BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 1111 (Lara) - Pupils: Involuntary Transfers
Amended: April 21, 2014 Policy Vote: Education 7-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 23, 2014 Consultant: Jacqueline
Wong-Hernandez
SUSPENSE FILE.
Bill Summary: SB 1111 requires parental consent for referrals to
a county community school by a school attendance review board
(SARB), school district, or probation department, except for
situations where a student is expelled or pursuant to a court
order. This bill also establishes the right of a student to
reenroll in his or her former school or another school upon
completion of the term of involuntary transfer to a county
community school.
Fiscal Impact:
County community schools: Potentially significant ongoing
savings, to the extent that students that would have
enrolled in county community schools instead of attending
traditional schools.
Mandate: Individual education services - To the extent that
this bill expands a local education agency's (LEA's) role in
providing or securing services related to a pupil's
educational assessment, those additional activities may
constitute a reimbursable state mandate.
Mandate: Expulsion procedures - This bill creates a new
mandate on LEAs by changing expulsion hearing requirements.
The long-term result is likely minor ongoing savings, but
there may be one-time reimbursable costs to change LEA
process, materials and training.
Background: Existing law provides for various educational
options outside of a traditional comprehensive public school,
for students who are expelled from traditional schools or
referred to them by a SARB or probation officer.
The governing board of the school district, at the time
expulsion is ordered, must ensure that an educational program is
SB 1111 (Lara)
Page 1
provided to the pupil. The district or county program (community
day schools or community schools, respectively) is the only
program required to be provided to expelled pupils. Each school
district governing board may elect to provide additional
programmatic options. (Education Code § 48916.1)
Pupils expelled from school for serious offenses such as
possessing a firearm, brandishing a knife, causing serious
physical injury, selling a controlled substance or committing a
sexual assault are prohibited from enrolling in any school other
than a community school, community day school, or juvenile court
school. (EC § 48915.2)
A county board of education is authorized to maintain one or
more community schools to serve pupils who have been expelled,
referred by probation or an attendance review board, or are
homeless. (EC § 1980)
Existing law provides that juvenile court schools are public
schools or classes operated by the county superintendent of
schools in juvenile halls, homes, day centers, ranches, camps,
and youth correctional facilities. (EC § 48645.1 & § 48645.2)
Existing law requires the governing board to recommend a plan of
rehabilitation for the pupil at the time of the expulsion order,
which may include periodic review as well as assessment at the
time of review for readmission. The plan may also include
recommendations for improved academic performance, tutoring,
special education assessments, job training, counseling,
employment, community service, or other programs. (EC §
48916(b))
Governing boards are further required to set a date, not later
than the last day of the semester following the semester in
which the expulsion occurred, when the pupil shall be reviewed
for readmission to a school within the district or the school
the pupil last attended. (EC § 48916(a))
Governing boards are required to set a date of one year from the
date the expulsion occurred for a pupil who has been expelled
for: a) possessing, selling, or furnishing a firearm; b)
brandishing a knife at another person; c) unlawfully selling a
controlled substance; d) committing or attempting to commit a
SB 1111 (Lara)
Page 2
sexual assault; or, e) possession of an explosive. (EC §
48916(a))
Existing law requires each school district to adopt rules and
regulations establishing a procedure for the filing and
processing of requests for readmission and the process for the
required review of all expelled pupils for readmission. (EC §
48916(c))
The governing board of a school district may permit, after the
term of expulsion, the enrollment of a pupil expelled from
another district for one of the most serious offenses if the
board determines the pupil no longer poses a threat. (EC §
48915.2 (b))
The governing board of a school district that receives a request
for enrollment from a pupil who has been expelled from another
school district, for acts other than the most serious offenses,
must hold a hearing to determine whether the individual poses a
continuing danger to pupils or employees. If the board finds the
pupil does not pose a danger, the pupil must be permitted to
enroll if the pupil has established residence in the district or
enrolled pursuant to an interdistrict agreement. (EC §
48915.1(a)(e))
Existing law prohibits a pupil from being denied enrollment or
readmission to a public school solely on the basis that he or
she has had contact with the juvenile justice system, including
arrest, adjudication by a juvenile court, supervision by a
probation officer, detention in a juvenile facility, or
enrollment in a juvenile court school.
(EC § 48645.5)
A school district governing board, upon voting to expel a pupil,
may suspend the enforcement of the expulsion order for up to one
calendar year and may, as a condition of the suspension of the
enforcement, assign the pupil to a school, class or program that
is deemed appropriate for the rehabilitation of the pupil. Upon
satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation assignment, the
governing board must reinstate the pupil in a school within the
district and may also order the expungement of any or all
records of the expulsion proceedings. (EC § 48917)
Proposed Law: This bill makes numerous changes to statute and
SB 1111 (Lara)
Page 3
practice governing pupil transfers to county community schools
by districts, SARBs, and probation officials. This bill revises
the list of pupils who may be involuntarily enrolled in a county
community school to limit the kind of probation referrals and
remove homeless children, and requires the consent of the
pupil's parent or guardian for the enrollment of a pupil who is
referred as the result of a recommendation by a SARB.
This bill requires, based on the educational assessment or
rehabilitation plan of a student, the student to be enrolled in
or have access to programs either at the school or through
community organizations: a) counseling; b) mental health
counseling or other support services; c) access to services
necessary to transition the student back to his or her prior
school or to another comprehensive school; d) mediation,
conflict resolution, or alternative behavior interventions; and,
e) supplemental services to assist with passage of the high
school exit exam.
