BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 316
AUTHOR: Block
AMENDED: April 2, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 10, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Classroom Security Locks.
SUMMARY
This bill requires modernization projects submitted to the
Division of the State Architect (DSA) under the State
School Facility Program to include locks that allow
classrooms and rooms with an occupancy of five persons or
more to be locked from the inside as a condition for
receipt of state bond funds beginning January 1, 2016, and
requires that all districts and county offices equip every
classroom and rooms with an occupancy of five persons or
more with locks that meet this same requirement by January
1, 2017.
BACKGROUND
Current law provides, as a condition of receipt of state
bond funds, that all new construction projects submitted to
the DSA include locks that allow classrooms and rooms with
an occupancy of five persons or more to be locked from the
inside and that these locks conform to Title 24 California
Code of Regulations specifications and requirements.
Current law exempts doors locked from the outside at all
times and pupil restrooms from these requirements.
(Education Code §17075.50)
Current law provides for a variety of grants and funding to
support school districts in selecting from a variety of
options to promote school safety. These options can
include the addition of personnel, school safety
infrastructure projects, training for school staff,
instruction and curriculum for students, and cooperative
agreements with local law enforcement and community groups.
These include:
SB 316
Page 2
The inclusion of hard-wired phone connections to a
public telephone network in new or modernized
classrooms, with the authorization to meet this
requirement through the use of wireless technology.
(EC § 17077.10)
The required development of a comprehensive school
safety plan relevant to the needs and resources of the
particular school. (EC § 32280)
The Carl Washington School Safety and Violence
Prevention Act, which creates a grant program to fund,
among other things, effective and accessible on-campus
communication devices and other school safety
infrastructure needs. (EC § 32228)
The School Safety Violence Prevention Act which
provides for competitive grants for school districts
that demonstrate a collaborative and coordinated
approach for implementing a comprehensive school
safety and violence prevention strategy. (EC §
35294.10)
The School Safety Consolidated Grant Program. (EC §
41510)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires that all modernization projects submitted to
the Division of the State Architect under the State
School Facility Program include locks that allow
classrooms and rooms with an occupancy of five persons
or more to be locked from the inside as a condition
for receipt of state education bond funds beginning
January 1, 2016.
2) Requires county offices and school districts to equip
every classroom and any room with an occupancy of five
persons or more with locks that allow the doors to be
locked from the inside no later than January 1, 2017.
3) Requires locks to conform to Title 24 California Code
of Regulations specifications and requirements.
SB 316
Page 3
4) Exempts doors locked from the outside at all times and
pupil restrooms from these requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, the
school shooting tragedies in Newtown, Connecticut and
Taft, California require a rethinking of safety
procedures, including additional protections against
campus intruders. While current law requires interior
locks on schools built after July 1 2011, and schools
currently have the authority to retrofit their doors
with such mechanisms (and some have), this bill will
ensure that students and teachers across the state are
equally protected from intruders, regardless of the
age of their campus.
2) Related State Allocation Board subcommittee meeting .
In March 2013, the State Allocation Board Program
Review Subcommittee met to review physical safety on
school campuses. Information was provided by both the
California Emergency Management Agency and the
California Department of Education (CDE). Among other
things, the CDE noted that school infrastructure
security measures can include safe rooms (classroom
locks) communication systems, environmental design to
deter criminal behavior, and consistent maintenance of
school buildings. In addition, the California
Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) reported that it
provides emergency preparedness information and
resources for schools throughout California, in
partnership with the California Department of
Education (CDE). In response to the Sandy Hook
incident, Cal EMAdesigned a School Active Shooter
seminar which brings together schools and local law
enforcement, fire and emergency services to prepare
for such an incident. Cal EMA reports that several of
these seminars have already occurred and more are in
the scheduling process.
3) Mandate/cost issues . Section one of this bill requires
interior door locks on modernization projects
submitted for funding under the School Facility
Program (SFP) beginning in 2016, which suggests that
these projects, like new construction projects, could
SB 316
Page 4
be eligible for state bond funds to assist in meeting
the costs of compliance. However, the second part of
the bill requires every door in the district to be
compliant with the bill's requirements by 2017,
whether or not a school district is submitting a
project to the SFP or is eligible for state bond funds
(permanent buildings must be 25 years or older and
relocatable classrooms must be 20 years or older in
order to be eligible for modernization funding).
According to the CDE, these locks can cost from
$200-$300 each. According to the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD), the cost of simply adding a
lock to each of the 150,000 doors in the LAUSD which
would be subject to the bill's requirements would
result in mandated costs of approximately $67.5
million.
According to the Division of the State Architect, to
the extent the addition of a lock requires
"alteration," a variety of Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) compliance requirements could be triggered.
These could vary from simply requiring more extensive
alteration to a doorframe, to more extensive
construction activity such as walkway and bathroom
modifications, resulting in much more significant
project costs.
4) One size fits all ? Current law provides for grants
and funding for the development of safety plans by
local educational agencies and grants school districts
the flexibility to determine the most appropriate use
of these funds for programs and strategies for
promoting school safety on their respective campuses.
Section 1 of the bill establishes parity between
modernization and new construction requirements in the
state School Facility Program and provides that state
bond funds could be made available for these costs.
However, Section 2 of this bill would mandate interior
locks on all doors, ostensibly in the belief, that
interior locks are the most important use of local
funds for ensuring campus safety.
Is it reasonable to assume that this is the best
security measure for all school districts? How would
safety needs and the resulting response vary by
geographic area or district size? Are interior locks
SB 316
Page 5
a better safety measure than fences, communication
systems, or increased security personnel? Would
interior door locks be appropriate in classrooms that
have students with special needs or behavioral issues?
Staff recommends the bill be amended to delete the
requirement that all doors be equipped with interior
locks (Section 2).
5) Conflicting legislation . Legislative counsel has
noted a conflict between this bill and AB 1076
(Olson). AB 1076 requires the governing board of each
school district and each county superintendent of
schools to equip the interior of every classroom,
cafeteria, theater, gym, and any other regularly used
space, except a parking lot, in a public school
serving pupils in any of grades K-12 with a panic
button to be used to alert local law enforcement in
the event of a violent incident, if federal funding
becomes available for this purpose. AB 1076 was
heard, amended to make its provisions permissive, and
passed by the Assembly Education Committee on April 3,
2013, by a vote of 7-0.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
California School Employees Association
California State PTA
OPPOSITION
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
County Schools Facilities Consortium
Los Angeles Unified School District
Riverside County School Superintendents Association
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools