
elementary or secondary school pupil to remove his or her child
from an unsafe school and enroll his or her child in another
school or school district. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes a parent or guardian to enroll his or her child in
another school within the same school district if any of the
following occur:
a) A suspension or expulsion of a pupil has occurred during
the current or immediately preceding school year for any of
the following causes:
i) Hate violence.
ii) Causing serious physical injury to another person,
except in self-defense.
iii) Robbery or extortion.
iv) Assault or battery upon a school employee.
v) Possessing, selling, or otherwise furnishing a
firearm.
vi) Brandishing a knife at another person.
vii) Unlawfully selling a controlled substance.
viii) Committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault
or sexual battery.
ix) Possession of an explosive.
b) An employee of the school is dismissed by the governing
board of the school district for any of a number of
offenses related to rape and other unlawful sexual conducts
committed against other adults or minors; and any of a
number of offenses related to controlled substances and
narcotics.
c) An employee of the school is convicted for any of a
number of offenses related to rape and other unlawful
sexual conducts committed against other adults or minors;
and any of a number of offenses related to controlled
AB 699
Page 2
substances and narcotics.
2)Specifies that if no safe school exists within the same school
district, the parent or guardian shall have the option to
transfer his or her child to a safe school in another school
district.
3)Specifies that "unsafe school" means a public elementary or
secondary school campus where pupils and staff have the
reasonable apprehension that their person or property is not
secure. Specifies that any occurrence of any of the incidents
listed above shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that
the campus where the incident occurred is an unsafe school.
4)Makes findings and declarations regarding Title IX of the
federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act's requirement that the
state establish a policy for identifying schools that may be
"persistently dangerous" and that no school has been so
designated since the policy was adopted by the state board of
education.
5)Expresses the intent of the Legislature to define "unsafe
school" for the purposes of the federal NCLB in a manner that
is consistent with Article I, Section 28, subdivision (f) of
the California Constitution, which declares that all "students
and staff of public primary, elementary, junior high, and
senior high schools ? have the inalienable right to attend
campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful," and to give
parents and guardians complete and total discretion to invoke
their children's constitutional right to a safe school.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW requires each state that receives funds
under the federal NCLB to establish and implement a statewide
policy requiring that a pupil attending a persistently dangerous
school or secondary school, as determined by the state, be
allowed to attend a safe public elementary school or secondary
school within the local educational agency, including a charter
school.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Purpose of the bill . AB 699 allows a parent or
guardian to transfer his or her child to another school in the
district or in another district if, during the current or
previous year, there has been a suspension or expulsion of a
AB 699
Page 3
pupil in any of nine categories, or the local governing board
has dismissed a school employee, or the school employee has been
convicted, of any of a number of offenses related to rape,
sexual misconduct, controlled substances or narcotics. AB 699
states that the intent of the bill is to define "safe schools"
for the purposes of the NCLB in the Education Code that is
consistent with the California Constitution. California,
however, already complies with NCLB requirements. Title IX of
the NCLB requires states to establish criteria for identifying
unsafe schools and under the Unsafe Schools Choice Option,
authorizes a parent to transfer a pupil to another school if the
school is designated as "persistently dangerous." Pursuant to
the requirement, in 2002, the California Department of Education
(CDE) convened an advisory committee comprised of 30 local
educational agencies and staff from the Department of Finance,
Legislative Analyst's Office, CDE and the State Board of
Education, which held many public meetings over the course of 18
months, to establish the policies.
The regulations that were ultimately adopted, which the advisory
committee found is stricter than that of most states, defines a
"persistently dangerous" school as one in which the number of
non-student firearm violations and students expelled for any of
nine specified serious offenses is greater than three, or, for
larger schools, the number of non-student firearm violations and
students expelled for any of the nine specified offenses is
greater than one percent of enrollment each year, for three
consecutive years. The nine specified offenses that define a
persistently dangerous school are the same offenses listed in
this bill.
The NCLB also requires that any elementary or secondary school
student who becomes a victim of a violent crime while on school
grounds be allowed to transfer to another school, whether or not
the school is identified as persistently dangerous.
The main differences between this bill and the regulations are
that this bill considers a school unsafe if there is even one
suspension or expulsion based on the nine specified offenses.
The regulations are based on three offenses, or for larger
schools, the number of non-student firearm violations and
students expelled for any of the nine specified offenses is
greater than one percent of enrollment each year, for three
consecutive years. This bill also adds a dismissal or
conviction of a school employee based on a number of sexual and
AB 699
Page 4
controlled substances offenses as an unsafe school. The
regulations are silent on school employee dismissals or
convictions.
Part of the definition of an "unsafe" school proposed by this
bill appears very subjective . The bill defines an "unsafe"
school as a public elementary or secondary school campus where
pupils and staff have reasonable apprehension that their person
or property is not secure. It is unclear who would establish
that the pupils and staff have reasonable apprehension about
their security, or the criteria for establishing that
determination. If even one pupil or staff feels apprehension
about his or her security, would that school be considered an
"unsafe" school?
This bill's definition of unsafe schools for the purpose of
meeting NCLB is inconsistent with the NCLB guidelines , which
stipulate that: 1.) states are to consult with a representative
sampling of local educational agencies in developing the
criteria to be used in identifying unsafe schools; and 2.)
requires the criteria to be objective and could use data or
patterns of incidents in determining whether a school is
persistently dangerous. As previously noted, the state had met
the federal requirements in establishing a definition of
persistently dangerous schools.
If this bill is enacted, California's laws and regulations will
have conflicting definition of unsafe schools . This bill does
not eliminate the regulations establishing the definition of
persistently dangerous schools or transfer policies pursuant to
NCLB requirements.
The bill provides that a suspension or expulsion due to any of
the nine listed offenses during the current or immediately
preceding year shall constitute rebuttable presumption that the
school is "unsafe". While it is unclear how many schools have
no suspensions or expulsions in those categories and no teacher
dismissals or convictions in specified categories, in 2010-11,
expulsions were reported in all but two counties and suspensions
were reported in all but one county.
Arguments in Support . The author states, "While the California
Constitution enumerates the student's right to Safe Schools, it
does not provide specifics for how that right is to be
protected. The Safe School Guarantee specifies the conditions
AB 699
Page 5
which make a school unsafe, and lists the alternatives available
to the students affected."
Previous legislation . This bill is similar to AB 2361 (Keene),
introduced in 2008. The bill failed passaged in this Committee
on a 3-6 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087