This bill would provide a pupil who is involuntarily enrolled in
a county community school the right to reenroll in his or her
former school or another comprehensive school immediately after
being readmitted from expulsion or court-ordered placement, as
specified. The bill would prohibit imposition of additional
academic or behavioral criteria or conditions that would extend
the duration of the placement of a pupil in a county community
school beyond the terms of the initial or subsequent expulsion
order from being added.
With regard to an expulsion hearing, upon the decision of a
hearing officer or administrative panel not to expel a student,
this bill requires a student to be permitted to return to the
classroom instructional program from which the expulsion
referral was made, unless the parent, guardian or responsible
adult requests another school placement in writing.
Related Legislation: SB 744 (Lara) 2013 contained virtually
identical provisions to this bill, but also included provisions
governing community day schools. That bill was vetoed by
Governor Brown, with the following message:
This bill imposes new and rather specific requirements on the
way local schools handle disruptive students. The recently
enacted Local Control Funding Formula has created a new regime
SB 1111 (Lara)
Page 4
of greater equity and increased accountability at the local
level. I'm putting my trust in the skill and good faith of local
educators to manage the issues that are the subject of this bill
in a caring and responsible way.
Staff Comments: This bill is nearly identical to SB 744 (Lara)
2013, except that the provisions that had applied to both county
community schools and community day schools in that legislation
only apply to county community schools in this current bill.
What has entirely changed, however, is the landscape of state
K-12 education funding.
In 2013, the LCFF was enacted. The LCFF replaces almost all
sources of state funding, including most categorical programs,
and uses new methods to allocate these resources and future
allocations to school districts, charter schools, and county
offices of education. The LCFF allows LEAs much greater
flexibility to spend the funds than under the prior system. This
formula is designed to provide districts and charter schools
with the bulk of their resources in unrestricted funding to
support the basic educational program for all students, plus
supplemental funding, based on the enrollment of educationally
disadvantaged students (low-income students, English Learners,
and foster youth), provided to increase or improve services to
these high-needs students. County offices of education (COEs)
receive different funding levels within the LCFF, based upon the
same allocation principles.
COEs have their own funding formula for supporting alternative
education programs run directly by the COEs, including county
community schools. The LCFF provides alternative education
programs with base grants of about $11,200 per pupil, plus
supplemental funding of 35% of the base grant for educationally
disadvantaged students and additional concentration funding of
35% for COEs where more than 50% of the students enrolled in
alternative education programs are low-income students, English
Learners, and foster youth, for each pupil above the 50%
threshold.
School districts are generally funded at lower rates than COEs
for the same pupils. The LCFF seeks to provide a base grant of
$7,154 per pupil in grades 7-8 and $8,289 per pupil in grades
9-12 (plus 2.6% percent to cover the higher costs of high school
instruction). They also receive supplemental funding equal to
SB 1111 (Lara)
Page 5
20% of the base grant, for each educationally disadvantaged
pupil, and concentration funding equal to 50% of the base grant,
for districts where more than 55% of the students are low-income
students, English Learners, and foster youth, for each pupil
above the 55% threshold.
This bill establishes additional checks and requirements for
LEAs in order to refer (or recommend for referral) pupils to
county community schools. To the extent that fewer pupils are
referred to, and enroll in, these schools, there will be
significant state savings. There are currently 77 county
community schools serving approximately 16,000 pupils.
In base grant costs alone, COEs receive $3,000-$4,000 more per
pupil than the school district would have received to serve the
same pupil.
This bill makes changes to the requirements of an expulsion
proceeding. School districts specifically receive $587.16 per
hearing, currently, to reimburse the costs of hearing
preparation, conducting the hearing, producing recommendations,
and producing a record of the hearing. In 2010-11, the last year
for which complete data is available, there were 18,649
expulsions in California.
This bill requires that if the hearing officer or administrative
panel decides not to recommend expulsion, the pupil immediately
be reinstated and permitted to return to the classroom
instructional program from which the expulsion referral was
made, unless the parent, guardian, or responsible adult of the
pupil requests another school placement in writing; this is in
contrast to the current allowance for discretionary referral to
another rehabilitative or educational program instead of, or in
addition to, the previous school. Requiring a revision of the
rules and regulations governing procedures for the expulsion of
pupils will likely temporarily increase the cost of the existing
expulsion reimbursable mandate. Long term, however, there will
likely be savings from returning more students to their schools
or origin.
This bill also appears to expand the role and requirements of
LEAs to provide services to students related to their
educational assessments. Existing law requires county community
schools to develop "an individually planned educational program
based upon an educational assessment shall be prescribed for
SB 1111 (Lara)
Page 6
each pupil." This bill expands statute to specify that:
"if the educational assessment or rehabilitation plan shows
that the pupil needs any of the following, the pupil shall be
enrolled in or have access to these programs either at the
school or through community organizations: counseling, mental
health counseling, or other support services, access to
services necessary to transition a pupil back to his or her
prior school or to another comprehensive school, mediation,
conflict resolution, alternative behavior interventions as
described in subdivision (b) of Section 48900.5, supplemental
services to assist with passage of the high school exit
examination, or extracurricular or other enrichment
activities."
This provision appears to expand the LEA's role by specifying
its responsibility to provide or facilitate access of a pupil to
a number of services which may or may not otherwise have become
part of an educational plan that is based on the assessment. To
the extent county community schools have not been providing
identified needed services to their students, this could
represent significant new costs to the counties, which would
likely be reimbursable under state mandate law.
This bill also increases notification requirements on LEAs
related to student educational services. The bill requires
additional notifications to parents and probation authorities,
which are also likely to be reimbursable activities. While there
are a relatively small number of pupils served by these LEAs at
any given time, a minor mandate on each for a population that
may move in and out of these schools with some frequency could
be significant in the aggregate.