BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 316
AUTHOR: Block
AMENDED: April 23, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 1, 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, if federal funds become available for purposes of
school safety, that school districts first consider using
these funds to install locks in every classroom and room
with an occupancy of five persons or more.
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, if federal funding becomes available for
purposes of school safety, that school districts first
consider using these funds to install locks that allow
every classroom and room with an occupancy of five
persons or more to be locked from the inside.
3) Requires locks to conform to Title 24 California Code
SB 316
Page 3
of Regulations specifications and requirements.
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 EMA designed 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
SB 316
Page 4
these projects, like new construction projects, could
be eligible for state bond funds to assist in meeting
the costs of compliance. Section 2 establishes
conditions to be met in regards to the use of federal
funding. 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) Federal funding ? In January, President Obama proposed
a package of initiatives to improve school safety,
including funding for the Comprehensive School Safety
Program. The President's plan specifically
acknowledges that "?each school is different and
should have the flexibility to address its most
pressing needs. Some schools will want trained and
armed police; others may prefer increased counseling
services. Either way, each district should be able to
choose what is best to protect its own students.
School districts could also use these Comprehensive
School Safety Grants to purchase school safety
equipment; develop and update public safety plans;
conduct threat assessments; and train crisis
intervention teams of law enforcement officers to work
with the mental health community to respond to and
assist students in crisis."
The President's proposed Budget includes $150 million
to support the hiring of school resource officers,
counselors, and other mental health professionals in
schools, as well as other school safety investments.
5) 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
SB 316
Page 5
state School Facility Program and provides that state
bond funds could be made available for these costs.
Section 2 of the bill would provide for the use of
federal funding, if it becomes available to install
interior locks on all doors, ostensibly in the belief,
that interior locks are the most important use of
these funds for ensuring campus safety.
Are interior locks 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? 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?
As drafted, the bill would merely require that
districts first "consider" safety locks if federal
funding is provided but, consistent with the state
intent of the federal funding, appears to provide the
flexibility for districts to determine alternate uses
if they determine a more appropriate use for these
funds.
6) Conflicting legislation . Legislative counsel has
noted a conflict between this bill and AB 1076
(Olson). AB 1076 authorizes 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 is
currently awaiting action in the Appropriations
Committee.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
California State Parent Teacher Association
OPPOSITION
SB 316
Page 6
Los Angeles Unified School District